European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 October 2003.

Standing Committee B

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during further proceedings on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Standing Committee, in addition to its sittings on Tuesday 28th October and Thursday 30th October at 9.30 am, do meet—

(a) on Thursday 30th October at 2.15 pm; and

(b) on Tuesday 4th November at 9.00 am and 2.30 pm;

(2) further proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clause 1 (so far as not already considered), Clauses 2 to 8, the Schedule, Clauses 9 to 13, New Clauses and New Schedules, and remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings, so far as not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 4th November 2003.

Good morning, Mr. Cook, and welcome to the Chair of this experienced and interesting Committee. I have a slight sense of déjà vu. The programme motion states that we will sit from 2.15 this afternoon, and that we will sit on Tuesday at 9.00 am and 2.30 pm. It also sets out the order of consideration.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Good morning, Mr. Cook, and welcome to your chairmanship of the proceedings. As you are aware, we had an exciting but rather truncated and abortive first day because of the Government's significant defeat. I believe that that was the first time that the Government have been defeated anywhere in the House of Commons since 2001. Of course, they then used their majority in the Chamber to ram through a revised programme motion against our opposition. We object to all guillotines. To call it a programme motion is entirely inappropriate as it is simply a guillotine. We are against guillotines in principle, and we voted against them on the Programming Sub-Committee.

For those of us who were here on Tuesday, it turned out to be a rather more exciting day than might have been expected. Similarly, the week turned out to be a rather more significant political week than expected. I am indebted to my colleagues for their support, and also to the two Liberal Democrats, the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), and to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) from the Scottish Nationalist party. All Opposition Members were here, as we should have been, and the Government were defeated on the casting vote of your fellow Chairman, Mr. Cook, in the finest tradition of the Chairmen's Panel.

We still oppose guillotines despite the fact that we now have a revised programme motion in which the Government have given us the further time that we

argued for in the original Programming Sub-Committee and in the original debate on programming. We will oppose that guillotine this morning.

Having had two extra days, those of us who were interested have had time to peruse in detail the Electoral Reform Society's observations, which came in Tuesday's post, as I pointed out then, and the papers from the Electoral Commission. I am sure that that information will inform hon. Members from both sides of the Committee who wish to make contributions.

Despite those extra two days and the fact that we now have extra sittings next week, we oppose the programme motion because it is well known that the Opposition object to the way in which the Government use their huge parliamentary majority to ram through guillotines and curtail debate when they have all their people in the right place at the right time, as they did in the Chamber yesterday.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I am sorry to interrupt. My hon. Friend says that he will oppose the programme motion, but I am still trying to understand it. It states that we will sit at 2.15 pm today. There are important debates in the Chamber today, and I want to know when I can get down there. I cannot see from the motion when we will finish tonight. Does it mean that we can go on for ever? Do we go on until 5 pm? Might we go on through the night? If we were to continue through the night, who would determine when we stop? Are the Government saying, ''Well, look, so long as we want to go on, we'll just go on''? I do not think that that is a proper way to run things when hon. Members have other obligations. Has my hon. Friend had any guidance from the Government? One of the problems that I have experienced in Parliament is that there can be secret deals.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. The hon. Gentleman should be brief when making an intervention.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I will be brief. Has there been a secret deal on when we are going to finish today?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We shall have to see. Unfortunately, Opposition Members are not in control. The Government may find that their Members do not turn up again, as on Tuesday, no doubt because of the huge doubts on the Government Benches about the legislation. Those doubts were apparent in the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) on Second Reading. Mysteriously, despite his enormous ability, expertise and interest in the legislation, he was excluded from the Committee. The Government are in control, and they are determined to ram through the legislation and to stifle debate. So we shall have to see.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) that the clashes between the timing of Committees and the business of the main Chamber are unfortunate. As he knows, at every stage, I opposed from the Front Bench the ridiculous new hours that the Government sought to inflict on the House, because they exacerbate the

clashes. Many of my hon. Friends have opposed them as well.

Although the previous Leader of the House and former Foreign Secretary, who is now on the Back Benches, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was keen on the new sitting hours, the new part-time Leader of the House—who is also part-time Secretary of State for Wales—the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) indicated in an exchange with the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that he was not so keen on the new Committee hours. That was in September at business questions. I was on the Front Bench, next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I heard the Leader of the House say that.

There must be some hope—this is the only long-term comfort that I can offer my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East—that if the new Leader of the House is allowed full rein in his view, as he is not keen on early starts to Committees or the new revised hours, we may return to the more traditional hours in Committee and in the House. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), supports me on the issue of hours. She is being unusually vocal for a Government Whip, and I welcome that.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is important that the hon. Gentleman's comments are corrected. There was not a Government motion to change the hours of the House, but a free vote. Members on his side of the House voted for the new hours. As he probably knows, I am one of the Members who voted for the new hours and deeply regret it. However, it was not a Government motion.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but had he listened carefully to what I said, he would have been aware that I did not say that it was a Government motion. I said that it was the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Livingston in particular, who inflicted the hours on us. The proposal was bought forward by the then Leader of the House.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It was a free vote.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Yes, it was a free vote. However, as the hon. Gentleman has openly admitted, and has said publicly in the House—I respect him for it, as he knows—he has changed his mind. I opposed the changes all the way through. I have looked carefully at which of my hon. Friends, in that free vote, supported the new hours. I am pretty sure that, of all those who voted for the new hours on the Tuesday and the Wednesday, which was the proposal carried by the narrowest majority, only six of my colleagues—out of 169—voted for it. It was carried by the votes of a huge number of Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). He has had the great courage to admit that he was wrong, as have many of his hon. Friends.

The issue came up again at business questions last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman may have been in the Chamber then, as I was. The new Leader of the House said that despite his personal reservations, expressed in September, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, we have to stick with the hours for the rest of this Parliament. When he said that, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened and put her views firmly on the record. Like me, she has always opposed the new hours. She said that it was absolutely crazy for the House to carry on with an experiment that clearly is not working. I urge the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart—he knows how powerful a personality the hon. Lady is and how much a focus for leadership she could be—to join her in organising a campaign. They could lead a huge movement from the Government Back Benches and put pressure on the Leader of the House to get back to common sense.

Those comments are relevant to today's programme motion because of the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We must get away from all these clashes between Committees and the Chamber. Unfortunately, the Government are in control of the situation at present. They have a majority on the Programming Sub-Committee and on the Committee, although they did not have their expected majority on Tuesday morning. We will have to wait to find out how late we go on this afternoon. I know that you, Mr. Cook, have a personal interest in the matter, as does my hon. Friend. As for the other Conservative spokesmen and me, we would be happy to go on all night.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does my hon. Friend agree that many views on the unsuitability of the new hours that hon. Members of all parties express are to do with the amount of parliamentary scrutiny that they afford? This may be the first opportunity for Labour Members to strike a blow for parliamentary scrutiny by opposing the programme motion this morning.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend is right that to say that it would be an opportunity. Perhaps we can tempt the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

He is a reasonable man.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

He is a reasonable man. I know that not only from his speech this morning but from other speeches.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. Perhaps I ought to remind the Committee that it is customary for hon. Members to contribute to the debate through the Chair and, not by turning their back on the Chair and addressing comments to the wall.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I apologise for any unintentional discourtesy, Mr. Cook. I shall ensure that I speak through you and your fellow Chairman, Mr. Benton, when he is in the Chair. As you will appreciate, I was responding to the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).

I hope that in response to my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart

will take this opportunity to vote with us. Perhaps we will once again see, as we did after the sitting was suspended on Tuesday, the welcome site of the Government's deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), rushing to the Committee Corridor with a face as black as thunder to find out what on earth was going on. We on the Conservative Benches would be very pleased to see that again.

We shall oppose the motion not only because we succeeded in opposing the programme motion on Tuesday but because we still believe that guillotines are wrong in principle. I hope that we will be able to persuade courageous Government Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart to vote with us.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Thank you, Mr. Cook. I welcome you to the Chair this morning. My contribution will be slightly shorter than that of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).

The Government were entirely humiliated on Tuesday. Their defeat in Committee was caused by the rather lackadaisical approach of some Labour Members. However, since then, we have had a coming together of minds. The Government have shown some common sense, in that at last they have been prepared to negotiate and discuss the Opposition parties' timing requirements rather than take them as read.

We object to programme motions when we are not consulted and are told what is an appropriate time for the Opposition to give proper scrutiny to a Bill. The Government then push through the measure on a majority vote. That is unacceptable. It is not the way to conduct effective business in this House. That is why we opposed the programme motion before the full House, and we opposed it on Tuesday for precisely the same reasons.

As I said, since then we have had consultation. I have made representations, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. We said that we felt that we needed a full Committee day in addition and that we wanted normal starting times to give us the time to do our work properly. The Government, having been forced into a humiliating defeat, realised that the game was up and that they had to retreat. They have done so, and it therefore seems entirely ridiculous now to oppose what we asked for. I have to say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that I was very surprised to see the Conservatives voting in the Chamber yesterday against an additional day of sittings for this Bill. It seems perverse to vote against the extra time allocation for which we asked.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I was grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on Tuesday, but does he accept that our party has made it repeatedly clear in Programming Sub-Committees and in debate that we are against guillotines on principle? Of course we argued for extra time, but had we not voted against the Government's programme motion a Minister might have stood up in future and claimed that we were not against all guillotines because we had voted

in favour of, or abstained on, a programme motion with a guillotine on this occasion. We are simply sticking to our principled position.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is rather a sophistical position because the motion before the House yesterday was to increase the amount of time by one day and had it been defeated, we should have been back to the original timetable. For that reason, we supported it then and I see no reason to oppose it now.

I look forward to a very long sitting this afternoon, because we clearly have to get the work done and it is in the interests of Opposition Members to take as long as we need to discuss the important matters under consideration. I hope that the Government Whip and the Conservative Whip will not collude at any point to bring matters to an early end. That would be a quite disgraceful truncation of our proceedings, and I am anxious to have every opportunity to give the Bill the scrutiny required to improve it.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I want to make two brief points. First, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fact that their defeat happened for a good reason. We had the emergence of a popular front, with parties that differ enormously on many issues coming together because they felt so strongly on this issue. Another reason for the defeat was the absence, to which I referred, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. He is one of the most conscientious Members in the House, and I now understand that he was not present because he was attending the funeral of the wife of a dear colleague. Obviously, I am sorry for any misunderstanding over that. My first basic point to the Minister is that people felt very strongly, and were united in saying that the timetable was wrong.

My second point is to ask why we cannot alter the timetable to try to get agreement between the popular front and the Government. Why can we not meet next Thursday as well, rather than have an open-ended meeting tonight? My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath is so committed to politics that he says that he will wait here all night if need be but, quite honestly, many of us have other obligations. There are other obligations in the House of Commons, and I have an obligation in Southend tonight. I am meant to be there at 9 o'clock, and I should like to be able to let my people know whether I will be there. It would be useful if the Government could either say that we will stop at 5 o'clock tonight and meet next Thursday as well, which would be ideal, or give us some idea of what work they want to get done by 5 o'clock. I should like to know. It is not satisfactory for you, Mr. Cook, and it is not satisfactory for hon. Members and their parties to be told that we might be going all night, but we have no idea. It would be far, far better if we could simply alter the timetable and have a sitting next Thursday as well.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

The hon. Member is a long-serving and very experienced Member, and as shrewd as anyone in the House. However, I have to point out to him that the motion before the Committee is about starting times, not finishing times. The only advice that I can offer—believe me, I shall probably be pursuing a similar line of inquiry—is that he sees the usual

channels between now and this evening to find out just what they have in mind.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Cook. Had you been here on Tuesday, you would have found the Government's defeat a very interesting and informative occasion.

My office is just off the Members Lobby, so I spent Tuesday afternoon and part of yesterday—while not involved in other things to do with my party—listening for the screams coming from the Government Whips Office of those who were unable to attend the sitting or attend it on time. I hope that Government Members were not injured too badly.

It is interesting to note that a popular front is emerging in this Committee. I would be happy to be a member of the popular front for the liberation of the United Kingdom from this dreadful Government.

Geraint Davies (Labour, Croydon Central)

There is a leadership challenge from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway).

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I would love to explore whether it was right for the Labour party to expel the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin, but I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Cook, so I shall resist the temptation.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I do not want to inhibit the flow of debate, and I positively encourage good humour, but for heaven's sake let us make the comments pertinent to the business in hand. Can we get on with the motion?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

We can. I was just about to observe that I am sure you would not have let me go down that route, Mr. Cook. You have confirmed that my assumption was absolutely correct.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

So you are not going to?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am not going to.

I shall respond to some of the comments that have been made. It was suggested that a deal had been done, but it has not. If consultations had taken place, that might have avoided what happened yesterday morning. Knowing of your predicament later on that day, Mr. Cook, I indicated on behalf of the Opposition that we would do what we could to assist the Chair. However, that is not up to the Opposition, unless the Government again finds that Members cannot be bothered to turn up and we are able to defeat the motion. We would then be able to provide such assistance.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that it was wrong of us to oppose guillotine motions. If he thought about that, he would understand that it was right. He joined us in opposing a guillotine motion on Tuesday morning, and we defeated the Government and got them to concede something. The logic is always that, sooner or later, if we oppose in principle, the Government will not get a majority or they will admit that they are wrong.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

In the hon. Gentleman's slightly perverse logic, a sensible point is trying to emerge.

Had he succeeded in defeating the programme motion before the House yesterday, the previous programme motions would still have held and the Committee would have had to finish its considerations at 4.45 this afternoon.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is giving in to the inevitable. As I said on Tuesday—I will not repeat it because it is on the record and you will say that I cannot make the same speech twice, Mr. Cook—that is exactly the problem that the Liberal Democrats are regularly faced with. They bow to the inevitable or change their policy from one day to the next.

Guillotines are wrong in principle. We made the argument on Tuesday, and the Government have had to accept that they are wrong. Who knows how much time will be needed? The Government are defeated on a Tuesday and instead of replacing the amount of time lost on Tuesday, they immediately concede that they were wrong in their original guillotine. They have said, ''We have lost time. We'll give you your time back and we'll give you more.''

