European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

House of Commons, 16 December 2003.

New Clause 2 — Additional provisions in respect of postal voting

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 5—Additional provisions in respect of postal voting (No.2)—

'(1) The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements for the ballot.

(2) The Secretary of State must place a copy of each statement made in pursuance of subsection (1) in the Library of the House of Commons not less than two months before the election.'.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, at end insert—

'(2A) In the case of all-postal ballots, the Electoral Commission must consult with the postal authorities involved concerning the efficacy of the arrangements.'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The first group includes new clause 2 which, I am pleased to say, was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers and myself. It deals, first, with the important matter of fraud in an all-postal ballot and, secondly, with the conduct of the postal authorities and their ability to cope with the burden that will be placed on them.

New clause 2 deals with fraud, which has been a major concern throughout our consideration of the Bill. Some people would say that the postal ballot system is inherently more open to electoral fraud and malpractice than the practice of attending a polling station and casting a vote in person. Indeed, there is evidence, albeit limited, to support that contention. The matter has certainly exercised the Electoral Reform Society, to which I pay tribute for the attention that it has given the Bill and its helpful briefings.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is very early in my speech, but certainly.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

The hon. Gentleman said that there is evidence of fraud, but could he be more specific? I am certainly not aware of evidence of any fraud in the successful pilots in my own part of the country. People are concerned about fraud, but we need to be specific about it.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The right hon. Lady may wish to read the new report by the Electoral Commission on these matters. It is a simple fact that there have been more prosecutions for fraud—this is not necessarily the case in the all-postal ballot pilots—among people who cast a postal vote than among people who use the ballot box. That does not mean that there is an inherently significant problem with postal voting, but it suggests that precautions should be put in place. Indeed, the first report by the Electoral Commission on the arrangements for postal voting deals extensively with the opportunity for electoral fraud in postal voting, and makes sensible recommendations about ways in which to deal with the problem. Some of those recommendations cannot be implemented without primary legislation, and new clause 2 is an appropriate vehicle to introduce such proposals when the pilot schemes take place.

In previous discussions on the Bill, we drew attention to the rushed conditions in which such proposals would be introduced. Nevertheless, my supporters—prominent among them the ERS—and I believe that we should introduce more detailed proposals to avoid fraud in an all-postal ballot. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) is somewhat complacent about this matter. That is not being unkind to him, as he said in Committee:

"there are sufficient anti-fraud measures within electoral law to ensure that postal voting can be undertaken with confidence and . . . it is no more prone to fraud than conventional voting methods." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 November 2003; c. 130.]

We disagree, and the Electoral Commission's proposals should be implemented at the earliest opportunity. They should certainly be implemented before a widespread trial of all-postal voting.

Many Members have drawn attention to the problem of ensuring that the postal ballot is not abused by people living in houses in multiple occupation. It can be abused in a number of ways, including personation. The Minister included welcome proposals in the Bill to define the offence of personation, but they do not entirely answer our concerns. The hon. Gentleman hinted in Committee that he would consider delivery of ballot papers by hand to houses in multiple occupation, to mitigate the risks of votes being harvested. He may wish to tell us how far he has considered the problem and whether he intends to amend the Bill in due course, or to introduce regulations to deal with a matter that we believe should be included in the Bill.

A basic problem with postal ballots is that it is far more difficult to secure a secret ballot. For a century or more, the secret ballot has been a bulwark against much electoral malpractice. We all accept the facility and utility of postal votes, but they are more open to abuse because they cannot be secret in the same way as polling station ballots, where only one person is permitted to enter the polling booth at a time. The defences against abuse are therefore much stronger at polling stations. There is a particular problem for people with disabilities. Sadly, in our debate we will not have the opportunity properly to consider their position, but one of their principal concerns about the introduction of all-postal ballots is that there will effectively be no secret ballot for them any more. We should be concerned about that.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The hon. Gentleman made a valid point about disabled voters' right to secrecy, but is it not the case that, under current arrangements, disabled people already have to forfeit their right to privacy if their polling station does not have disabled access, because they cannot enter it? The option of voting at home will in fact increase their privacy when casting their vote.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Polling stations should be accessible to people with disabilities, but sadly some are not. It is normal practice for returning officers to take ballot papers to people whose physical disabilities hinder their mobility, allowing them to cast their vote with whatever secrecy is available in the circumstances. The returning officers then return the ballot papers to the presiding officer at the polling station. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold true for people with visual impairment. I have a particular interest in the issue, and systems are, or should be, available, such as templates and so on, to enable people with visual impairment to cast their vote in secrecy. Such arrangements are simply not available in an all-postal ballot.

My views are shared by the Local Government Association. I ought to declare an interest, although I am not absolutely certain whether I still am an honorary vice-president of the LGA. Like many hon. Members, I was certainly asked to accept such a position, but I am not sure whether my vice-presidency has lapsed. If I am still a vice-president, I declare my interest. The LGA drew attention in its representations to the problem of fraud and believes that

"there should be a balance between greater accessibility to voting with security and prevention of fraud."