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

That point is terribly important for the future and for democracy. Is my hon. Friend saying that when we have the next Conservative Government, which may well come quite soon, we shall never impose a guillotine on anything? As someone who has fought hard on some European issues and found my speeches contracted, I would say that it is a wonderful new policy and a great breakthrough for democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that no future Conservative Government will ever impose a guillotine. That would be a great triumph for democracy, and make me feel that my time had been well spent.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Policy on these matters is made by the leader of the party. I am sure that when we have a new leader, my hon. Friend will ask what his policy is on such matters. The only thing I can say at the moment is that the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know what I believe to be right. I have been on these Committees over the past 17 years, and I can remember often being lectured by Labour Members on the inequities of guillotines, because they never believed in them. Lo and behold, they are now the arch users of them.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

This part of the popular front stands firm on the issue of guillotine motions. We shall support the hon. Gentleman in the Division. We also oppose guillotine motions as a matter of principle, unless we see a compelling reason why it should be put in place. He can rely on my support.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is music to my ears. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that I have a soft spot for the SNP—[Interruption.] There is a far better reason for that than party politics. When pairing was allowed, my pair was a member of the SNP, so I have a soft spot for the party and fond memories.

Despite what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says, I believe that guillotine motions are wrong in principle.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Is my hon. Friend standing?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) said that his poodle might be standing. If there were to be a contest, the hon. Gentleman's poodle would do far better than I would. Even if I were proposed, I would not find a seconder, so I am not standing.

In principle, guillotines are wrong. It prejudges what will happen in the Committee. We do not know at the outset what issues will emerge. We do not know what mistakes we shall find in the drafting. From my experience of other Committees, there is usually at least one. We do not know what the debates will yield. How can we say at the beginning that we need four sittings? My opposite number thought that four sittings were enough. We were never told why, and I pointed out that I was against that, but four sittings it was. Immediately we had trouble, we were offered more. The principle that there is not enough time is already established. The reason why I shall vote against the motion is that I have no confidence that the new number of sittings is adequate. On that basis, the principle must be upheld. If Labour Members believe in democracy and proper scrutiny of the Government of the day—of any political persuasion—they will vote with us.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 6.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

On a point of order, I have been told off many times for taking off my jacket before the Chair has given me permission to do so. That is what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Cook. I have suffered for half an hour.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I accept the implied rebuke. Two hon. Members have pre-empted the event, but I am pleased that the female members of the fraternity have not set such a bad example. Hon. Members may divest themselves of their upper garments if they feel uncomfortable. We have enjoyed some fun, but we must get on to the real meat of our business.Clause 1 Piloting conduct at European and local elections

Clause 1 - Piloting conduct at European

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendment: No. 22, in

clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Under the benevolent chairmanship of your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton, I spoke for about 20 seconds on this group of amendments before we rose at 11.25 am on Tuesday. We have indicated that we will seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 18, but we will not get to that Division until after dinner because we must first deal with amendment No. 17.

To return to the thread, I was probing with amendment No. 17 because although all Members have enormous respect for the parliamentary draftsman, the meaning of subsection 1(b) is not clear, even after rereading it. Even if the Minister clearly explains what subsection 1(b) is intended to mean, I will still feel that the phraseology of the drafting is what is politely referred to as infelicitous. It is certainly unclear—I call it ''Yes, Minister'' drafting. The use of the word ''order'' in paragraphs (a) and (b) is worthy of the writers who provided the wonderful scripts for Sir Humphrey Appleby, the permanent secretary played by the late, great Sir Nigel Hawthorne, who was a wonderful actor. If he had read out such verbiage, he would have got a round of applause from the studio audience.

I hope that the Minister will listen to this serious point because his attention does not seem to be fully engaged. I hope that he will go back and talk to his advisers. If he cannot accept the proposal today, perhaps he will examine on Report whether it is possible to replace clause 1(1)(b) with slightly clearer wording. That is all that I am asking for. I am sure that he will have a brief explaining exactly what paragraph (b) is intended to mean, but I do not think that an ordinary member of the public would understand it at face value. It is confusing. The word ''order'' appears far too many times in the provision. It appears three times: twice with one meaning and once with another.

As I have said on many occasions, I am a strong supporter of the Plain English Campaign, with which I have been working for years. The Government, and those who advise them, should always look at the models provided by the campaign. I hope that the Minister will understand that this is a genuine probing amendment. I am trying to be constructive and do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but I think that we could reconsider the provision and produce clearer wording. I did not propose an alternative because I was genuinely mystified about precisely what it was intended to mean.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am not a lawyer, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I read the paragraph with a completely blank stare and little understanding of it. However, he may be wrong on one point. Laws by their nature cannot be written in plain English. He is a lawyer and must know that the language used by the draftsmen must encompass specific legal terms. Asking for the provision to be written in plain English is not particularly relevant.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. It is helpful to know that he is looking at the provision as blankly as I am. The fact that somebody from the Government Back Benches is similarly mystified suggests that I may be on to

something, and it may help to persuade the Minister that the provision could do with rewriting.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, however, to some extent. In the eleven and a half years that I have been in the House, I have worked with the Plain English Campaign on quite a few occasions. I have looked in particular at the kind of proposals that it has made for improving some of the most complex legislation that this House has passed—that was many years before I became an MP. When I was working as a lawyer, one of the fields in which I specialised for a number of years was particularly arcane and involved some of the most complex statute law in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An academic of great renown, Professor Goode, drafted the original Act, but, from the minute that it was introduced in 1974, it was criticised by many practitioners for being too complex. For many years before I became an MP—from the time when I first studied law in the mid–1970s—practitioners were saying, ''Statutes like this have got to be drafted more simply if they are going to be understood by the public.''

Of course, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart is right. There are certain words that have a clear legal meaning, and, as a lawyer, I want to see those words used correctly. However, there is no reason why minds should not be concentrated—that it what Committee stages are all about—on making the law as clear as possible, while not ignoring the significance of legal terms of art.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of our concerns, inasmuch as plain English is patently not being used, relates to the cumulative effect of our suspicion that the Bill has arrived at the worst moment and is being rushed through as a result of the guillotine motion that we have regrettably agreed, when the provisions could have been incorporated into earlier European legislation this year? Perhaps plain English would have sorted that out and not created such an air of suspicion in the eyes of the public.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point. As he knows, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I criticised the indecent haste with which the Bill was being rushed through. I have used that phrase before and I will use it again: the Government are trying to press ahead with the Bill with indecent haste.

My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and I do not know how much pressure there was. However, I was certainly informed that there was great concern among those on the Government Benches—among Ministers and Whips—that there was going to be a huge legislative backlog this Session because of the pressure being put on those who were doing the drafting, particularly in Home Office and constitutional affairs matters. My hon. Friend will be well aware that there has been a huge raft of Home Office legislation in the past few years, both under the former Home Secretary—the now Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Blackburn

(Mr. Straw)—and the current Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). More Home Office Bills have been announced in the past few Queen's Speeches and considered in the past few Sessions than ever before. The number is at an all-time record.

The Government keep getting it wrong: the current Home Secretary has reversed almost everything that his predecessor introduced because it was clearly failing. This has placed a huge pressure on drafting. The Opposition can never tell how much pressure is being brought to bear, but all I can say is that we heard that the Government were very concerned about having to rush their legislation because there was too much pressure on drafting.

The Minister may or may not comment on this when he responds to the debate, but I hope that he will understand that we are genuinely trying to use this Committee as Committees should be used—to improve the legislation. That is why I said that the amendment is probing. I have not suggested my own wording to replace the paragraph, because I simply want the Government to reconsider it and return with something better on Report. I hope that I can at least get that point across to the Minister.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I do not want to labour the point, but surely the hon. Gentleman must accept, as a former solicitor, that there are many occasions in any legislation on which there must be a balance between plain English and legal accuracy, and that this may well be one such occasion? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will shortly enlighten the whole Committee, and that we will know exactly what the paragraph means.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We wait to see. I will listen to the Minister with great interest, as he has an army of civil servants, which the Opposition do not have, to give him a brief. I agree that it is always a question of judgment. However, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government, albeit without civil servants to advise him, and I have sat on the Front Bench for several years and practise as a lawyer. If we are both mystified, that suggests that there may be a reason to reconsider the paragraph now that we have drawn attention to it in Committee, in the way that we are supposed to do in Committee, so that we end up with clearer and better legislation. The hon. Gentleman and I are trying to do our job so that we can persuade the Minister to talk to his officials and make the paragraph clearer. [Interruption.] The Minister says that he has got the point.

Amendment No. 22 relates to clause 2 and to an issue that arises regularly. We often have debates about whether a clause should say ''must'' or ''may''. Clause 2(1) currently states:

''If the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 (the main order) he must also make an order under this section (the pilot order).''

I believe that the word should be ''may'' and not ''must'': making an order should not be compulsory. The Minister may say that the whole point of the legislation is that pilot orders are introduced only if

there is a main order. Before I tabled the amendment, I could see that there could almost be a credible case for it being compulsory rather than permissive. Clause 2(1) is much clearer than clause 1(1)(b), but it is worth probing the issue to get the Minister's explanation of it on the record.

My reason for tabling the amendments is to get the Minister to agree to reconsider the matter. We should always debate whether ''may'' or ''must'' is appropriate.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath explained why he is concerned about the opacity of subsection (1)(b), and we have entered into the eternal debate about ''must'' and ''may''. In my experience, that debate always entails the Government insisting on ''must'' if the Opposition propose ''may'', and insisting on ''may'' if the Opposition insist on ''must''. It is one of the most sterile arguments in which we ever engage.

I accept that subsection (1)(b) may be more opaque than it would be in a perfect world. However, there is a necessary cross-reference between clauses 1 and 2 if one accepts the current architecture of the Bill. Will the Minister say why it is constructed in such a way as to have two separate orders in clauses 1 and 2? Why should there be a main order and a pilot order, one qualifying the other but dealing with essentially the same matters? Why should there not be a single order? If there were a single order, the cross-reference would not be necessary. However, if there are two orders, one needs the cross-reference, phrased in whatever way is most felicitous, and one needs the ''must'', otherwise there will be a provision for an election without the details of how it is to be conducted.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I have a brief question. I have read subsection (1)(b) quite carefully, and my impression—the Minister can tell me if I am wrong—is that it means that if a pilot order requires certain things, but another law says that we cannot do that, subsection (1)(b) has superiority. If that is what the provisions basically do, what exactly is a ''relevant enactment''? Subsection (1)(b) seems to say that if a pilot order says that we do things in a certain way and a particular voting system applies somewhere, and yet some other law or regulation would appear to conflict, subsection (1)(b) has superiority, so what is an enactment?

Previously I raised a point of order on which the Chairman was very helpful. What happens if the provisions conflict with the European convention on human rights? Frankly, the one thing that worries me is secrecy and voting. What do we do if we find that an order conflicts with the convention? Which has superiority? What about European law? One thing that I have been obsessed with over the years—hearing about all the European treaties coming through—is how they have superiority. It is said time and time again that European law is superior to that of the House of Commons. If we find that an order conflicts with the convention or with European legislation, does it apply and which has superiority? Am I right in my interpretation of subsection (1)(b)? I hope that the

Minister will say whether an order would be superior only to laws or whether it would be superior to the convention and to European law as well.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I want mainly to speak to amendment No. 22, but your guidance would be helpful, Mr. Cook, because developing the arguments about it would probably move us into a stand part debate. I do not know whether you would rather have all the contributions in one go or deal with the matter and then come back to stand part.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Let us clear the air.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Fine, that is very helpful, Mr. Cook.

I always enter into such debates in Standing Committees by entering various caveats, but it becomes clear over time why that is necessary. I start by saying that I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot bring a legal mind to the problem. All that I can do is try to bring a bit of common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath is right to suggest that the provisions are gobbledygook, and I hope that the Minister will say why it is necessary to have gobbledygook. It is always handy if ordinary people like me can pick up legislation and make sense of it. Some justification for this rubbish must be forthcoming before we can accept that it is necessary.

It is not quite that which concerns me now, however. Subsection (1)(b) uses the words

''in accordance with such provision made by order under section 2''.

I then turn to clause 2, which is about the pilot order and says:

''If the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 . . . he must also make an order under this section''.

The thing that baffles me as a layman is that clause 1 says that the Secretary of State ''may'' make an order

''in the manner described in the order''

that he is just making, and then says that that must be done

''in accordance with such provision made by order under section 2''.

I am baffled because it will be possible to make an order under clause 2 only if an order has been made under clause 1, so the clause 2 order will be subsequent to the clause 1 order. Yet it will not be possible to make an order under clause 1 without reference to something that it will not yet have been possible to do—no order will have been made in the first place. It is mystifying. I am interested in exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although it may be a matter for the clause stand part debate. Why must there be two separate orders?

I imagine that if two orders are made, they must be made one after the other. Two things cannot be done at the same time. Even lawyers cannot do two things at once, so one order will be made after the other. In that case, it seems absurd to provide in the order that is made first, ''You can't do the first thing until you have done the second thing; you can't do the second thing until you have done the first thing.'' If a layman can see the confusion there, I am amazed that the highly paid lawyers and civil servants and the absurdly higher paid Ministers who take taxpayers' money to make sense of these provisions come before us with a

conundrum that cannot be followed. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the inexplicable.

I wonder why it is necessary for clause 2(1) to provide that the Secretary of State

''must also make an order''

and not, as amendment No. 22 would provide, that he ''may'' do so. Clause 1(1)(a) states that the Secretary of State may make an order

''in the manner described in the order''.

It seems to me that all the power necessary to say whatever needs to be said is contained in that provision: he may do it in the manner described in the order. Why, if that is so, is the word ''must'' needed? The first instance is not needed, if the Secretary of State ''must'' do things all over again. Surely to goodness, we should not say the same thing twice. Clause 1 provides for all the powers in clause 2.

If it proves helpful for the Secretary of State to make things a bit clearer by saying something else, let him do so, but I should have thought that the relevant provision should state that he ''may'' do so if he wants to, rather than that he ''must''. If he must make matters clear in clause 2, that makes nonsense of clause 1, which provides that he must spell them out.

The more I look at the Bill, the more I go round in circles; perhaps I have managed to persuade you, Mr. Cook, and the Committee about the silliness of the provisions. If anyone is tempted to take the view that I am talking nonsense, I am doing so only because I am describing what the Bill says. What is before us is nonsense, and I hope that the Minister can dig himself out of the hole that he has got himself into.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It may be useful if I explain why we have provided in the Bill for a two-order process: a main order under clause 1 and a second, piloting order under clause 2. Both amendments—and amendment No. 22 in particular—would remove the requirement for a piloting order.

The Secretary of State is currently consulting the Electoral Commission on the wider issues, and would make a main order after the consultation, setting out the region, regions or nations in which new voting techniques would be piloted. The main order would broadly set out the conduct of elections: whether they would be carried out by all-postal means, electronic voting or other means. After a decision to proceed, a supplementary piloting order would deal with the detailed provisions necessary to give effect to the principles of the main order. There will be more consultation with the Electoral Commission and others about the relevant mechanisms.