The association went on to say that it does not believe that

"all-postal ballots should be rolled out on a mandatory basis to all councils without the Commission's additional recommendations—in particular a move from household to individual registration—being in place."

That is a significant contribution to the debate, as it effectively comes from the returning officers themselves, as they are represented by the LGA. They acknowledge the difficulties arising from all-postal voting.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

As my hon. Friend will recognise, there is not only a potential problem of fraud, but a problem in assessing the extent of the fraud. Would he be surprised to learn that I asked a question of the Government as to the extent of electoral fraud allegations in the north-west—what had been reported and what had been investigated—and the answer I received, which was not really an answer, was that that information could be provided only at disproportionate cost?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not surprised by what my hon. Friend tells me. The topic has bedevilled our discussions. There are two aspects to the problem. First, people are not aware of the complaints that are being made and the investigations that have taken place, and at best know only about the successful prosecutions that are brought. Secondly, one of our concerns has been that when the Electoral Commission was asked to look into the matter, it was effectively asked to look at instances of complaint, rather than looking ab initio at a poll to see whether there was any evidence of fraud and malpractice, without a complaint having been made. At present, we rely on a complaint being initiated in order to estimate the problem. I accept what my hon. Friend says, and I deplore it.

My new clause 2 contains some modest proposals to assist in preventing fraud in a postal ballot, and suggests that in the event of postal services being disrupted during an all-postal ballot, there should be contingency plans for polling stations to be available, but that in any case a collection point should be available for those who prefer to put their vote into the hands of a returning officer. I understand that the Minister is considering that, and there is a suggestion that at least one collection point will be available in each area. If that is the case, surely it should be written into the Bill, not left to secondary legislation or to the whims of returning officers. I hope the Minister will make his position plain and say what he intends to happen.

The other new clause and the amendment in this group deal with the question of whether postal services are adequate for the task of providing for an all-postal ballot on the scale envisaged. Members of the Conservative Front-Bench team will no doubt speak to new clause 5, and I do not wish to pre-empt their proposals. The new clause deals with the situation before the ballot takes place. Amendment No. 3, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and me and is supported by the Conservatives, deals with the Electoral Commission's inquiry after the event and its recommendations for future all-postal ballots. The amendment simply suggests that the postal authorities need to be involved.

The Electoral Commission has already shown itself to be aware of the need to do that, as evidenced by its new report published the week before last, paragraphs 2.27 to 2.30 of which deal with the ability of other agencies to deliver. Paragraph 2.30 refers specifically to the Royal Mail and tells us that

"Royal Mail's Chief Executive has advised the Commission that Royal Mail is confident of their ability to deliver and return postal ballot papers in any combination of regions"

and that it has

"contingency plans for both industrial action or unforeseen interruptions to services".

I do not always have total confidence in the management of the Royal Mail to deliver what they say they will deliver—"deliver" being the operative word. However, it is clear that there is a degree of confidence on the part of the postal services. Given that we list in the Bill the bodies and organisations that the Electoral Commission is required to consult, the Royal Mail and any alternative postal delivery systems should be part of that consultation. It is slightly surprising that they are not.

In conclusion, new clause 2 deals with fraud, a matter that is taken seriously by Members in all parts of the House. We do not damn the postal voting system as being necessarily open to fraud, but we are concerned to ensure that the best possible measures are in place to avoid it. New clause 2 also deals with the postal system, which is, potentially at least, the weak link when we have an all-postal ballot over a wide area. That will inevitably be the case when we are dealing with two or three European regions of the country at a single time. Given that Minister's and the Electoral Commission's stated intention is to have national all-postal ballots at some stage in the future, it is important that we get these things right now rather than waiting for a disaster to happen and finding that we have an invalid or improper election of the sort that we would condemn elsewhere in the world.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Our approach to the Government's proposals in the Bill is that if our electoral system is not broken, we should not try to fix it. We are not obsessed by so-called modernisation, as the Government are on this and many other issues. Many of us believe that, wherever possible, we should carry on with the traditional way of voting that people in this country have been used to for over 100 years. Nevertheless, we want to consider some of the Government's proposals constructively, while subjecting them to scrutiny as we have done in detail in Committee, and trying to improve the protections, particularly against fraud.

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made clear, that is the issue dealt with by the two new clauses and the amendment linked with them. As the hon. Gentleman observed, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I support new clause 2 and amendment No. 3, and we have tabled new clause 5. We are particularly concerned about the dangers that fraud may be made easier if the proposals go through unamended. Partly in response to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), I draw attention to the comment from the Electoral Reform Society that for the first time since the 1872 ballot secrecy legislation, it considers that there is a risk that electoral fraud could occur.

I shall quote the Electoral Reform Society's words, as it is important that those who read our proceedings be aware of them. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I thank the Electoral Reform Society for the helpful views that it expressed to many of us. In its brief for this debate, it states:

"Corrupt practices on a grand scale have become feasible again for the first time in 130 years. Of course, this is not a guarantee that such events will occur—but the risk is increased".

There is much further evidence, not only in the Electoral Commission's latest report—which came out only on 8 December, so I forgive the right hon. Lady for not having seen it—but in many of the other research papers produced by the House of Commons Library and by the Local Government Association, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

rose—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment. She spoke in the debate on Second Reading, so I know of her interest.

Much of the evidence was publicised at the time of the postal pilots, even on the front pages of some of our national newspapers. There were allegations of fraud, some of which may not have been substantiated, but there were certainly some documented cases of fraud having taken place. The Electoral Reform Society, the Local Government Association and we in the House must take those increased risks seriously. There are particular problems, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, with houses in multiple occupation, the way in which the paperwork is sent, and the verifiability and security—by way of double envelopes—that are needed, in our view, in postal pilots.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

The hon. Gentleman's quote from the Electoral Reform Society related to worries about risks and not to evidence. I am prepared to look at any evidence that may exist. He said that if the system was not broke, there was no need to fix it, but huge increases—from, say, 25 per cent. to 60 per cent. in turnout for local elections—show that there was a problem that postal ballots are doing a great deal to address.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I disagree with the right hon. Lady's conclusion. I refer her to the Electoral Commission report, which was only issued on 8 December, as I mentioned. In passing, I may say that I was slightly surprised that the Electoral Commission, which has previously been good at immediately sending all its reports to hon. Members who are interested in these matters, did not manage to get that report to us. I am indebted to Library officials, as we so often are, for getting me a photocopy, without which I could not have referred to the issues involved. Under the title "Fraud considerations", paragraph 2.31 states:

"The Commission takes issues of fraud and the perception of fraud very seriously, and has recommended to Government that additional measures be introduced as part of future all-postal and electronic pilot schemes, to ensure more effective deterrence against, and measuring of, attempted fraud. We note that the Government has included in the Pilots bill a changed offence of personation for the pilot area in line with the previous Commission recommendation."

The report goes on to state:

"The Commission has further stated that all-postal voting should not be made generally available until further measures are introduced.—critically the Commission believes that the introduction of individual registration is a necessary precondition for moving beyond all-postal pilot schemes to full roll-out."

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does my hon. Friend accept that the possibility of intimidation, which has not been mentioned, is relevant? One benefit that our time-honoured system provides is absolute security so that people—let us say that they could mainly be women in this context—can vote in safety in the privacy of the ballot booth. If people will now be expected to fill out voter forms in the home, the office or wherever, there is at least a risk that they could be intimidated by other family members or who knows whom, and we should be very aware of that issue in considering the possibilities.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The issue to which he refers is one of the reasons why extra elements of security are so vital in relation to postal voting.

Furthermore—this may help the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and other hon. Members—the House of Commons research paper on the issues associated with the Bill contains a lot of work on fraud and the danger that it may increase under the Bill. The research paper states:

"there is concern that personation has taken place at previous elections. A question asked by Lord Greaves in the House of Lords highlighted some areas of concern".

That question was asked in 1997–98. In relation to the most recent Birmingham city council elections and the postal pilot in Birmingham, the research paper goes on to state:

"A politician appointed to investigate claims of fraud at this year's Birmingham City Council elections says he has already uncovered 'worrying' evidence pointing towards possible irregularities."

That comes from somebody who was appointed to look into claims that fraud might have taken place. The document continues:

"At the heart of the inquiry are claims that postal votes were misused and that organised gangs 'stole' hundreds of votes through personation—falsely claiming to be people on the electoral register."

Councillor Alden, who is in charge of the inquiry, was hoping to complete it by the end of this month. I have not seen the results, but there is serious concern. Councillor Alden states:

"There is worrying evidence of a substantial amount of personation in Birmingham over the past few years, where people are impersonating other people at the polling station and voting."

A report published in The Guardian in September last year also referred to a number of allegations of electoral fraud. The issue has not simply been dreamed up by Opposition Members; it is causing concern throughout the country, and in cities such as Birmingham and Leicester; indeed, what happened in Leicester was one of the cases publicised in the national press.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) about the difference between the potential for fraud and the reality, the hon. Gentleman may be able to confirm that some of the problems that he has mentioned occurred in traditional polling booth voting and would not arise only in postal voting. The traditional voting arrangements already have potential for a huge amount of deception and fraud, but he seems inordinately concerned about opportunities for fraud in postal voting. Surely, the only reason why fraud has been detected in postal ballots is that no investigations such as those that have been mentioned have occurred in respect of traditional polling. If such investigations took place, there might be evidence to show that fraudulent voting and personation has occurred on some scale throughout the country for more than 100 years.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not think that the Electoral Reform Society, which has the experts and specialists on this matter, takes that view. In commenting specifically on what happened in the all-postal pilots in the 2003 local elections, it said:

"Other problems arose as a result of the all-postal pilots. In the past, postal votes were open to council offices in the two days prior to polling day and party observers were able to watch this process providing they had signed a declaration of secrecy. However, with the vast numbers involved in all-postal ballots, councils took the decision to open the ballots as they came in and invited party observers to watch. At this much earlier stage, it was therefore possible for parties to see how they were doing in each ward and effect changes to their campaigning strategy as a result. There needs to be a debate about whether this is a desirable outcome from the move to all-postal ballots or whether the declaration of secrecy should seek to (or even can) bar discussion within a party over their prospects."