I sometimes think that no matter how hard the Government try, we cannot win with the Opposition on some issues. We have settled on the process in the Bill precisely because we wanted an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the choice of region, regions or nations in the main order. The main order is, in effect, the headline that makes it clear that one, two or three regions have been selected. We have provided for

that to come back to Parliament for agreement by affirmative resolution.

Usually, in the case of local piloting, with which we are familiar, such mechanisms exist without provision for that degree of parliamentary scrutiny. This is a concession that reflects the strong views expressed by many in both Houses of Parliament, not least the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place, which has often expressed strong views about certain matters being subject to positive resolution procedure. We felt that the provision would be of benefit and would be welcomed. I am sorry that it does not appear to have been.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If I understand the Minister correctly, he is asking us to agree that the affirmative resolution of the House and some form of consultation is a good thing. That is so, but one of the justifications for the two separate orders is that in clause 10 we shall be told that the clause 1 orders can be subject to debate in the House but that the details—the stuff that really matters and that will give rise to concern if it is made under clause 2—will not be considered by affirmative resolution. That is only half-hearted consultation.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I believe that this is a positive step forward for parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, the law permits the Secretary of State, when piloting local innovative voting mechanisms, to make changes by order without reference to Parliament.

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain two specific issues. First, there is precedent: all previous mechanism orders have not been subject to Parliamentary procedure. We would not want to burden Parliament with the weight, detail and complexity of the piloting order. However, the main headlines—the regions to be selected and the nature of the pilots—should be in the main order. There is great complexity in clause 2 on the piloting order and the measures that it would contain. It would not be appropriate, in my view, for there to be an affirmative resolution procedure for those aspects to be contained in the main order.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Minister and I may differ on whether the detailed matters under the pilot order under clause 2 should be debated fully. However, can he tell me more about what the clause 1 order would comprise? Would it merely identify those regions or nations that are to be pilot areas, or would it also specify, in broad terms, the form of election that is to be piloted in those areas? Would it include any reference to the processes to avoid fraud that we debated on Second Reading and will debate again later in Committee?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The processes to avoid fraud are properly dealt with in the Bill proper. We shall come to them in later clauses. I confirm, again, that we envisage the main order being the headline outlining the regions or nations that will be selected for piloting, and whether the pilot is to be all postal, or by electronic voting and so forth. That has not occurred with local piloting under previous enactments. There was a lot of detail in the second piloting order—such

as appendices, the forms of nomination papers and requirements on the returning officers to publish statements of persons nominated—that we would not necessarily want to subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as they could be exceptionally weighty tomes.

It is a concession that we should have a separate process to allow an opportunity to debate not just the Bill but the main order, so that all hon. Members can see—having gone through the process of consulting the Electoral Commission and considering the Secretary of State's decision as to which regions and nations should be eligible—that those matters will be contained in it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

A moment ago I raised a point about both orders. The Minister has given an answer. I see that there are amendments tabled on that point under clause 10 so I shall not pursue the matter. I do not accept the Minister's argument, but we shall come back to it later, rather than pursue it now.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue similar matters at a later date. He is developing Confucius-like contributions on whether an order can take place before another, or whether they both have to occur at the same time. I am sure that orders can be dealt with simultaneously or separately, and he need not worry too much about that point.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

While I am sure the Minister is right that it would be possible for two orders to be made simultaneously, would he recognise that if that is being contemplated, it would be possible to make it clear in the Bill? In the light of what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) have said, will he consider that further as he continues to look at whether the drafting can be improved?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I shall discuss with officials the sequence in which various orders will take place, but I do not believe that there is a genuine problem with the phrasing in the Bill.

In his assertion on amendment No. 17, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath complained about the drafting of clause 1(1)(b). I do not feel that that is especially complex. I hope that my explanation of the relationship between the two orders will clarify his understanding of that. I accept that in an ideal world we would have plain English in all legislation, but it is required to be thorough and complete, and sometimes that can lead to long and complicated sentence structures. Those are a necessity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart pointed out.

The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked whether I had any qualms about compatibility with the European convention on human rights. I have signed the statement that appears on the front of the Bill. In my view it is compatible, and I do not have any particular problems. I suspect that we shall disagree on that, but that is my understanding of the position. I do not believe that we are anticipating the piloting order to have any impact in relation to ''relevant

enactments''—a phrase that the hon. Gentleman raised. He wondered whether it would come up against any European directives, but we do not anticipate that, not least because electoral law is domestic law. I am afraid that in these circumstances I cannot send him down that particular avenue, but it was a perfectly reasonable point. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will see that the amendment would not fit into the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will resist it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming, in response to my intervention, that he will take the matter back to officials. I am hopeful that he will return on Report with an improved draft. Although he prayed in aid one of the things that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said, he did not really respond to the hon. Gentleman's initial point that the wording did not look clear. He pointed out, understandably, that there are times when legal wording must be used, but this is a pretty poor example.

The Minister said in a sotto voce comment earlier that he had seen much worse. So have I, but saying that there are worse examples of bad drafting does not make the wording good. If every parliamentary draftsman, however much pressure they might be under, actually began with the Plain English Campaign's guide in front of them and then considered whether there were any reasons why they should use specific legal phrases as a term of art or a convoluted sentence structure—to use the Minister's phrase—the process would be the right way round.

I hope that we will see a clearer revised draft. In his heart of hearts, even the Minister—his sotto voce comment made this clear—knows that using ''order'' three times in clause 1, including twice in one sentence, and the interlinking to clause 2, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne rightly referred to, is confusing. The drafting could clearly be improved.

In the light of the fact that the Minister has said that he will re-examine the matter, I will not press the amendment to a vote. As my hon. Friend said, there is also the usual debate about ''may'' and ''must''. I genuinely think that we can improve clause 1. The point is fairly small, but it is what Committees are supposed to do.

When my hon. Friend discussed the convoluted interlinking between clauses 1 and 2, I thought that he was on to an excellent point. When he was speaking, I was reminded of what Churchill said about Russia:

''It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma''.

That is a good way to describe how clauses 1 and 2 work together. I understand what the Minister says that the Government are up to, but I also understand the point made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 18, in

clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert

'and all the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot, and unless both Houses of Parliament have had an opportunity to

consider the views of those bodies and to debate the matter.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (3).

We want to explore what I would regard at first sight—I examined the legislation several times—as extraordinary and unusual wording. In my experience, it is pretty rare for any statute to say that something is immaterial, but to say that the timing of the consultation process is immaterial is especially rare. Conservative Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I more than hinted at this on Second Reading—wonder whether the consultation is genuine. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not disturbing the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) too much. I am not sure whether he knocked over the water of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—happily, he has recovered his seat.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The hon. Gentleman is not annoying me any more than he normally does.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I always watch the entertainment between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, whom we miss in this Committee, when they are in the Chamber, but I had not seen the double act between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the hon. Member for Stroud before.

However, now that we are all concentrating, my point was that we are genuinely worried about whether a real consultation is happening. On Second Reading last week, I expressed my party's grave suspicion that the process is all cut and dried. As I put it then, if in due course the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in another place, or Lord Chancellor, or whatever he is calling himself by then, ends up announcing that the three pilot areas will be the three areas that Labour Back Benchers were dragooned into the Chamber to call for one after another—Scotland, the north-east and the north-west—we will know that, in the traditions of old Chicago politics, the fix has gone in.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I do not want to extend the debate on this clause more than I have to, but it should be pointed out that those Scottish Members who called for Scotland to be one of the pilot regions were certainly not dragooned—far from it. Every single one of us who called for that did so purely because we felt

very strongly that Scotland should qualify for such a pilot. It is not very fair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we were in any way forced to make those appeals.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand that the hon. Gentleman speaks for himself, as he always does extremely ably. He made an extremely good speech many parts of which, as I said when winding up, I agreed with, particularly his comments on the media. I have no doubt that he is genuine in his support for the pilot and his wish for his region, or country, to be one of the pilot areas. However, there is not unanimity of view on the legislation, as the hon. Gentleman will remember. We had passionate opposition to some aspects such as e-voting or, as he memorably put it, jiggery-pokery with gee-whizzery, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok. I am concerned that although Labour Members from the midlands were coming into the debate last week to speak against their area being a pilot, the Labour party was arguing for it where it thought that it might help its electoral cause. However, I respect the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart as he knows, and I accept his intervention entirely.

We are concerned about any legislation that says that something is immaterial—in this case the timing of a consultation process. That is why we have sought to delete subsection (3) in its entirety. We know, as all the voluminous papers that the Electoral Commission has sent us confirm, that its consultation process is already under way. That is another example of what my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale referred to earlier: the indecent haste with which the Government are trying to ram the legislation through.

As an example of that, this Committee stage started within a week of Second Reading, ignoring the previous convention. With your longer experience in this House than mine, Mr. Cook, you will know that the convention, under Governments of both parties, has been always to have a clear parliamentary week after Second Reading. The Committee stage would never start until after that clear week. We should not therefore have considered starting this Committee stage until next Tuesday at the earliest. For much legislation, the period in between is much longer. It is quite common for there to be three or even four weeks after Second Reading before a Committee stage starts. But this Bill is being rushed through.

The Government also forced through a carry-over motion as a safety net, in case they did not get everything finished because they could not ram it through the other place, where they do not have a clear majority. They will have to try to win over the peers by force of argument, and I suspect that they will find that very difficult, particularly when peers who take an interest in such matters read the Hansard for Second Reading and the Committee. The Government will have grave problems. They probably rammed through the extraordinary carry-over procedure so that if they have not completed the Bill by the time that this Session ends, they will have a second go at it, a reserve, in another parliamentary Session. In my party's view, that is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. We

opposed the whole concept of carry-over when the Government introduced it and we continue to do so. I am sure that one day we will return to this Parliament operating as it traditionally has, without the Government having such things as carry-overs and all these guillotines.

My point is very important, and I stress that we are not probing; we feel strongly about the matter. The Electoral Commission should have had the opportunity to complete its consultation. In the immortal words of Magnus Magnusson on ''Mastermind'', ''I've started, so I'll finish.'' The commission has started, and it should have been allowed to finish before the legislation was proposed. Indeed, it would have been more logical and more consistent with what the Government said about the commission in our debates on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

The Electoral Commission should have been able to finish its consultation before the Bill was drafted, but for the Government to produce a Bill that says that it is immaterial whether the consultation takes place before or after enactment is an outrage—and I do not use the word lightly. The Minister's insouciance and charm is becoming well known. His is the acceptable face of constitutional outrage. He was doubtless given his present post so that he could act the part of the smiling assassin in the Commons, as does his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, in the other place. However, despite the Minister's insouciant smile and pleasant manner, he cannot disguise the fact that it is a constitutional outrage.

I asked the House of Commons Library researchers, to whom all hon. Members are enormously indebted, to find out what had been said about the Electoral Commission's role during the early part of 2001 in debates about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Library sent me a briefing note with some extracts from Hansard. I was reminded that back in the good old days, the House sat for its traditional hours and until all the debates were over. I had the opportunity to speak in one of those debates.

At 11.58 pm on 8 January 2001, we were discussing how the Electoral Commission would operate. Among other things, I said:

''The Opposition have continually raised issues relating to the Act and its operation, and questions remain about the commission's membership.''

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), as usual, spoke at much greater length than most other hon. Members. Indeed, I have remarked before to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we should have a special time allowance—the Southwark, North and Bermondsey allowance—for such debates. Later in the same debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that

''questions concern its practical functioning from now on.''—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 834–838.]

In a memorable intervention in that debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) described some of the provisions as ''stinking fish''.

If any of us had known that, only two years later, we would be faced with a Bill that said that, although the Electoral Commission was consulting on the matter, it would be immaterial whether the consultation had taken place before or after enactment, the House would have been staggered. If any of us had suspected that something like that might be contemplated, a Minister would have been put up to say, ''That will never happen.'' We did not raise that suspicion because we did not think that things would be quite that bad. However, I am in no doubt that if the House, including many Government Back Benchers, had been told that the Government would one day introduce such a clause, it would have been a matter of great concern to both Houses.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Electoral Commission's role is so crucial that if it is not properly consulted before the Bill is enacted, not only Members but all who are involved in the debate will lose confidence in the powers being put through?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes these matters very seriously. He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, important issues that come up in Committee are rarely covered properly in the media. It is clear from our exchanges on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and I share similar views about the media's often malign role in debasing the level of political debate. That role is not necessarily in support of one party or another but simply debases the way that Parliament is seen in the eyes of the public. It has probably played a role in lower turnouts.

I often feel that if the media covered our Committee proceedings better, the public would not only have a higher regard for Parliament, but they would understand important issues such as this. Unfortunately most of the public will probably never know what the Government are proposing here. Opposition Members will do our best to alert the media and the public at large to what the Government are up to here. The hon. Member for North Tayside is spot on. If the public realised that this sort of thing was being contemplated or proposed by the Government, they could lose faith in the whole way that the Electoral Commission's work is done.

Peter Duncan (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale)

Has my hon. Friend noticed that not one single Labour Back Bencher has intervened to question the critical role that the Electoral Commission has in this Bill? Does he share my view that that is very significant?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is significant, but we may yet hear from some courageous Labour Members that they share my concerns. They may be keeping their powder dry for their speeches on the amendment. Of course, if they share our concerns, they may vote with us. We will certainly press the matter. I hope that the Minister will say that, on reflection, it was quite wrong for the Government to put in a subsection saying that it is

immaterial whether the consultation was carried out before or after the Bill is enacted.

I should be delighted if the Minister were so persuaded by my speech that he would withdraw the whole Bill and start again after the Electoral Commission consultation is published. I fear that he will not do that. I feel strongly about this. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Tayside agrees with us. I hope that the Government, even if they ram the subsection through today, will not try to retain it when the Bill proceeds to another place because noble Lords and Ladies would be very unhappy. I suspect that it will not be included in the Bill when it is enacted.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, have concerns about the consultation process but they are not the same as those expressed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I have my concerns about the timetable. The Minister is aware of that, because I have already made that point plain. We are enacting legislation in unseemly haste. This issue should have been considered for much longer if we were to consider it properly. The amendment would render illegitimate the consultations that are already under way with the Electoral Commission. That seems a retrograde step. We need more consultation not less. It seems an extraordinary position to take.

I am unhappy about the strange relationship that is developing between the Electoral Commission and the Government. It is not clear who is leading the process, who is putting forward the proposals and how the whole thing is constructed. We are told that the Government intend to have three pilot regions. That is not a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. It was simply told that that is what the Government want, and it is not considering that. Yet that proposal does not appear in the Bill.