There is not only the personation problem, but the intimidation problem to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred, as well as the secrecy issue. Without being too partisan about those issues, we are genuinely trying to introduce extra elements of security, especially in respect of houses in multiple occupation.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I think that all hon. Members would want to ensure that the secrecy of the ballot was maintained as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman referred to two investigations—one by a councillor and another by The Guardian newspaper. He did not refer, however, to paragraph 2.33 of the Electoral Commission report:

"As part of our evaluation of pilot schemes the Commission assesses whether the pilot scheme has led to an increase in personation or other electoral malpractice. However, we have no reason to believe that pilot schemes have to date resulted in an increase in the incidence of electoral offences."

The Electoral Commission was set up specifically to consider such issues in an unbiased way, but its view is that the pilots have not led to any increase in the incidence of the problems that he mentioned.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman refers to what is now paragraph 2.33 on page 13 of the Electoral Commission's report, but if he reads on, he will see that paragraph 2.36 states:

"The Commission accepts public perception is that some areas of the United Kingdom appear to be more prone to electoral fraud than others; we have no conclusive evidence this is in fact the case. However such a perception can, and should be, challenged through rigorously audited all-postal pilot schemes."

The new clauses and amendment suggest that introducing greater security will make the process much safer, so that there is much less risk of fraud and a greater opportunity to conduct auditing.

I shall now deal specifically with the new clauses and amendment. On new clause 2, which was tabled by the Liberal Democrats, but to which we have added our names, we think that verifiability is crucial. We also think that the requirement for acknowledgement by the returning officer is crucial in terms of fraud prevention. I will be very surprised if the Minister is unable to accept the new clause, because it does not harm his legislation in any way, but is something that Conservative Members and the Liberal Democrats feel strongly about.

Most important is paragraph (c), which would ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place in the event of disruptions to postal services. Like the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I have many problems with the postal authorities at the moment. I would be straying out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I talked too much about the huge battles in which I am involved—as are many hon. Members on both sides of the House—in attempting to save post offices. I have not been at all impressed by the attitude of the management of the Royal Mail or the Post Office in recent months and years, and I shall continue to pursue those issues over Christmas and the new year.

Paragraph (d) suggests the implementation of any anti-fraud measures that are recommended by the Electoral Commission: again, it is difficult to see why the Government should oppose that sensible change.

I very much hope that the Government will accept new clause 2—if not, we shall want to press it.

I turn to our new clause 5, which would provide further protections in relation to postal voting. Many Members on both sides of the House have huge concerns about the significant deterioration in the service that is provided to all our constituents, particularly in the light of the disruption that was caused by the recent industrial action. Those concerns were most recently ventilated in this Chamber last Thursday in the very good debate on the report on the Post Office by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We therefore believe that the Bill should contain what one might call a come-back against those who run the postal services, so that the chief executive concerned would have to give this House a clear and unambiguous undertaking that the postal services will be able to provide what is required for an all-postal pilot for a combined European and local election. If we do not have that, the pilot should not go ahead.

Conservative Members have added their names to Liberal Democrat amendment No. 3, which, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome explained, would require the Electoral Commission to consult the postal authorities after the event. Taken together, our new clause 5 and the Liberal Democrat amendment would provide for consultation with and undertakings from those managing the postal authorities beforehand, as well as a clear report back afterwards, providing belt and braces security for the arrangements.

I do not want to repeat the sensible points that were made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We agree with him on this matter—indeed, if anything we feel even more strongly about its importance. I hope that the Government will heed this crucial group of improvements to the Bill.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

I want to comment on a couple of points, the first of which concerns the risk of impersonation and corruption in the electoral process. Historically, there has not been a major problem in this country since the mid-1920s, when cathedral cities were the most prone to corruption, with the seats of ancient universities coming second. Since then, as far as we can tell, we have been almost corruption-free, and one trusts that we will remain so. The danger area is that of all-postal ballots in places with a high degree of multiple occupation. As those of us who have practised the art of politics over many years know, areas of multiple occupation often have the lowest turnouts in any election. There are all sorts of reasons for that, one of which is that the people who live there tend not to stay for long. The opportunity for the misuse of postal ballots must be much greater in those areas than in established communities. I hope that those who observe such matters will pay attention to whether there is a dramatic change in voting patterns in those high-risk areas.