Nothing in clause 1 says that there shall be three pilot regions. It simply hangs in space as a Government intention that is not to be enacted and that is to be dealt with by secondary legislation. That seems entirely inappropriate. The Electoral Commission made absolutely plain the limits of what it is allowed to consider. The Government have not asked it to recommend the detailed form of the all-postal or electronic pilot schemes. Why on earth not? The purpose of the commission is to carry out audits, take considerations of that kind into account and make proposals to the Government for eventual legislation.

The Government have already decided what they want to do. They have passed to the Electoral Commission a remit and asked it to rubber-stamp it so that it is acceptable and so that it makes the Government impervious to criticism that they have not consulted. However, they have also said that the commission should not expect consultation, as the basic decision has already been taken. As I said, that is an inappropriate way of doing business, and I deplore it.

I have a great deal of respect for the Electoral Commission and its work. The consultation that it has

undertaken is of importance, and the consultation that it will take following enactment of the Bill will be equally important. Both should be taken into account. That is why I do not accept the premise of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that, for some reason, the consultation that will have taken place up to the time at which the Bill receives Royal Assent is irrelevant.

If the Government have already taken decisions on matters that are absolutely crucial to the operation of the pilot schemes, I wish that they would make them explicit in the Bill rather than hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, as it were, in suggesting that the Electoral Commission is considering such matters when, in fact, it is not. It is specifically excluded from considering them, as requested by the Government.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Committee, may I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook?

I wish to endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I notice in subsection (3) the word ''such'', which I believe needs a cross-reference to details about the consultation. I am concerned about the wording in the Bill, because it is absolutely clear from the material that we have received from the Electoral Commission that it works from parameters fixed by the Government, yet those parameters are not stated. Therefore, there is no exact explanation of the word ''such''.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Is it not entirely clear that subsection (3) comes after subsection (2), which discusses the sort of consultation about which we are talking?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Perhaps I should explain to the Minister where my confusion lies. I cannot see an explanation in subsection (2) of the actual process or parameters of consultation. It simply uses the words ''first consults''. However, the Government are limiting the consultation. It has not been open to everyone who is involved but has been carried out within defined limits. I simply suggest that the information should be in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Surrey Heath might have less trouble with subsection (3) if it were a little more specific.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It appears that the intention of the amendment, if it is not a probing amendment, is to delay the process by which consultation of the Electoral Commission could take place until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I assure hon. Members that there is nothing improper or untoward in the clause.

The Secretary of State has the power under section 6(2) the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to

''(a) review, and

(b) submit a report to the Secretary of State on,

such matter or matters . . . as the Secretary of State may specify.''

The request for the commission to consult on pilot regions or nations has been made under that legislation. In order to be explicit that consultations can legitimately occur at this stage and also to prevent future challenges, subsection (3) makes it absolutely clear beyond doubt that consultations are allowable.

If I were to place a malign motivation on the Opposition, which I am loth to do, I would suggest that this is a wrecking amendment. We need to consult the Electoral Commission now. Hon. Members know that the elections that we are discussing are due to take place in June. We must ensure that we can proceed with ample time to obtain the considered views of the commission.

To leave consultation until after Royal Assent would be to allow too little time to obtain advice, choose the regions or nations and give them a full opportunity to prepare for piloting. We have proceeded with common sense to ensure that it is beyond doubt that consultations with the commission will be allowed. That is why the provision is there.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister makes a semi-accusation. He says that he is loth to do so, but makes it anyway by saying that amendment No. 19 is a wrecking amendment. We have not sought to delete subsection (2), which states:

''The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section unless he first consults the Electoral Commission.''

If we had sought to delete subsections (2) and (3), he could reasonably suggest that we were trying to wreck the Bill, but amendment No. 18, on which we have voted, states that we want to extend subsection (2). We did not seek to delete it, and we accept the idea of consultation, but we have made it clear that the Government are rushing the Bill through. The Minister says that he wants it enacted before next summer's elections. That is unnecessary, so why not leave it, have a proper consultation and finish it?

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

That intervention was rather long.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Members will be familiar with the dates of the elections to which the Bill relates. They are the local elections and the European parliamentary elections in June. It is self-evident that we want to give any regions and nations chosen for piloting ample opportunity to prepare. We must ensure that they are selected in good time, so that they have time to prepare. In order correctly to undertake the selection process, we must give the Electoral Commission an opportunity to comment. That is why it is undertaking its own consultation process. It will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who will then decide the regions or nations eligible for piloting.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Does the Minister think that it is wise to go ahead without the evidence from the Commission? We have had the paper from the Electoral Reform Society, which I hope he has considered. It is an independent, worthwhile organisation that is not trying to push a line for anyone, and it concludes:

''The Electoral Reform Society does not believe that pilots in either all-posting or e-voting in the 2004 elections would be beneficial.''

The report provides all the evidence. It says that it will be nonsense, rubbish and that e-mail, for example, will cost a fortune and will not work. I do not know if other Members have seen the report, but when the Electoral Reform Society says that such piloting

should not go ahead, is it wise to go ahead without the views of the Commission?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The Bill is a framework for choosing and selecting the regions or nations eligible for piloting. It does not specify the regions or nations that will definitely be involved. We have discussed how the main order-making process that will select a region or nation and how the Electoral Commission, which is the proper independent body to undertake a thorough survey of the country's views, will help to inform Ministers.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the Minister provide an explanation of why the Opposition parties want to keep turnout down? They talked about a fix earlier. Why would anybody want to disfranchise the electorate? We are trying to encourage people to vote.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

That is a mystery. We talked earlier about an enigma in a conundrum, wrapped in a mystery, which neatly encapsulates the Opposition's view. I do not know why anyone would want to inhibit more convenient, accessible voting. However, that is not the subject of the amendment and you would call us to order if we strayed further from it, Mr. Cook. The amendment provides that no consultation would be permissible until after Royal Assent, which would be too restrictive. It would wreck the opportunities for regions and nations to have pilots, which would be wrong.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I rebut the uncharacteristically unfair remarks from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. We do not want to take that any further. What if, after consultation with the Electoral Commission, we came up with a significant line of argument that went against what the Government propose in the Act? Would the Government then revisit it? Surely, it makes sense to ensure that the views of the Electoral Commission are taken on board before any measure is enacted.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I did not include the Scottish National party in the comments I made about the Conservative party. They will be reserved for special comment at another time. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Of course, we should listen to the Electoral Commission's advice; that is precisely why we want to make it possible for consultation to take place either before or after the enactment of this measure. To provide that consultation is not possible before enactment is too rigid. This capricious little amendment does not contribute anything useful to the proposal.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I shall respond to the slurs cast by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland in the debate, but not in this intervention.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East spoke earlier about the Electoral Reform Society, I believe that I heard the Minister saying, sotto voce, to his officials that he did not have that ERS submission. If he has not yet seen it, I ask him to comment on the fact that I drew his attention to it in our abortive and truncated sitting on Tuesday. As I said that the submission arrived in my post on Tuesday morning, it would have been wise of the

Minister, and the Government, to read it so that he could respond more effectively to my hon. Friend.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Of course, the Government are aware of several representations made by different organisations. Although I may not have a piece of paper before me at present, we are fully appraised of all issues that come to the Government's attention. However, the point remains that the amendment would prevent consultation taking place before Royal Assent, which would effectively scupper an opportunity for the Electoral Commission to make recommendations to the Government and enable the Government to choose regions in good time so that they can prepare for the proper, comprehensive operation of a working electoral pilot. No hon. Member would want the pilots to fail; therefore, we should allow consultation to take place both before or after Royal Assent. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I made it clear at the outset that we felt strongly about the amendment and I shall press it to a Division. However, before I do so I want to respond briefly to a couple of things that the Minister said, and to the helpful comments of the hon. Member for North Tayside who spoke for the Scottish National party.

I rebut the slur levelled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland in an intervention. Conservative Members want voting to return to the higher figures that are set out in the Library briefings for the Bill. In every election since the second world war, from 1945 up to and including 1997, whatever the results, the turnout in the general election has been more than 70 per cent., and the average has been roughly 75 per cent. The first time since the second world war that a general election turnout dropped dramatically was in 2001. The main reason for that, in my view and that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, was the cynicism engendered by the media. Another factor was that, because of Government gerrymandering since 1997, a lot of voters not only lost faith in the Government, which is why there was a collapse in the Labour vote in the Labour heartlands, but felt that the political process had been undermined.

It is not in our interests to disfranchise people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, many other Conservative speakers and I made our stance clear on Second Reading. We do not believe that security aspects of postal or e-voting, which will be covered by later clauses and groups of amendments—I will not anticipate those arguments because I would be out of order to do so—have been properly dealt with. Far from wanting to disfranchise people, we are trying to ensure proper security.

We also feel that the consultation should be allowed to finish before a Bill is put forward, a point that was well encapsulated by the hon. Member for North Tayside. I am a great admirer of the Runrig music that he and his friends performed, and I agree with almost everything that he has said so far. That does not reflect approval from Conservative Members for the general policies of the Scottish National party, but it is useful

to have someone from one of the minor parties strongly supporting us in making points that comprehensively answered the Minister's comments. As the hon. Member for North Tayside said, a Bill should not be put forward before sensible consultation has been reported. That is ridiculous. It is not a case of putting the cart before the horse, but of not even having a horse. A cart without a horse is not much use, not even to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The hon. Gentleman has not done the election prospects of the hon. Member for North Tayside any good by backing him. Members of the Scottish National party are well known in Scotland as tartan Tories anyway.

The hon. Gentleman always wants to re-write history. Part of the reason for the low turnout was that there was such a poor Opposition. When there were contests in constituencies, the Labour vote increased. In constituencies with a large Labour majority, the turnout was low.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of Dod's Parliamentary Companion, so I cannot discuss the hon. Gentleman's seat. However, on election night in 2001, there was a huge fall in Labour majorities in some of the safest seats across the country. That was because Labour voters had lost faith, and that was one of the reasons why the turnout collapsed so much.

Mr. Harris rose—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I fear that we are straying from the point. The amount of time to be spent on these deliberations has already been determined. How that time is utilised is entirely up to hon. Members. Remarks must be pertinent to the line-by-line scrutiny of the legislation.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In deference to your ruling, Mr. Cook, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart has indicated that he no longer wishes to intervene. Therefore, I can bring my remarks to a close.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

The Minister has not had the chance to read the Electoral Reform Society's report, so he may not realise that it says that an e-voting pilot is unlikely to bring any significant rise in turnout, is vastly expensive, and relies on unverified software. For those reasons, it recommends strongly against e-voting pilots in 2004. On that basis, would it not be wise to consult the Electoral Commission before proceeding?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with my hon. Friend. There will be extensive debates about the details of what the Electoral Reform Society and other organisations, some of which I quoted on Second Reading, think about e-voting. That is relevant to the question whether the consultation should have finished before the Bill was put forward.

I have made my case. Subsection (3) is an outrageous way to treat the Electoral Commission, and I should therefore like to put the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in

clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out from '2004' to end of line 15.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 46, in

clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'election' to end.

Amendment No. 21, in

clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 47, in

clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add—

'(c) Scotland.'.

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add—

'(c) any two regions with a common boundary.'.

Amendment No. 48, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add—

'(c) any region which does not meet the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region'.

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 9, page 5, line 6, leave out from '(c.2)' to end of line 7.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This important group covers several crucial issues and it may take a little time to explain the arguments.

Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 would take out the reference to a specific region, which would make the pilot scheme the European Parliament elections in 2004 for the whole country. The reason why I put forward the amendments for consideration is twofold. First, I want to explore the reasons for not having a national election to the European Parliament on the new basis, if that is what the Government intend. Secondly, I want to explore when a pilot is not a pilot, which is when it is of such a size as to be a significant part of the total electorate.

My principled view is that it is not right for part of the electorate to use a different system to elect their Members of the European Parliament from that which pertains in the rest of the same country. There is an easy and obvious riposte to that, which is that we have a different system in Northern Ireland. I accept that, but there are also special reasons for having a different

system there. In general, however, having different systems of voting in different parts of the same country for the same election should be avoided unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify the argument. My understanding is that although the pilot will mean that some people in certain parts of the United Kingdom will vote by post, the system of elections to the European Parliament would be exactly the same everywhere in the UK—that is, the list system. Therefore, the system in 2004 will be no different from that used in the general election, when some people voted by post, others voted by proxy and most voted personally at polling stations.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is right—up to a point. He is right that whether we use a list system, a single transferable vote system or a first-past-the-post system, the electoral system will remain unchanged, and that therefore all parts of the country will be on the same basis.

However, there is a difference in the mechanics of the system; otherwise, there would be no point in running the pilots. There is a difference between elections that are held on an all-postal basis, on a postal and electronic basis, or using the current system, with the majority voting in person and having the opportunity to use a postal vote. If there were no difference at all, the exercise would be pointless, but we start from the premise that there is a difference, and that it is likely to affect turnout and voting patterns in some parts of the country, which in turn will have a knock-on effect on the candidates who are elected in those areas.

There is a principle involved, although it is not one for which I would die in a ditch. For a single election there should be a consistent method of voting.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as someone who is in favour of decentralisation, as I am, is not in favour of examining ways in which we can introduce electoral reform, if this is a mode of electoral reform. The only way that the success of electoral participation can be measured is by some level of experimentation. I am concerned that if such experimentation does not take place, new models for encouraging people to vote cannot be tested.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not against the principle of pilot schemes, because there are strong arguments for running them. Nor am I averse, as I have made plain, to novel methods of voting. I have had some experience of that in my constituency, and my view is that it improved turnout and people were satisfied with the outcome.

In general, until now the pilot schemes have operated in whole local authority areas, although I am told that there were some exceptions to that, of which I was not aware, in which trials took place in specific wards within local authority areas. However, in general, a single local authority has considered whether it wished to run a pilot and made proposals to the Government and, if those proposals were agreed, the pilot was run in that whole local authority area or the wards in it. That is the right way to do it. My quarrel is with the proposal that a large tranche of the

country, but not all of it, should adopt this system at an election for a single body—the European Parliament.

I could perhaps accept the proposal more easily if the system were to be adopted in only one region and we were to use that as an experiment. However, I understand that the Government are proposing—although that is not explicit in the Bill—that three regions will participate, out of the 10 European electoral areas for the UK, excluding Northern Ireland, for reasons that we understand. A significant part of the UK will therefore be involved, meaning that the principle of trying a small-scale experiment first and then expanding it if it works, will not apply. It will be a huge experiment in a large part of the country—the population that will be affected by it is three times that of Scotland. Once an experiment is being conducted on that scale, it would be better to

run the whole election under a new system and to assess the result. At least there would then be consistency throughout the country and the result could be compared with previous elections to see whether there appeared to be a significant change. We would then have the perfect opportunity to see whether there is a differential between different parts of the country—different because of their rural or urban natures or because of the number of local authorities involved. That would be a more significant experiment—in the words of the hon. Member for Stroud—than the one in the Government's proposals.