My second point concerns the implication that there may have been personation before, under the traditional system, but we did not know about it. I am not necessarily convinced by that. There was always a safeguard in the shape of the party tellers who sat at the entrance of the village hall, town hall or library—normally one from each party, and preferably local to the area in which they were taking down the numbers. They might say, "Wait a moment—they have already been in once before", or, "He moved away several years ago—what is he doing voting here?" That degree of involvement or knowledge can be applied in traditional village hall or town hall voting, but is impossible in an all-postal ballot. We need more information, and I hope that the pilot schemes will provide it.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

New clause 2 would introduce some essential safeguards to the security and confidentiality of the postal voting process. All-postal voting was piloted in the London borough of Havering in the last local elections. There was an increase in turnout, so the experiment was successful in that respect. However, I have reservations about making voting easy for people who would otherwise not bother to do so. Postal voting is already available to anybody who is motivated enough to ask for it—it is no longer necessary to specify the reason. Anybody who is unable to get to a polling station because he is disabled, working, on holiday, ill, or for any other reason is already eligible for a postal vote. Now, we are spoon-feeding people who cannot be bothered to vote. Instead, we should meet the challenge by increasing people's interest so that they are motivated to take the trouble to vote.

In Havering, several serious flaws in the voting arrangements became apparent during the election period: the new clause seeks to address those. Paragraph (a) would require all ballot papers to be accompanied by a verifiable form of identification. That was one of the main difficulties that arose. Electors were sent by post a ballot paper, a declaration of identity and the necessary instructions, together with one envelope in which to return to the town hall both their ballot paper marked with their choice of candidate and their declaration of identity. A significant number of electors objected to that one-envelope system on the grounds that the person opening the envelope and separating the two pieces of paper could see how they had voted. Indeed, it was possible. It is impossible to know whether anyone took advantage of this opportunity or not, but the important point is that the opportunity existed and that the confidentiality of the voting process was compromised as a result.

The separation of ballot papers from declarations of identity is a necessary procedure, as the ballot papers have to be put into a ballot box for transfer to—in Havering's case—the Electoral Commission for the count. I urge the Minister to ensure that a two-envelope system is always used in any future postal ballot, so that it would be possible to ensure that each ballot paper is accompanied by the requisite declaration of identity, but that no ballot paper could be linked to any identified elector.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The new clause refers to the return of ballot papers accompanied by a "verifiable form" of identification. That suggests to me not the simple declaration that I am who I say I am, but a document that says who I am, such as a passport or a driving licence. What is the hon. Lady's understanding of that term?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

My understanding is that it is a declaration of identity. I am sure that the new clause does not propose that people should post their precious passports or other documents that could easily be lost. I received significant numbers of complaints from electors who did not wish anybody to be able to see how they had voted. I am sure that given the volume of post nobody had the slightest interest, but the point is that it was possible for that to happen.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Electoral Commission has produced its own recommendation that individual registration is a necessary precondition for rolling out the scheme. That is one form of verifiable identification.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

It is essential that electors be able to have total confidence in the confidentiality of the voting process. In all-postal ballots, unlike voting in the traditional way at a polling station, electors cannot witness their ballot paper being put into a sealed ballot box. New clause 2(b) would require acknowledgements to be sent to electors for returned ballot papers. This would help to overcome the doubts of many electors that they would have no way of knowing whether their ballot papers had been received at the town hall. Indeed, given the number of items of post that are acknowledged routinely to go missing, it is reasonable to assume that some ballot papers might not arrive at their intended destination.

I personally have had several items of post go missing this year—that I know about. One was correctly addressed and had a first class stamp on it. It arrived in perfect condition, undamaged and not dog-eared or showing any signs of having been on a long and difficult journey, three months after it had been posted at a point about 10 miles away. Another item of post was sent to me from this House to my home address just before the summer recess, and I am still waiting for it to arrive. It has disappeared into a black hole. Delays of that kind involving election documents would deprive electors of their vote, and that is a serious matter.

The same problem would apply to the receipt by voters of their blank ballot papers and acknowledgements of their completed ballot papers. I received a number of complaints during the election period from people who had not received their ballot paper from the town hall. On inquiring at the town hall, they had been told that it had been sent to them. There was no form of appeal, and no way of obtaining a duplicate ballot paper. Often, time was too short to do anything about that. Wrong delivery is another complication. Some people redirect mail if it is wrongly delivered through their letter box, but not everyone takes the trouble to do so. Some wrongly delivered items therefore end up in kitchen waste bins, never to be seen again, and it is difficult to see how that problem could be overcome.

New clause 2(c) requires arrangements to be made for the personal delivery of ballot papers for those electors who prefer that, or in the event of a disruption of postal services. I hope that the Minister will agree that this is a sensible requirement for contingency arrangements which should be included in this Bill. One collection point in each constituency would not be enough, particularly in rural areas, or in areas in which elderly voters prefer to stick to the traditional voting method that they have always used. Many of them like to go to a familiar polling station, and they resent having to change the way in which they vote. That option should be available to them.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend will be relieved to know that this point was raised in Committee. She will also have noticed from the amendment paper today that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled new clause 6, although it was not selected for debate because the matter had already been dealt with in Committee. The new clause dealt with the preservation of the traditional methods of voting. My hon. Friend will also be aware that I quoted her when we debated the issue in Committee.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution.

New clause 2(d) provides for the reduction of opportunities for personation and other forms of malpractice that postal voting makes much easier. Every precaution possible must be taken to protect the confidentiality of the vote, to ensure the security of the transfer of votes from one place to another, whether by post or motor vehicle, and to ensure that nobody is either influenced or intimidated in relation to the way in which they vote, or deprived of their vote, or able to vote more than once. We must also ensure that the person casting the vote is the person who is entitled to do so.

The Electoral Reform Society supports those views, and does not believe that the Bill will be in a form that is ready to be introduced until every possible means has been used to combat potential fraud, because of the various issues that I have just raised. Too many uncertainties exist at the moment for all-postal ballots to be introduced without resolving the opportunities for fraud, and the Bill should not proceed until that has been done.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

My hon. Friend the Minister will be relieved to hear that I intend to make only a few brief points. First, I would like to respond to the heartfelt and genuine view expressed by the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) that it is necessary to maintain traditional polling practices because some voters, particularly older people, have gone to the same polling station year after year and want to maintain that practice. However, the problem lies not with our older voters, who will always come out and vote; it lies with our younger voters—people aged 18 upwards—who do not vote and whom we need to persuade to vote. Senior citizens have a great sense of civic responsibility and need no extra encouragement to vote. They already understand their responsibilities. It is younger voters to whom we need to introduce new forms of voting because they have shown time and again that they are reluctant to vote. We need to deal with that problem.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that apathy and indifference are themselves political acts, and that it is perfectly legitimate for a citizen of whatever age, young or old, not to vote because they are not interested or do not think it worth while, or because it is, in their view, a bit difficult to do so? One of the great dangers inherent in the obsession with making it easier to vote is that people may in the end undervalue the process rather than value it fully.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I have some sympathy with it. My problem with the general approach to making the political system more engaging and relevant is that there is a danger of putting certain issues on the back burner. We are trying to introduce a fairly radical measure to encourage higher turnout in the short term. I am sure that he would approve of more strategic measures to engage people of all ages and classes politically and to encourage them to become more involved in the political process. Unfortunately, I do not think that that is going to happen in the short term. We need to come up with some shorter-term measures to find out whether it is possible to increase engagement. That may not happen as a result of the Bill, and we will then have to go back to the drawing board. I support the Bill, however, because it provides us with an opportunity to see whether this innovation will work.

I draw the House's attention briefly to a point that I raised with the hon. Member for Upminster about new clause 2, which proposes that

"all ballot papers returned are accompanied by a verifiable form of identification".

I accept what she said about the verification of identity, but, technically, that is not what the new clause refers to. It refers to a "verifiable form of identification", and I do not believe that that could apply to a simple statement claiming that I am who I am. A form of identification is a document proving that a person has a particular identity, not that they are claiming to have that identity. On that basis, the House must reject new clause 2.

I am intrigued by new clause 5. It proposes:

"The Secretary of State may not make any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for all-postal voting unless the chief executive of each of the postal authorities involved has made a written statement that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements for the ballot."

I wonder how the House would react if the chief executives of a commercially run organisation were to write to the Minister before an all-postal ballot—and the letters published in the House of Commons Library—stating that they were incapable of carrying out the duties for which their companies were being well subsidised by the public purse. I intend no disrespect to the chief executives involved, but if any of them thought that there were a possibility that even one in 10,000 of the ballot papers would go missing and wrote to the Minister to say, "Hold on, don't have this all-postal ballot because I cannot guarantee that one in 10,000 ballot papers will not go missing", it would undermine the commercial viability of the organisation concerned.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, when we are talking about the postal services being used for the vital purpose of voting in elections, those who hold those exalted positions should be able to be held to account by the House? Is that not what we are here for?

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Absolutely, but the postal services are there to provide a day-to-day service on behalf of citizens to the best of their ability, and, I would hope, to a high standard, regardless of whether it is Christmas and there is extra demand or of whether there is a 100 per cent. postal ballot. It should not be necessary for the chief executive of such an organisation to claim in advance that it is, after all, capable of doing the job that it was established to do.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I agree with much of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). We should encourage people to vote, and furthermore we should remove any physical obstacles that might prevent them from exercising their democratic right to voice their preferences. That is at the heart of our proposals. New clause 2, however, would prevent all-postal ballots from taking place until the establishment of certain security and contingency measures. An identical amendment was tabled in Committee, but was not reached.

We do not need contingency measures in the Bill, because adequate provision can be made in the detailed pilot order mentioned in clause 2. I do not deny that we need extra measures to combat fraud, but they belong in the pilot order.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Some of us would prefer provision to be made in the Bill, but can we take what the Minister has just said as a guarantee that it will be made in full in delegated legislation?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We certainly intend the pilot order to contain anti-fraud measures, supplementing those already in the Bill. It should be borne in mind that the Bill already contains two clauses dealing specifically with personation outside the polling station and extending the time in which prosecution is possible, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be supplementary provisions in the order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mentioned houses in multiple occupation. I assure him that we will consider hand delivery to certain areas if there is evidence of a problem. We have not closed our minds to the need for all people to receive the ballot papers to which they are entitled in as reasonable a way as possible.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

A university hall of residence, for instance, may contain 150 students in separate rooms. Is the Minister suggesting that the election officer will hand deliver to each student?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I hope that that will not be necessary—I have considerable faith in the workings of the postal service—but if there is evidence of a failure the regional returning officers will take account of it and consider hand delivery if that proves necessary. I do not think that that will be the norm, though. It has not been the norm under the existing postal voting arrangements—many students and others in houses in multiple occupation already apply for and are granted postal votes through the postal authorities.