Mr. Harris rose—

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 fifteen minutes past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee B

Clause 1 - Piloting conduct at european and local elections

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 46, in

clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'election' to end.

Amendment No. 21, in

clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5).

Amendment No. 47, in

clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add—

'(c) Scotland.'.

Amendment No. 20, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add—

'(c) any two regions with a common boundary.'.

Amendment No. 48, in

clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add—

'(c) any region which does not meet the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region'.

Amendment No. 39, in

clause 9, page 5, line 6, leave out from '(c.2)' to end of line 7.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I have some sympathy with the argument of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which is that the pilot postal ballot should take place over the whole country. His argument, however, that we could then compare turnout with that of five years ago is flawed. Political climates change and the comparison would not be valid. He must recognise that to decide whether postal voting is a success, it would be far more valid to compare turnout in adjacent European regions where one region has a postal ballot and the other has a traditional polling station ballot.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

As always, the hon. Gentleman's intervention was well worth waiting an hour or two for. I agree that there are two ways of looking at the matter. The combination of the disparity that pilot schemes would bring to a national election and their size—they are extremely large schemes covering a wide area but not the whole country—outweighs the marginal benefits that he describes. That is a matter of judgment, however, and there is no need to stay with the argument.

Amendment No. 47 is a probing amendment that would leave out clause 1(5)(b), which excludes from consideration any region containing Gibraltar. We must assume that that is likely to be the south-west region, because it has been recommended in proposals. Advocating such a move when we first discussed the matter about five years ago, I suggested that Gibraltar might form part of the western approaches. As it had some similarities to Devonport in the south-west, it might be appropriate to put it there. I cannot understand—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Can I just say what I cannot understand first? The hon. Gentleman can then intervene and tell me why I should understand it.

I cannot understand why the presence of Gibraltar should be a bar to participation in the system for postal ballots. It is an important place, and it is extremely important that it was finally enfranchised, but it is a relatively small community with an electorate that is smaller than the constituency of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), but about the same size as my town, Frome.

The Minister must explain the force majeure that prevents the south-west region—if that is where Gibraltar appears—from being entertained as a possibility for a pilot postal ballot. The postal services in Gibraltar are just as good, if not better, than our own. Why should it be specifically excluded?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to make two points. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those on the Opposition Benches have been united in pressing the Government to include Gibraltar in the European elections. The original undertaking by the then Minister was given to me about two years ago when I had a similar shadow role to my current one. The hon. Gentleman will recognise, because a number of his hon. Friends went to Gibraltar for its national day, as I did to represent my party, that the one place where one will be able to guarantee an incredibly high turnout in European elections is Gibraltar. Because of the fact that there is no democratic deficit there and the Gibraltarian people hugely value the opportunity to vote in person, I suspect that the Government believe—rightly in my view—that Gibraltar will have to be an area in which everyone is allowed to vote in person.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I honestly do not believe that that argument washes. There must be a better reason than that. If there is a propensity to vote already, there is nothing in particular to be gained by changing the system, but no one is suggesting that the postal voting system is inherently worse than voting in person. If it is sensible to hold pilots anywhere—the assumption is that if the pilots are successful they will be extended to the whole country, including Gibraltar in due course—there is no specific reason why Gibraltar should be excluded, and with it the whole south-west region. The idea that any particular circumstances that pertain to the 30,000 or so population of Gibraltar should preclude the 5 million or 6 million inhabitants of south-west England from participating in the scheme, if it is a good one, seems slightly odd.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

If the hon. Gentleman had been to Gibraltar, as I know that a number of his hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) have, he would understand the reason. If the people of Gibraltar were told that they were not allowed to vote in person the very first time that they have a say in European elections—for which they have been campaigning for many years and to which in my view they are fully entitled—they would feel cheated. They have a huge tradition of voting in person; the last two referendums in Gibraltar organised by the Chief Minister Peter Caruana have had turnouts of more than 90 per cent., including the last one of 97 per cent. when rejecting the Labour Government's plans to try to do a disreputable deal with Spain. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues who went to Gibraltar for its national day know that, and I am sure that he would know that if he had been there, as I have.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

A number of points need to be made, without us diverging too far from the main thrust of the argument. We have quite a long tradition in mainland UK of voting in person, possibly extending back even further than in Gibraltar, but surely that is not the issue. The hon. Gentleman said that I would be of his view if I had visited Gibraltar, but I have of course visited Gibraltar, although not at the expense of the Gibraltarian government, because I did not want to qualify in any way my support for the Gibraltarians having the franchise that they now enjoy, and for which I have consistently argued.

Postal votes are either a good thing or a bad thing. If they are a good thing, it seems very odd to consider one small part of the total electorate to be absolutely sacrosanct and not to be given the opportunity to participate in that way. That does not make sense. I want the Minister to explain clearly why this paragraph is in the Bill. What is there about the region that happens to include Gibraltar that makes it absolutely impossible to hold postal elections there, when that is clearly possible in every other part of the United Kingdom barring London, where the prohibiting factor is the mayoral election and Northern Ireland, where it is understood that there is a different electoral arrangement?

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but, before he sits down, will he tell me whether he will be dealing with amendment No. 48? It is an excellent amendment, but it worries me that it says that it relates to clause 2, page 2. I would have thought that that should be clause 1, although I might be wrong. The amendment paper that I have here clearly says specifically that the amendment relates to clause 2. Perhaps it has now been corrected, or separate papers have been given to different Members for different reasons. I cannot understand what has happened. I shall hand my amendment paper to the hon. Gentleman so that he can see it for himself.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

There is clearly a misprint on the hon. Gentleman's amendment paper. The amendment was intended to refer to clause 1, and that is what appears on the other amendment papers. I cannot explain why it should be misprinted on that particular blue sheet, but that is one of the quirks of the system. I reassure him that the fact that the amendment is misprinted on that amendment paper will not prevent us from having a debate on the subject. Clearly, it is intended that there should be an addition to the qualifications and exclusions under subsection (5) and that it should appear after line 3 on page 2, which is in clause 1, not clause 2. The proposal is that that there should be a paragraph (c) to add a provision to cover

''any region which does not meet the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region''.

Let me explain why I tabled that amendment. I hope that we can have a sensible debate, without confusion. The Electoral Commission has already considered some of the issues and has some serious concerns relating to why particular regions should be selected or not. Page 34 of the Electoral Commission document mentions a series of considerations to be taken into account in the region, including the population and electoral size, the geographical size and electoral density, the number of local authorities and the number of local authorities holding local elections. Those things have been included because the Electoral Commission has applied its collective brain to the issues involved in holding a pilot of this kind. For the moment, let us assume that my other amendments are unsuccessful and that we are talking about three pilots rather than a UK-wide election. The Electoral Commission has made observations and will no doubt reflect on them in the light of the Bill and our debates.

One observation is relevant to the point that I made on Second Reading. I talked about the prevalence of local authorities holding elections on the same day and suggested that it might not be the best idea to choose as a pilot a region in which there are many local authorities, a great number of which are holding elections on the same day, because every time such things are multiplied, the opportunity for error or confusion increases.

The Electoral Commission agrees with my view. Paragraph 3.19 on page 27 of its document states:

''On this basis, it might be suggested that electoral regions within which a significant number of local elections are also being held may be less suitable for a pilot scheme.''

That is the point that I made on Second Reading in relation to the north-west. I understand that some people are keen to have the north-west as one of the regions, and I understand why that is so. Were the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) present, he would have mentioned—about 37 times by now—Chorley, and the successes that he feels that there have been with the pilot schemes at local authority level. However, the fact remains that many authorities in the north-west—76.7 per cent.—hold elections on the same day. That criterion should be taken properly into account.

I am not saying that any of the regions should be excluded from consideration. I am simply saying that the Electoral Commission should give its advice, and when it sets down criteria that are not met, it should not be for a Minister to decide, for his own reasons, that, nevertheless, those regions will be selected. Surely my amendment must be in the spirit of what the Minister intends to do: namely, take seriously the advice of the Electoral Commission and not propose in an order a region that it expressly considers to be less suitable. All that I am doing is trying to make plain in the Bill a sentiment that the Minister must share in the exercise of his duties.

If he does not share that view, he must explain why.

Taken as a whole, we have an interesting group of amendments here, and the Minister would do well to explain his thinking on them. Amendments have been tabled by Conservative Members and we look forward to the explanation of those from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). We are at a crucial part of the debate in relation to our understanding of how the Government expect the Bill to work and the matters that they intend to take into consideration in introducing pilot orders. I hope that the Minister will be unstinting in his explanation of their thinking.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall deal with our amendments, but also respond to some of the comments that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made about his amendment and the group in general?

I want to start with the issue of Gibraltar, about which I twice intervened on the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned that he has been to Gibraltar, perfectly properly, in response to my interventions. I am delighted to hear that. He makes it clear that he went at his own expense, not at the expense of the Gibraltar Government. I think that I was right in understanding that he has not been there for its national day. I have had the opportunity to be with the people of Gibraltar on their national day. On one occasion—maybe on both—the Liberal Democrats were represented by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who has just stepped down from his post as Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs.

The people of Gibraltar who heard the hon. Gentleman put forward his party's views will be very disappointed when they read Hansard, as they undoubtedly will. Like so many people in the UK's overseas territories, they take Parliament very seriously when anyone from any party speaks about issues that relate to them. Whenever I make speeches about St. Helena, I get letters from people who live there or have been there. That is also the case when I speak about Gibraltar or Zimbabwe. In any of the countries that have political issues the people read carefully what is said in Hansard. I think that they will be disappointed to hear that the Liberal Democrat official stance is that it does not matter if the Gibraltarian people are denied the opportunity to vote in person. The attitude of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is that it does not matter if the vote is all postal there.

I suspect that that has more to do what the Liberal Democrats want for the south-west now that the decision has been made that Gibraltar should be put in the south-west region, which the hon. Gentleman and I expected. In the Gibraltar referendum that Chief Minister Peter Caruana organised, the turnout was more than 97 per cent. It may have been 99 per cent., with 97 per cent. voting against the Government's disreputable proposals, for which I do not blame the Under-Secretary because I do not think that he was involved. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) says from a sedentary position, the Minister is tarred with the same brush because of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility. I was merely trying to exculpate him, because he is unlikely to have been involved in any Cabinet discussions at which that shabby, under-the-table deal with Spain was put forward. We shall wait to see whether the Under-Secretary is prepared to defend what the Government tried to do recently in relation to Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is important because some of our amendments relate to it, but I want to start by dealing with the Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 45 and 46, which would delete the limitations in subsections (4)(a) and (b). Our amendment No. 21 is designed to probe the idea of excluding London. Added to this group is amendment No. 39, which has a similar effect in relation to clause 9. We appreciate that the Government are seeking to rush the Bill through for elections next year. The local elections and the European elections will take place on the same day, and those local elections will not involve London. The Government say that we must exclude London, because the pilots will be next year and next year only. I also understand the slightly different idea—the Minister can confirm or deny this when he responds—that they do not want London to be the region that includes Gibraltar.

In an intervention on the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I suggested the reason why the Government do not want to make the south-west the region including Gibraltar. This morning, we made the point that the piloting process is being rushed and should have been delayed until the Electoral Commission finished its consultation. Perhaps the piloting process should not be applied to those elections. If we are going to get the legislation right, we should take out the exclusion of London so that future pilots for future elections can include London in future years in which there are local elections in London.

I hope that the Minister will not trivialise the amendments by saying, ''Of course we must exclude London because there are no local elections in London next year.'' I hope that he understands that we think that the Government are rushing the process. Pilots could involve London if the Government wanted them to. It will be interesting to see whether the Government introduce separate legislation on pilots for next year's mayoral election. I do not know whether they will do so, but it is bound to be a matter of huge interest to candidates who are also Members of this House, not least, of course, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, who has been busily saying in the media that the only reason he is no longer the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman—he has apparently been demoted—is to give him freedom to concentrate on being the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate.

The Minister must clarify whether the Government intend to introduce separate legislation for the mayoral election. Will there be another Bill setting up pilots that is quite separate from this legislation? It would be useful to have such a clarification on the record.

I am also interested in an issue that relates to something that I saw before the last mayoral election. I attended demonstrations in some of the W Rooms off Westminster Hall of how voting papers would be counted. Wonderful, new kinds of—in the memorable phrase of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) on Second Reading—gee whizery for counting the vote were suggested. However, I vividly remember that much of the equipment did not work. In the last mayoral election, we were in danger of experiencing something similar to the hanging chads scandal in the US presidential election in Florida. It would be useful for the Minister to put on record whether in addition to the Bill setting up pilots there are proposals to introduce gee whizery into the counting for either the mayoral election or the European elections. Conservative Members would have grave concerns if there were any such proposals. We would be much happier if all proposals were delayed until future elections.

Liberal Democrat amendment No. 47 would leave out the Gibraltar subsection. I repeat that we know that Gibraltarians want to vote in person. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome responded to my intervention by saying, ''We have had postal voting for a long time. It is just as good as voting in person.'' The Gibraltarians will not accept that. They want to vote, and Gibraltar is a relatively small place, so it is easy for them to get to the polling station and cast their votes in person. If I can arrange it at my own expense, I look forward to going over to Gibraltar on the day of the next European elections to watch the Gibraltarians vote in person.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Will the hon. Gentleman take the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome with him?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Not at my expense. Despite appearances, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is a good cross-party friend of mind. We share similar interests and I should be delighted to sit next to him on the plane, as long as he is paying for himself and I am paying for myself. We shall see what we can do.

For the people of Gibraltar, there is a big difference between voting in person and voting by post, but given the incredibly high turnout in the Gibraltar referendum, I do not think that Gibraltarians want to vote by post.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) said on Second Reading, once we increase the opportunity for electors on the UK mainland to vote by post whenever they want to, which is a welcome change that has already been introduced, we do not need to run the risk of using unsafe postal votes, as proposed in the legislation. My hon. Friend said that postal votes are easier to obtain than they used to be, and it is now possible for anybody to apply for a permanent postal vote to vote in any election. That is probably as far as most of my colleagues want to go. I have spoken to several of them about it.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

Hear, hear.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who is sitting behind me. He will be interested to know that our hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) is also strongly of that view. He is on the Front Bench with me. He is a great man, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate knows.