New clause 2 suggests that a "verifiable form of identification" accompany each vote cast. Unlike the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, I understood that to mean that the ballot paper should be accompanied by, for example, a passport or driving licence, or perhaps a gas or electricity bill. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested sotto voce that it was actually a reference to individualised registration, which is something we are considering. Certainly, if we are to extend all-postal voting permanently, we shall need to ensure that we can act in such a way if it proves necessary.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Let me be less sotto voce. Unfortunately, we do not have the opportunity to provide explanatory notes with new clauses. If pre-registration of identity were adopted, a document to that effect could accompany a ballot paper.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I said, we are considering the Electoral Commission's proposal for individual registration, and that may well be possible. However, I do not think that either the verifiable form of identification suggested in the new clause or the extra criterion proposed by the hon. Gentleman is necessary. Under our proposed arrangements, voters will already be required to verify their identities by signing a security statement. It is difficult to see what difference providing another form of identification would make, and how the system would be administered.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

May I ask a question about houses in multiple occupation and the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst)? The Electoral Reform Society's latest brief, which expresses concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, challenges the Government on that score. It suggests that the potential problem is not limited to HMOs and student halls of residence, and that even in single family households votes might be "harvested" by a head of household choosing to vote on behalf of everyone in that household. What the society, and Conservative Members, want to know is this: what safeguards against that risk do the Government propose?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman is challenging not just all-postal voting, but the principle that has for a long time enabled people to exercise their right to vote via the post. I do not believe that any system is beyond criticism, but that also applies to conventional polling station voting. No doubt all hon. Members could dream up a series of theoretical scenarios involving potential fraudulence, but I know of no evidence of any significant problem involving "harvesting". If we have evidence of a particularly pernicious problem we will certainly consider action, but in the absence of such evidence that would be a somewhat academic exercise.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Will the Minister give way?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I want to make some progress but I will give way briefly.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

At its simplest, my argument is as follows. It is unlikely that I could persuade someone at a polling station that I was Mrs. Forth; it is much more likely that I could use her ballot paper and vote by post on her behalf. The onus is on those who argue for increased postal voting to provide much more reassurance that what is impossible at a polling station will be equally impossible by post.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says but it does not affect what I said to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Anyone can imagine any number of possible scenarios, but in practice we must act on the evidence we have, and I see no evidence of a problem in that regard.

The new clause also proposes that all voters should receive acknowledgments. They are not sent under the traditional arrangements for postal voting, and in the case of all-postal voting such a system would prove both costly and burdensome. Surely it is more sensible to ensure that ballot papers are delivered correctly in the first place. Our work with the postal authorities and returning officers will minimise the potential for fraud and lost ballot papers.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

The example that the Conservatives quoted in respect of personation is a good one. The Minister said that there is no evidence, but there are other examples of postal election fraud—involving care homes—that returning officers are concerned about. Indeed, there are many examples of care home owners having tampered with the postal vote system on behalf of their residents. What safeguards is the Minister going to provide in that regard?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I have said, we should proceed on the basis of evidence, and if the hon. Gentleman has some I should be more than happy to look at it.

Richard Younger-Ross (Liberal Democrat, Teignbridge)

What about St. Ives?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman says "St. Ives", but perhaps he could be a bit more specific and write to me. That would help us to look into the matter.

New clause 2 refers to drop-off points and active polling stations, to which people can still physically go to place their ballot. Such provision is already planned, and I can assure the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that, as a minimum, returning officers will be required to provide at least one supported drop-off point in each local authority district. However, they will have discretion to provide more drop-off points in places suitable for local people, if doing so is appropriate to the particular locality. The hon. Member for Upminster was seeking that level of flexibility. At supported drop-off points, voters will be able to complete and deposit their ballot papers in an environment similar to that of a traditional polling station. They will also have access to trained election officials.

The final part of new clause 2 would give automatic effect to any Electoral Commission recommendation on reducing personation or other electoral fraud. That would not be appropriate. Constitutionally, it would not be appropriate to hand over our law-making powers to the commission, as it cannot be held accountable in the same way as Ministers can. Although the commission's advice is extremely valuable, the Government will always want to consider the recommendations in the broader scheme of things, and to make decisions accountable to Parliament. The Bill's two provisions relating to electoral offences stem from commission recommendations. They provide a safe and secure basis on which to undertake the pilot, in addition to existing electoral law provisions and the further arrangements that, as I have already undertaken, will be detailed in the pilot order.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It would be helpful, given the Minister's undertakings in relation to pilot orders, if he confirmed that each and every pilot order would have to be fully debated by this House. Am I right in that understanding?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We shall come in due course to amendments that the hon. Gentleman tabled in respect of parliamentary scrutiny of such orders. The main order is by statutory instrument, but the same is not true of the pilot order. That remains our intention, but we will debate the issue later.