Amendment No. 1 raises a completely different point, which I know will hugely aggravate real activists on the Government Back Benches such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), once he has finished entering next week's engagements on his palm-top diary. We want to exclude Scotland, and seek to add a new subsection (c) to rule it out as a pilot region.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), whose constituents would be directly affected by the amendment. However, before I do that, I wish to set out some reasons why Conservatives feel strongly about the matter. I am indebted not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) for what he said in the debates in the House and in Committee, but also to the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). We believe that it is wrong for different areas of any EU member state to have different methods for electing MEPs. An all-postal ballot in certain regions would increase the turnout in some areas, but not necessarily in all of them, as the Electoral Commission has pointed out. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) confirmed that that was the case in the Lewisham Central ward by-election in her constituency only a week ago. Such a ballot may provide an unbalanced election result, and it may not always increase the turnout.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

Yes, it did.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I believe that the hon. Lady said that the turnout was higher than it was for the overall council elections, but that it was not higher than it was for previous by-elections.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

The other way round.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Whichever way round, I recall that the hon. Lady did not dispute the facts set out in the Electoral Reform Society briefing, which we discussed on Tuesday morning. Even if there had been an increase, turnout was still only 24.6 per cent.—not very high, even with an all-postal ballot in a hotly contested ward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I feel that Scotland should be left out because it is not practical for an individual to deliver a last-minute postal ballot in person to a returning officer in that region, which has many rural and island communities. To ensure equality of opportunity for last-minute votes, the receptacles for such votes would have to be in the same places as polling stations traditionally have been. That would hugely increase the cost of an all-postal ballot for Scotland.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster raised a matter the other day about which the Conservatives are absolutely firm. Even if there were an all-postal ballot in an area, any voter who wanted to take their postal ballot on polling day to a place in their constituency should be able to do so. That is absolutely vital, and it would be more difficult in large, sparsely populated areas such as parts of rural and island Scotland.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I was anxious about my hon. Friend's comment that it is difficult to get postal ballots organised for remote rural areas. What would happen if there were a postal strike in such an area?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend raises a point that is particularly germane, given the chaos that we are suffering this very day and week. I have received emergency e-mails from the postmaster for the House. Other hon. Members who open their own post, as I do, will also have noticed that the post for the past two days has been very light. Some of us may say that it is welcome not to have to open umpteen annual reports on subjects that have nothing to do with our constituency. The real problem is that, as well as us not receiving those glossy annual reports, urgent letters from constituents with serious problems will not be delivered. We know that the flood gates will open when the industrial dispute that is plaguing the Post Office in London comes to an end, which I hope will be soon, although militants on the far left of the Communication Workers Union are trying to intimidate ordinary people and prevent them from carrying on working. When it finally comes to an end it will be après strike, le deluge, because we all have a vast backlog of post.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member may feel the need to make asides in his exposition of great logic, but they should be brief. I ask him to stick to the point.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I accept that I was responding at too great a length to my hon. Friend's welcome intervention. The postal strike problem would be a greater problem if a strike were to coincide with a European parliamentary election.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there will be several advantages in Scotland's being used as a pilot? For example, we have a different party set-up. Surely, Scotland should be considered as a pilot because of such advantages.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says; doubtless, he will speak on this important group of amendments. However, I am explaining my hon. Friends' great concerns. I have to set out my party's position.

My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that personation will become ''ever more prevalent'' with an all-postal ballot. She is especially concerned, as am I, about the impact that that may have on results in the large number of university cities in Scotland. I have a huge regard for the high quality of Scottish universities, and a number of my friends and contemporaries went to Scottish universities.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course I will—and Glasgow is one of those cities with fine universities. One must recognise, however, that the fact that all the major cities in Scotland have a university could lead to the problem of personation.

Mr. Lazarowicz rose—

John Robertson rose—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I forgot to give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, but I promised also to give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. Once I have done so, I shall return to the issue of personation, with specific reference to university cities and towns in Scotland.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is probably due to Scottish education that we have so many universities and that we do so well. However, I find his argument spurious. Are there no universities in cities in England? Did I miss something?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am not sure that that intervention advanced the argument. I want to point out that there can be problems of personation in any university city.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Yes, in a second. I want first to finish answering the previous intervention. The fact that a large number of ballot papers would be delivered to halls of residence could lead to electoral fraud. It is a particular problem in Scotland because the size of Scottish universities in relation to the general population of relatively small Scottish towns may be much larger than in many English university cities.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that students are prone to committing electoral fraud? Is he suggesting that those of my constituents at the three universities in my city are likely to engage in some sort of personation or to engage in some misuse of the postal ballot system? What evidence does he have that that would happen in Edinburgh or other Scottish university cities? Will he withdraw his slur upon the student population of Scotland—and of the entire United Kingdom?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman will realise that I am not seeking to cast a slur on students either individually or collectively. However, attention has been drawn to the problem by the Electoral Reform Society and by the Electoral Commission, which are concerned about the problem of personation. It is not only Opposition Members who have referred to that. Those bodies say that it can be a particular problem with large student halls of residents. If the hon. Gentleman has not yet read the concerns of the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society, he should do so before he makes such an intervention.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman's arguments about Scotland are becoming increasingly preposterous.

If there is any issue about Scottish universities—I do not believe there is—it would apply only in the case of local elections. However, there will be no local elections in Scotland next year, but a national election based on the whole of Scotland. The preponderance of larger universities in smaller cities is therefore completely irrelevant to the aggregate result.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand, or perhaps he did not hear me say, that our overarching concern is that one region in a European election—it is not merely a national election—should not have a different way of electing people. I have merely raised in Committee the concerns of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, which I share.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

The last thing I want to do is to cause disruption and dispute in the Conservative party after yesterday's events. However, will my hon. Friend think carefully about the points that he is making about Scotland? First, I came to Scotland 27 years ago, and have since found that we have rural areas too, some of which I can assure him I have visited.

As far as universities are concerned, I have three children, all of whom went to university. One went to a Scottish university called St. Andrews, and was astonished to find that the great majority of its students were English. If any great sin has been committed at Scottish universities, it was probably committed by English students. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider his amendment, as he might find that we have great difficulty in maintaining the party's unanimity, which we are anxious to restore.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As always, my hon. Friend makes a trenchant defence of his native land. He should know that I am a quarter Scots. I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard me, but I did deny the entirely unwarranted allegation made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that I was casting a slur on students, whether Scottish or English. My own two sons are at university, and I am sure that they would not become involved in anything. I am simply highlighting the fact that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society have drawn the attention of all hon. Members, whichever party or part of the UK they represent, to the danger of personation where halls of residence are involved. My comment is therefore not as bizarre as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggests.

The final point that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State asked me to make about the proposals for Scotland is that

''a marked register has not always been available''

in previous all-postal ballots held as part of the smaller pilot elections. Hon. Members on both sides of the House made that point on Second Reading, as the Minister will be well aware, and I suspect that the greatest unanimity might be achieved in relation to marked registers. There have been many calls, even from hon. Members on the Labour Back Benches, for a rolling marked register.

The democratic legitimacy of any election could be undermined if political parties did not have the opportunity to view the full marked register.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

We will debate that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course, but at this stage we are talking about Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman will realise, I must voice the concerns of my hon. Friends who are responsible for Scotland, as my hon. Friend is as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.

To ensure transparency for the electorate, political parties should be able to monitor all postal ballots throughout the election. All political parties should be furnished with a daily marked register from the first returns of the postal ballot until polling day, which is anticipated to be 10 June. That would ensure a proper democratic check on the progress of the election. We will return to some of these issues later, but I hope that the Minister can give us an undertaking today that the Government will table amendments to guarantee a daily marked register, not only for Scotland but for any other region that might be chosen. We might then be able to take a different view of some of these issues when we come to them.

These are the concerns of my hon. Friends with a particular responsibility for Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) comes from Scotland but has an English seat. He used to represent a Scottish constituency, with great distinction, and is also a former shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. He may want to expand on that, but I reassure him that there is no division between us. I cast no slurs on Scottish or English students at Scottish universities. My hon. Friend mentioned St. Andrews. My PA, who runs my office, comes from St. Andrews and is a Scot, although she happens to be mayoress of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea this year. I hope that that shows that our party welcomes involvement from all areas, but I want to press the Minister to give us some indications about Scotland.

Amendment No. 20 would have a similar effect to amendment No. 1. We say that two regions with a common boundary should not be two of the regions in the pilot. If the Government go ahead with more than one pilot, we think it important that they be geographically separated. Sometimes the boundary between constituencies, as the Minister will be well aware, can be between two sides of a street. I do not know whether any of the regional boundaries will cross streets, or whether they are always in rural areas, but the Minister and his officials should look into that. It will be very confusing if it turns out that there is a regional boundary where one side of a street—or a neighbouring street—has one electoral system and neighbours only a few yards away have a different one. That might bring the whole process into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will take that point seriously.

Liberal Democrat amendment No. 48 seeks to add a new paragraph (c) on the Electoral Commission's criteria. We think that that amendment would subcontract too much to the Electoral Commission. We are not really happy with the idea that the commission should have too many things subcontracted to it that are properly the province of this House or of the legislation.

That deals with all the Conservative amendments, and the Liberal Democrat amendments, which I understand but do not agree with. I repeat the point for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we understand where he and his colleagues are coming from on amendment No. 48, but we believe that it would subcontract too much to the Electoral Commission that should properly be in the Bill or a decision for this House.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I shall not trouble the Committee long. I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. We have had an interesting debate. I could speak in the stand part debate, but I think that my points are most appropriate to this group.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. Perhaps I ought to alert the Committee to the Chair's view at the present time. There will be very little stand part debate on this clause; we have already had it.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Cook, and I shall heed what you say. I shall try to keep to the main part of the business in hand.

My point has already been touched on by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and I made several interventions about it on my hon. Friend the Minister on Second Reading. We all accept that Gibraltar is likely to be included in the south-west region, but why does that automatically preclude that region from being treated as a pilot? I feel strongly about that, as I said on Second Reading, because my area has had a pilot for increased postal voting and the use of electronic means of voting. I accept that we have to have experimentation to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the different methods of voting, but once an electorate has been given more access to voting by different means, it is always much more difficult to take that away again.

Notwithstanding the problems that there will be by the nature of things—if we are going to widen the pilot schemes and have pilots all over the country, unless we include the whole country some areas will have that advantage taken away—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the Electoral Commission to ensure that some analysis is done of the implications where people have had their electoral opportunities narrowed. There may be problems once people have been given different means of voting, if they then have to return to more traditional means at the next election, notwithstanding that they may still be able to get a postal vote. My experience of the electorate—without being in any way pejorative—is that people get used to a particular system of voting and take it as read that that is what will happen from then on.

There is an important issue about how we initially educate people about returning to another system—perhaps for an election or two—until we get all the means in place, which is what I would like. We need to accept that the electoral system is sorely in need of being brought up to date. It seems a little unfair that we are inventing systems that have within them reasons for precluding a particular region.

I will not get into the argument over Gibraltar; I welcome it into the south-west. No doubt some of my colleagues who are standing as candidates will welcome the opportunity to campaign in Gibraltar, particularly if the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will pay for them to go and if he is offering, on behalf of the Gibraltar Government, the chance for everyone to visit Gibraltar. I have not been to Gibraltar. To some extent, the issue is about the tail wagging the dog. Fewer than 100,000 people are affecting the voting opportunity for more than 3 million people. We must be aware of that.

If the Minister will assure me that he will contact the Electoral Commission to consider what will happen in relation to the non-continuity of the pilot, I have no reason not to support the Government on this clause. I am not sure whether the Opposition are helping. Instead, they are delaying the inevitable process of opening up our democracy.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I belatedly welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook, on my first opportunity to make a speech. I will confine my remarks to amendment No. 45 and, not surprisingly, to amendment No. 1.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said about amendment No. 45 and agree that there are issues. My major concern is that, by allowing an all-postal vote in one electoral region, the Bill will exclude the electorate in that region from the last week of a UK-wide campaign. That will mean that parties and candidates in regions that use all-postal votes will not have the opportunity to employ the same timetable for the election campaign. Being in an all-postal region will also distort and alter the experience of electors. They will experience a different type of campaign—certainly through the media. We all know that, during election campaigns, everything starts to heat up towards the last week. Someone in an electoral region with an all-postal vote will not be exposed to that part of the campaign and might miss out on some vital details.

Those things have to be balanced with the desire to have effective control. The pilot is an experiment and we have to assess whether it will work properly and whether all-postal votes work. We can assess that only if we have controls. That is why there must be a combination of all-postal ballots and traditional ballots through the ballot box. On balance, I would opt for ensuring that we have specific regions for the pilots.

On amendment No. 1, I accept that there are specific problems when it comes to Scotland. We have little experience of holding all-postal ballots in Scotland. In fact, there have been only three such ballots in the past couple of years, but the experience of those ballots has been positive. Scotland's lack of experience in conducting all-postal ballots goes against the Electoral Commission's view that the pilots should be about upscaling from the all-postal ballots that took place across the full election authority area. However, in the paper that we saw, the Electoral Reform Society suggests that only Scotland and Northern Ireland fulfil the two criteria, and so recommends that only they be considered for an all-postal pilot under any circumstances. We must take on board what it says.

It would be wrong to exclude Scotland. There are good reasons for including it, and I already mentioned a couple in an intervention on the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. In Scotland, we have our own media. I know that we do not have our own Scottish 6 o'clock news yet, probably much to the great pleasure of several Labour Members, but most of the media in Scotland are Scottish-based. We have a different political party system—there are six or seven parties—so we have our own areas of concern.

We have the advantage that there will be no other electoral contest on that day, so we shall not be affected by local election campaigns, as England will be, but we have concerns about the postal vote in Scotland. We lack experience and are concerned about security and fraud—I know that they will be addressed later in these deliberations—and we have to ensure that we have our own marked register. We worry about Scotland being used as an all-postal vote pilot area. At this stage, it is important that that should not be included in the Bill, and I would oppose the measure.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I had not intended to participate in this part of the debate, but after the scurrilous attack on my nation, I feel that I have to speak up for it. I would not wish, under any circumstance, to exclude any region of the United Kingdom or, for that matter, Gibraltar from the Bill. I find it unbelievable that the official Opposition party should put forward a scheme that would exclude Scotland from the pilot. Why do I find it unbelievable? Because it has never before been averse to using Scotland for pilots—I distinctly remember the poll tax, the Minister in charge of which is now the leader elect of the Conservative party. It has used Scotland for pilots in the past, so I cannot see why it should not want to use it again.

Scotland has always had a lot of students; the attack that was made on them was ridiculous. We have students from all over the world, not just from England.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I said in response to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith that I was not making an attack on students. However, let me reinforce the point that I am not alone. I shall quote briefly from the Electoral Reform Society, which says

''Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years.''

£Of course, that is not a guarantee that any such events will occur, but the risk is increased. It goes on to talk about houses in multiple occupancy, including student houses. I am not making any attack on students—I have two sons who are students—nor on Scottish or English universities.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for trying to clarify the point, but that is not the way in which it came over to me. Might I also say that there has always been electoral fraud or a belief that electoral fraud could take place by personation at the ballot box? That is nothing new. Anybody could put any interpretation on what might constitute fraud for an election and make up a story that could possibly happen. It could, but then it might not; that is not an argument.

There is a degree of paranoia from the Conservative party about what happens in Scotland, because of its poor electoral performance there. It is now trying to hide that by trying to exclude an area of the UK from a pilot that would show it up in an even worse light. That is despicable. We are here to try to get people to vote—not to disfranchise them but to ensure that as many people as possible vote, no matter which party they vote for—whereas the Conservative party is acting for its own party political advantage.

Teddy Taylor (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

I wish to say a brief few words, and I promise not to make any racist remarks. I am unenthusiastic about most of the amendments, with the exception of No. 48, which is very good, and I am worried about Gibraltar. My family and I are regular holiday visitors there—we go to the Rock hotel and it is lovely. What might undermine Gibraltar, and our capacity for going on holidays, is the number of MPs we always see there. It worried me that when we discussed the inclusion of Gibraltar, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said that he would want to go and see the election. Quite frankly, when my family and I go on holiday we want to get away from Westminster and all the problems we have here. The idea of sending more MPs is unbelievable.

I have been to one of Gibraltar's independence day rallies, and they are wonderful examples of democracy. If one were to read out the telephone book, they would cheer from end to end. I found that one was popular no matter what one said. Anything that encourages more MPs to go there is upsetting, particularly for those who pay their bills. If one goes to the Rock hotel in Gibraltar, it costs £1.80 for a cup of coffee. I do not mind paying that because it is very nice coffee, but if a pile of MPs take three cups of coffee at state expense, it is upsetting.

I was also upset about the proposals for Scotland. There was no justification for that amendment. I do not want to cause a party dispute today after all we had yesterday, but we cannot have such vicious and spiteful attacks on the Scots. I say that as an Englishman, as can be heard from my Essex accent. The proposals are ridiculous. The polls risk going wrong because of the problems caused by houses in multiple occupation. I represent an area with a massive number of HMOs, and disputes, mistakes and fraud occur in those places.

There is no problem with European elections because nobody wants to bother with them. If the European Parliament were to close tomorrow, nobody would notice, apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg. No one is concerned about how people vote, and that is why we only had a 25 per cent. turnout last time, which would have been less if the Government had not tried to get more votes with some ridiculous schemes.

There is an organisation called the UK Independence party. Members have probably not heard of it, but it wants a referendum on the EEC. It is possible that some people feel so strongly about the referendum that they will say, ''I have to get people voting for it.'' With HMOs, there is a great danger that people will say, ''Here's 10 ballot papers, I am going to pool them and cast them for the UK Independence party.''

There may be a case for excluding areas with a large concentration of HMOs, but it is ridiculous to exclude Scotland because it has too many universities. My son, who went up there, said that most of the trouble was from the English, not the Scottish, students.

Amendment No. 48 is very significant. It says that if the criteria set by the Commission are not met, we should not go ahead. The independent bodies should decide such things. It has been said that Scotland should be included, and not excluded because it does not have local government elections. We are doing things for the most ridiculous reasons. The Electoral Reform Society said do not try e-mail voting because it will cost a fortune and it will not increase turnout, so why should the Government go ahead with expensive plans when the experts tell them that it is against the interests of the voters and democracy.

The Government should show some humility. What is the rush about 2004? Would it not be better to take advice from an independent body and let them tell us what to do? If the Government think that the schemes are so good, do they accept what the Electoral Reform Society says about e-mail? It says that it will cost a fortune and that it will not increase turnout.

It would be better to forget about 2004. The Government should not worry about it too much as the experience of European elections has shown that fewer and fewer people are interested because they do not seem to matter. With our electoral system, we do not have one MEP for each area; we have a series of MEPs and the parties decide who gets the seat. It is wrong and undemocratic because it locates so much power at the centre. As amendment No. 48 suggests, it would be better to let the experts provide guidance and identify the problems, and then we can move on.

We are not helping democracy at all, and if we were to accept amendment No. 48, I would be far happier about the Bill. It would then make sense and would not be what seems to be a ridiculous rush for no obvious reason, which is not going to help people or democracy. In places with a concentration of HMOs, whether Scottish or English people—or even Welshmen, who I am told are just as bad as the other two—live in them, the provision would honestly be a major mistake.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East—not for the first time in my career—as up until 1979 he represented my seat.

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about amendment No. 48. The amendment reads

''any region which does not meet the criteria''.

The Electoral Commission documentation lists 14 criteria. Does the amendment mean that every one of those 14 must be met in every respect? Some of the criteria are open to individual assessment and judgment, such as the reference to rural areas. If a particular area meets 13 of the 14, should we exclude the whole region? That judgment has to be left to the Government and/or the House. The amendment is far too prescriptive, and would not improve the Bill.

The Committee will not be surprised that the main comments I want to make concern amendment No. 1. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is an effective debater, in this Committee and in others of which I have been a member. However, I was extremely disappointed by his comments. He obliquely referred a number of times to instructions that he had perhaps been given by the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not even a member of the Committee. Incidentally, she does not even represent a Scottish seat.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

She is a Scot.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

She is indeed a Scot. However, I think that her views would be taken a bit more seriously if the people who elected her were Scottish and living in the electoral region that is the specific subject of amendment No. 1. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale is not here. I understand that he has urgent business elsewhere, and I do not criticise him for not being present, but it would be useful to know his personal opinion of this rather peculiar amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale has urgent business this afternoon. He was hoping to contribute to the debate on this subject. We are, of course, reaching it at a later stage than expected, because of the Government's defeat on Tuesday and the putting back of the Committee. That is why my hon. Friend has missed one of the issues that he was most keen to speak on.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I fully accept that, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I did not mean any criticism.

I shall address some of the specific arguments raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and will do so quickly as I am getting the evil eye from my Whip. The first was that any electoral arrangements for the European elections next June should allow people to deliver postal ballots at the last minute to electoral headquarters.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Polling stations.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Presumably not to polling stations but to the municipal buildings. We already have postal ballots. Amendment No. 1 in effect provides not only that we should not have a 100 per cent. postal ballot in Scotland, but that we should not allow those people in Scotland who have already applied for postal ballots to have them. Next June, those people will face exactly the problems that the hon. Gentleman suggests. They have to post their ballots anyway. Is he saying that, under amendment No. 1, nobody should be allowed to have a postal ballot?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We may be under a misunderstanding, although of course I defer to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge not only of his own constituency, but of what has happened in Scotland. I freely confess that I do not have a detailed knowledge of what happened in postal pilots in Scotland. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, in some of the pilots that have already taken place there was a chance for people who wanted to vote in person on the day to do so, but that was not true of the postal pilot in her constituency. All I say is that whether a pilot takes place in Scotland, England, Wales or wherever, there ought to be a chance for people who want to vote in person on the day to do so. I would not want any of our amendments to go against that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that amendment No. 1 is designed to do so, because it is not.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I accept that, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland, England and wherever else, and the effect of amendment No. 1 is to exclude Scotland from the pilot. He is being a bit disingenuous in saying that such arrangements could apply in Scotland, England or anywhere else, as amendment No. 1 would prevent Scotland from taking part in the pilot.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am being far too generous, but of course.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to hon. Gentleman, as I want to help him. I hope that he will appreciate that if amendment No. 1 were carried, those who already have permission to vote by post under the arrangements that have been made for all elections would still have the opportunity to do so. Amendment No. 1 would not take that away, but would simply stop Scotland from being one of the postal pilot regions. People who have already registered to vote by post for business reasons or whatever could still do so.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I stick to my original point that he is using a double standard in relation to people's ability to deliver last-minute ballot papers to the polling station.

I do not want to go over the arguments again, but on Second Reading I mentioned Strathclyde's water referendum. A large part of the Strathclyde region is rural, and none of the constituencies there, all of which took part in the ballot, registered a turnout of less than 70 per cent. That included Argyll and Bute, which as the hon. Gentleman knows is a very rural constituency indeed. He mentioned the problem of a postal strike, but, once again, a postal strike could happen next June anyway, and those who have applied for a postal ballot would be similarly affected. We might as well say that weather conditions could intervene on a traditional election, and people could be prevented from driving or walking to the polling station. We cannot account for acts of God or the postal workers' union, but events can derail any election, regardless of how it is carried out. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are not specifically against a postal pilot in Scotland; rather, they seem to be against the very idea of having a 100 per cent. postal ballot at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland put up a sterling defence of students in relation to electoral fraud, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath perhaps has a point. There are all sorts of hurdles and questions that have yet to be answered about electoral fraud, and there is a range of mechanisms that will affect the pilots and the future of voting in any system.

What should we do then? Surely the best thing for the Government would be to say, ''Well, let's have a pilot area, or two or three pilot areas. Let's see what the problems are before we decide what the future of the exercise will be.'' The Government have already proposed the mechanism that we could use to identify the very flaws that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is so concerned about, but he is opposing it.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I explained to you before we broke for lunch, Mr. Cook, that I had to go to an Opposition Whips meeting, and I am sure that the Committee will accept my apologies, given the circumstances. That meeting was a wonderful experience: I was quite convinced that the troubles of my party were behind us and there was a total outbreak of—

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I hope that the observations that the hon. Gentleman is about to make are appropriate and relevant.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I understand that. My observations are very relevant, because although I was carried away in the meeting this morning, thinking that everything was hunky dory and that unity had broken out, it is salutary to come here this afternoon and hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East remind me that there are differences of opinion in my party, so it has been an interesting day yet again. It is good to know that some things never change.

I would say the following about amendment No. 1. I always make disclaimers; I explained this morning that I was not a solicitor and that became very obvious. It will now become very obvious that I am English. I am proud of it, and I represent a Middlesex constituency that does not have a university in it, so I approach the issue of Scotland with a little caution. It occurred to me as an Englishman looking at the amendment paper and listening to the debate that the uprising of Scottish Labour Members who denounced what my hon. Friend was proposing—I smelt a bit of a rat—was really all about party politics. The fact that the Labour ranks from Scotland are indignant about what my hon. Friend says suggests to me that the issue is a party one. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland because he went as far as saying just that.

Mark Lazarowicz (Labour/Co-operative, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Is it not fair to remind the hon. Gentleman that his colleague, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East, did not seem too happy with the line pursued by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath?

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

At the moment, the Opposition Whip's job is to heal, not to dig around in problems of that sort, so I shall resist the temptation to respond to that intervention.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland put his finger on it. I find myself wondering why the massed ranks of Labour Members should be so politically indignant if there are some reasonable arguments about excluding Scotland. That suggests to me that we might be on to something. They might be petrified that, if we were to exclude Scotland, support for their party in their heartland is so awful that they could no longer rely on people to motivate themselves and get to the polling station. What they are seeking to do in opposing the amendment is unfairly to stack the odds in their favour, to try to find a few remaining supporters.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman's reverie with a message from Earth, but surely he will appreciate that there are some Members in this House, regardless of party, who actually believe that it is democratically a good thing to increase turnout, whichever party might benefit. We believe that a higher turnout does not benefit any particular party: it benefits the political system. I would have thought that he would welcome that.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Yes. I am happy with the principle of increasing voter participation, and when we come to other clauses I shall be able explain why that is so. If the hon. Gentleman is so wedded to this principle, why does the Bill suggest that there should be pilots only in some places? If the principle is so important to him, why has he not tabled amendments proposing that the whole thing should be done by postal vote?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman. The Bill sets up pilots. I want to see a 100 per cent. postal ballot in certain parts of the country so that, as I said just a few moments ago—I do not know if the hon. Gentleman was present—we can see for ourselves what the hurdles are, and what problems there may be with the mechanism. Then we can move forward. We can either decide to scrap the whole scheme or extend it through the country. Surely that is a practical and sensible way forward.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

If I did not suspect that what the hon. Gentleman really wanted were all-postal ballots in parts of the country where that would be to his party's advantage, rather than anything else, I would agree with him, but I still get the message from Labour Members that this is a matter of party political advantage.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend in his interesting and perceptive analysis may not have spotted that there was not unanimity among all Scottish Members who spoke in the debate on Second Reading. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok was strongly opposed to what the Government are proposing, and—surprise, surprise—he is not on the Committee.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I would not want to intrude into the internal difficulties of the Labour party. I have enough problems of my own to deal with, without taking on the problems of others who are trying to deal with people of whom they do not necessarily approve.

My view is still that the Labour party is upset about our suggestion because it might undermine one of its ploys to gain some sort of advantage.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I make a plea to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendments, because I have never encountered such poverty of discussion as in this argument blaming students and opposing the measure as giving a possible electoral advantage to another party. I just do not get it. It would be in the hon. Gentleman's interest to withdraw the amendment.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I did not move the amendment. I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that it has not been his good fortune, or misfortune, to serve on a Committee of which I have been a member; if he is worried about my contributions thus far, he may have further views by the end of the Committee's sittings.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I rise briefly to correct something that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said. He has brought into disrepute a colleague of ours, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok, by saying that he did not support the Government. My hon. Friend said on Second Reading:

''It gives me great pleasure so speak in support of the Government.''—[Official Report, 21 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 578.]

My hon. Friend does not need me to defend him, but perhaps it is better that I correct what was said, rather than allow him to do so.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I am sure that you will understand, Mr. Cook, that the discussion that has been started did not involve the hon. Gentleman who is now speaking. I heard neither the original speeches that were made, nor all the debate that has taken place on the matter in question. I think that it is best if I do not respond, as I am in no position to do so.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

Order. I have been lenient. I like to be from time to time. However, recent exchanges have been so circuitous that they are in danger of disappearing who knows where. Please will hon. Members bring to a close their discussions on the amendments—and on clause stand part, incidentally, as this debate is all that hon. Members are getting.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

I had exhausted my pearls of wisdom on the first of the amendments and was going to move on to one or two others. My eye fell on amendment No. 48. When I looked at it I thought, ''My word. This is sensible.'' Then I saw that it was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, so I doubted my judgment. However, it is sensible, despite its origins. If an Electoral Commission is set up to do a job of work, and it states the criteria that should be followed, that is what should happen.

As to the question of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) about whether 13 out of 14 would be adequate, if the Electoral Commission's criteria are sensible and proper—I have no reason to doubt that they are—why should we pick and choose? The Electoral Commission was set up to decide what was sensible and has announced it. My comment to the hon. Gentleman is that the situation is an all-or-nothing one.

For heaven's sake, why spend taxpayers' money setting up a commission to do something and then ignore it? That is what seems extraordinary to me. To say, ''Perhaps we can pick and choose,'' is probably worse than ignoring it. It is to say, ''We shall listen, but pay no attention afterwards. We will decide for ourselves.'' I am not sure of the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, but I should be happy as an individual—I do not say this on behalf of my party—to go along with the amendment.

On the other hand, I should not be happy to support amendment No. 45. I spend a lot of time, and I have heard the hon. Gentleman spend some of his time, arguing for sunset clauses. I was rather under the impression that we were legislating for next year's European elections—and that is what we should do. If we were legislating in general terms, it would be sensible to omit the reference to 2004. However, if the intention is, as has been said, to experiment and to pick and choose, I cannot support the idea of using the Bill, which may, with the benefit of hindsight, be seen to be flawed, as a vehicle for all subsequent use of postal ballots. I am more than content to go along with amendment No. 48, but I shall not support amendment No. 45 if the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome presses it to a vote. I believe that we must return to the matter once we have learned.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It is a pleasure after an hour and a quarter, although we started debating the amendments this morning, to have an opportunity to give the Government's views on them. I am becoming slightly worried about the Committee's progress, so I may have to have further discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East about whether there might be opportunities for more sitting hours or days before Tuesday at 5 pm.

Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48 suggest that regions and nations should be eligible for piloting and that the Electoral Commission's suggestions should, effectively, be the deciding factor as to whether a pilot takes place in a particular region or nation. Obviously, that would fundamentally alter the way in which regions are chosen for piloting.

Electoral Commission expertise can be called on to help to ensure that the selection process is based on impartial advice, but the answer to amendment No. 48 is that Ministers must decide which regions should be chosen for piloting. As they are accountable to Parliament, it is right that they should make pilot decisions and not leave such things to other bodies such as the commission. Of course, the Government will give heavy weight to its advice, but we must always have an eye to the fact that Parliament holds the Executive to account for their decisions.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Yes, of course, Ministers make a proposal to the House and it is then for the House to accept or reject it. What worries me is that Ministers should not divert from the Electoral Commission's recommendations, because to do so puts them in the dangerous position of being accused—wrongly, I am sure—of putting forward proposals for electoral advantage rather than the strictly neutral proposals that the Electoral Commission would make.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

That is precisely why we seek the Electoral Commission's views and counsel about which regions or nations might be best for piloting. However, we cannot leave the final decision to the commission, because it is not accountable to Parliament in the same way as Ministers are. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it would be apparent if there were differences between Ministers' decisions and the commission's advice. Ministers can be held to account for anything that might occur in such circumstances.

On amendments Nos. 45 and 46, I believe that the next big step in piloting will be the regional level, moving up from the local level but without the ''big bang'' approach of going to the whole country and the potential risks associated with scaling up in such a large single step. Up to three regions would be a fair and good balance in the interim phase.

Hon. Members should be aware that the Electoral Commission is of a mind to recommend that, eventually, we should consider all-postal piloting for all local elections. There is a move towards a wider roll-out. Therefore, it is important that we are pragmatic and reasonable in the way that we scale up our piloting.

I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that there are problems with some European Parliament constituencies having voting mechanisms that are different from those of other constituencies. That is one of his principal objections. Many voting mechanisms and electoral systems are used by the different nation states to comprise the European Parliament, so there is already a great deal of variable geometry. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East will be fully aware that there is no federalised voting.

There are also several different voting systems within the UK. For example, Northern Ireland MEPs are elected in an electoral system that is different from that of Great Britain. In a sense, that helps to rebut the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

Liberal Democrat amendment No. 47 effectively seeks to include the region with which Gibraltar will be combined. Conservative amendment No. 21 would effectively do the same thing, but it would include London. Conservative amendment No. 39 would also include London.

I shall set out the Government's overall view. Subsection (5) states that an order under clause 1 must not specify London or the region combined with Gibraltar. There are special circumstances in each of those regions that add further difficulties and potential complexities for regional returning officers and others in implementing those elections. We want to conduct the pilot and must have a scaling up, but we do not want to raise risks unnecessarily.

I have heard the forceful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud about the south-west. He may be worried about taking away the favourable impression created by piloting in certain localities. It is necessary for some regions to use conventional systems as a control and other regions to scale up to a wider level. That is why we have taken this approach. This will be the first time that Gibraltar will have voted with the United Kingdom. Its inclusion creates extra complications for not only the Gibraltar returning officer but the regional returning officer for the south-west, the region with which we propose to combine Gibraltar.

Gibraltar has, of course, not been part of the Electoral Commission's wider studies over numerous years into matters such as piloting. That it was not part of the research base is another potential reason why it might be best to be a little cautious about including Gibraltar in the roll-out at this stage. That is not to say that it would not be included at a wide level at a future time.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the Minister said earlier, I agree with the Government's view on not including Gibraltar. However, he must be careful in saying that the Electoral Commission has carried out studies over numerous years. The Electoral Commission was only brought into existence by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It has not existed for numerous years. He should be careful not to over-egg his pudding.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I shall use phrase ''several years'' rather than ''numerous years'', although I think that three counts as numerous.

In respect of the amendments about the inclusion of London, the complexity relates to the different electoral systems that are likely to be used. The mayoral election, of course, uses the supplementary voting system. The London Assembly uses an additional member system and the European Parliament uses the closed list system. Those complexities add something that could be too burdensome for the regional returning officer at this early stage if they also have to cope with all-postal balloting. We have adopted our position for that reason alone.

Amendment No. 1 would exclude Scotland from being a pilot. My hon. Friends, and in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Glasgow, Cathcart, have raised strong arguments about how irrational and illogical the amendment is. The idea that Scotland would be less capable of running a pilot than any other region is spurious, and the evidence is not particularly strong. That is not to say that Scotland will or will not be chosen, which is a matter for the Electoral Commission to advise upon; I will listen carefully to its advice.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I want to take the opportunity, now that the Minister has turned his attention to Scotland, to place it on the record that the last Member whom I would want to traduce in any way is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, who is probably my closest cross-party friend and is my fellow winger in the parliamentary rugby team. Having opened on Second Reading by saying that he would support the Government, however, he made it clear in his speech that he violently and strongly opposes the e-voting pilots. He told me that he did not believe that he would be allowed to sit on this Committee for that reason, which has been the case. I do not want to mislead anyone. I partially accept the rebuke from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, but he knows the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok on e-„voting as well as I do. We both heard them in the Chamber.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We could spend all day trying to interpret the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok. That would be exceptionally interesting, but I will not be tempted to do so. It is slightly odd for the Conservative party officially to suggest that there are larger personation and broad risks in Scotland than anywhere else because of its student population. That is an odd approach, which we will pocket for the time being.

Amendment No. 20 would exclude two regions with common boundaries. There is no logical or fair reason for that. I heard the comments by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath about people on different sides of the street using different voting mechanisms, but even if people on one side of a street were to have an all-postal vote while those on the other could vote conventionally, I do not believe that those people would be particularly likely to talk about that fact, or that they would be bothered by it. Even if there were such discontent, it would not be an insurmountable problem. It would be discriminatory to exclude two regions with a common boundary. Boundaries between regions should not be a factor in the success or evaluation of piloting. I hope that my hon. Friends will reject the amendment, and that hon. Members will consider withdrawing it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

We have had an extensive debate on this group of amendments, so it is probably otiose to say too much at this stage.

I am grateful to hon. Members who have made sensible points about the amendments.

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

That is everybody.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I did not exclude anyone, did I? I simply said that I am grateful to those hon. Members who made sensible points. I always am.

There is still an argument about whether elections in three regions would be better than a UK-wide election. If we had not had the break over lunch, which made me forget my point, I would have used the argument raised by the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), which I also used on Second Reading, which was that a significant problem with part of the country voting on an all-postal basis while other parts vote normally on polling day, is that some people would be excluded from the latter stages of what is a national campaign. Paradoxically, that is an argument for Scotland to be used as a pilot area. Scotland has separate media and political systems, so if it were a pilot area, it would have a campaign that was appropriate to the form of voting, which would not spill over the border. However, I will leave that thought. I am not convinced that we are going down the right road.

I still have not heard a sensible reason why Gibraltar cannot do a postal vote when the rest of the country can. I had hoped to get such a reason from the Minister. He simply said that the Electoral Commission has not done any studies there, but Gibraltar is much like many parts of the UK. The population there are not particularly likely to be unable to cope with a postal voting system. I have great respect for the electorate in Gibraltar. We still do not know—

David Wilshire (Conservative, Spelthorne)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

We have had a long debate. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a really pressing point with which to intervene, we should conclude our debate.

When speaking in support of his amendments, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath made some arguments about Scotland that were the most preposterous that I have ever heard in a Committee. The Conservative party has certainly had some difficulties over recent days, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be having similar difficulties of his own with a vote of confidence. On one of the amendments, he managed to mislay 33.33 per cent. of the Conservative members present in the Committee, and on another proposition, he lost 66.66 per cent. of his colleagues, who held a different view from his and chose to use their independent judgment. He may therefore need to consult a little more; otherwise, he might find himself on a slippery slope.

I am especially grateful for the very cogent points made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East. He obviously understood some of our arguments, and expressed his views extremely well, as always.

I have considered what the Minister said, and I accept that we are not going to have a meeting of minds on amendment No. 45. I do not intend to press it to a vote, and will seek leave of the Committee to withdraw it. However, in view of the way in which the Minister intends to approach the laying of the orders, and given the views of the Electoral Commission, it is appropriate to ask for a Division on amendment No. 48. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will support it.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 2 - Pilot order

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in

clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 12 and 13.

Frank Cook (Labour, Stockton North)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendment:

No. 50, in

clause 2, page 2, line 14, at end insert—

'(3B) If the pilot order makes provision for voting to take place on more than one day under subsection (3)(a), the Secretary of State must also make an order requiring a register to be available to candidates in the election and their agents at the end of each day showing those electors who have at that time voted in the election.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall be brief, which I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Cook, as will the Minister and members of the Committee, as we have already had an extensive debate on other matters.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete subsection (3)(a), which says:

''on more than one day (whether or not each of the days is a day appointed as a day of the poll)''.

I hope that the Minister will give us a detailed explanation of the paragraph, as there is a danger that it could be interpreted to mean that we will have not only postal ballots but multiple-day voting. I do not know whether the paragraph is intended to lead to e-voting, which we are strongly against, as the Minister will know, but it could be clearer. This could be considered to be one of my Plain English Campaign amendments. Rather than trying to re-draft the paragraph, I have tabled a probing amendment, similar to the one that I tabled to clause 1, to see whether the Minister can explain the paragraph satisfactorily. If he cannot, will he undertake to seek advice from his officials to see whether there is a clearer way of expressing what he means to do?

We do not want multiple-day voting, as I said in an earlier debate. Our main concern is the one that was forcefully expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster on Second Reading. If there is a postal pilot in any region, it is crucial that it should still be possible for any person who wishes to do so, despite its being a postal pilot area, to bring a ballot paper in person on what is regarded by the media and everyone involved in the conduct of the election as the main voting day for the election—European or any other. If the Minister can reassure me, and through me my hon. Friend and others, that that will happen in every area and that he will so instruct the Electoral Commission, we shall be a great deal happier. This is an appropriate moment for him to give that indication if he is prepared to do so.

I should like to see words to that effect in the Bill, because a number of my hon. Friends feel strongly that there should be a guarantee that on what is regarded by the media and everyone else as the day of the election, even if it is an all-postal pilot, people should still be able to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who cannot be with us today, has expressed a strong view, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who, like me, has a Home Office brief on the shadow Front Bench, but who is not a member of the Committee.

We gathered, particularly from the discussions on Second Reading between the hon. Member for Chorley and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, that in Chorley, even though its MP on the Labour Back Benches was very keen on postal pilots, it was still possible for people to cast their votes in person on polling day, whereas in the London borough of Havering, of which the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster forms about one third, that was not possible. Obviously the Electoral Commission had decided different things about different small-scale pilots. It is the clear view on the Conservative Benches that there should always be that opportunity, so I am probing that by means of amendment No. 2.

I shall refer briefly to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 50. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has probably already divined from what I said this morning and one of the things that I said this afternoon, we are very keen indeed on a rolling marked register. We agree with his amendment. I had originally intended to add our names to it, but because it was tabled at the end of last week I did not have time. To be honest, when we had the delay because of the Government's defeat, I forgot. I wish I had added our names on Tuesday, but I hope that I can make it clear from the Conservative Benches that we agree absolutely with him and his colleagues. As I mentioned when we debated Scotland, we think that a rolling marked register should be available to the candidates and their agents on a daily basis, and I would have put our names to that had I had the chance. I hope that is helpful. We agree with amendment No. 50 and I can tell the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that if it goes to a vote, we will support him.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing his support for amendment No. 50, which is a crucial amendment for all parties. It was clear from the Second Reading debate that the rolling register was a crucial element in an all-postal ballot. We have had a rolling marked register in some pilot areas but not in others. The experience is that it is better to have one—better for the electorate because it reduces the amount of badgering that they suffer from the political parties and better for the parties because they can more sensibly deploy the people they have to badger people who need badgering rather than those who do not. It is a better way to run an election that takes place over more than one day.

We owe the hon. Member for Chorley a huge debt of gratitude for his contributions to the debate. He mentioned that he had some sort of thermometer device attached to the side of Chorley town hall, which indicated the turnout at any particular moment, rather in the way that churches very often have thermometers to show the progress of their appeal for the church roof. I do not know whether that is a necessary adjunct to a rolling marked register, but it would certainly be a graphic way of illustrating the success or otherwise of the process.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we have been hugely helped by the entertaining contributions that the hon. Member for Chorley has so far made to the Committee, and I agree with the suggestion on that graphic way of doing things. That might not happen everywhere, but it is an interesting idea.

Does the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome share my recollection that a number of Labour Back Benchers called for the Government to introduce a rolling marked register? I do not know whether those who serve on the Committee will repeat that call. It is fair to say, as the hon. Gentleman did, that it is not just the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats who hold that view; there is a strong view on the Labour Back Benches that that should happen. Does he share my hope that the Minister will ultimately accept a variant of amendment No. 50, if not its exact wording?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That was precisely why I said earlier that I thought that that view was shared by all parties. There were clear expressions of support from the Government side on Second Reading, and I think from the hon. Member for North Tayside as well.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the hon. Gentleman not share my great expectation that we will be joined by our Labour colleagues in a Division on this, given what they said on Second Reading? It would be almost inexplicable to suggest that we could go ahead with an all-postal vote without a rolling marked-up register. I hope that the Labour Members who spoke so strongly on that on Second Reading support us in this Division.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.