New clause 5 would require that the chief executive of the postal authorities make a statement

"that there will be no difficulties with the postal arrangements",

and amendment No. 3 would require the Electoral Commission to consult the postal authorities on the efficacy of postal voting arrangements. My Department's officials are in continuing dialogue with the Royal Mail and are confident of the strength of both general and contingency arrangements. In addition, returning officers will already have their own local relationship with the Royal Mail. The Government will, however, do all that they can to facilitate meetings, or to assist with any additional arrangements that may need to be put in place as part of the pilots. All that is extremely important, in order to ensure that the best locally targeted services are provided. However, it is difficult to see what additional value a written statement from a chief executive would provide. Surely the focus should instead be on providing the most secure and reliable service on the ground. I do not believe that such a statement would add particular value, so I hope that the House will reject the proposal.

On amendment No. 3, the Electoral Commission and the postal authorities already have a role in reporting on and scrutinising postal arrangements. The amendment is not needed to allow that to happen. The commission seeks the input of the Royal Mail in providing guidance to returning officers on local election pilots. It also seeks the comments of Royal Mail and of Postcomm on the conduct of pilots, as part of the post-election evaluation. Moreover, the commission's general functions are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and its functions in relation to local election pilots are described in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The provision in clause 4 mirrors closely that in the latter Act, which contains no provision of the type suggested in the amendment; nor does the Bill require it.

It is therefore clear that, although the result that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome seeks through amendment No. 3 is a positive one, the amendment is not required in order to achieve it. There is a danger that we become too prescriptive in what we ask the Electoral Commission to do. Although it is important that we supply a framework of issues for it to consider, we must also allow it flexibility in its work. The best approach is not to list exhaustively every last thing that the commission must consider and report on. I hope that I have provided a comprehensive study of the new clauses and the amendment, and that the House will resist them.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This has been an extremely useful debate, which has illustrated that hon. Members on both sides of the House share a genuine desire to prevent electoral fraud in every instance. Many are concerned that all-postal ballots provide further opportunities—let us put it no stronger than that—for fraud and malpractice. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for his comments. I was slightly concerned when he said that the hotbeds of personation are cathedral cities and ancient universities. Having been brought up in one and having attended the other, I feel personally indicted by his comments. [Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I wonder whether the level of conversation could be reduced somewhat. It is rather difficult to hear the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The comments of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) about her experiences in the borough of Havering, along with the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), illustrate the problems that we face; indeed, the same can be said of the interventions of other Members. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) takes a real and genuine interest in these matters. His construction of the intention behind my new clause is not the same as mine, but we shall simply have to differ on that.

I want to concentrate on what the Minister said by way of reply. He has given us some cause for comfort. He said that something—we know not what—will be introduced as part of the pilot orders that will go some way towards satisfying our concerns about fraudulent practices in postal schemes.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, if the House is not going to be able to study the pilot order when it is introduced, it is rather difficult for him, me and our colleagues to accept what the Minister says by way of promises for the future?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Electoral Commission is in many ways our lodestone on these matters. Paragraph 2.31 of its report clearly states:

"The Commission takes issues of fraud and the perception of fraud very seriously, and has recommended to Government that additional measures be introduced as part of future all-postal and electronic pilot schemes, to ensure more effective deterrence against, and measuring of, attempted fraud."

That is what we are all saying. Paragraph 2.32 states:

"The Commission has further stated that all-postal voting should not be made generally available until further measures are introduced—critically the Commission believes that the introduction of individual registration is a necessary precondition for moving beyond all-postal pilot schemes to full roll-out."

I contend that, on a scale involving more than one European region, we are very close to full roll-out. If the commission has genuine concerns about the existing arrangements for postal ballots, it is incumbent on this House to deal with the matter. I agree with the Minister that it is not the commission's determination that matters; what matters is our determination to agree with the commission. That is why I invite the House to agree with the commission's views this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has said that he is even more supportive of my new clause than I am. How he measures that I do not know but, as I wrote it, I defy him to display greater enthusiasm for it in the Lobby than me. Indeed, I invite all hon. Members on both sides of the House to show that they will not put up with corrupt practices, or the potential for them, in our electoral system. That is what new clause 2 would go some way towards preventing.

New Clause 3 — Additional provisions in respect of electronic voting

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Conduct of elections under a pilot order—

'Any pilot order made under section 2 may make provision for—

(a) all-postal voting; or

(b) any combination of postal voting and voting in person at a polling station;

but may not make provision for any other manner of conducting an election.'.

New clause 7—Matters not to be included in pilots—

'No pilot may include any use of voting electronically by computer, mobile telephone, SMS, text or any other form of e-voting.'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The debate now moves from postal voting to all-electronic voting. New clause 3 was tabled prior to the recent report from the Electoral Commission. As with the provisions in new clause 2 in relation to postal voting, new clause 3 would introduce new safeguards for electronic voting.

Electronic voting raises even more pertinent questions about fraud prevention than does the use of postal ballot papers. However, I tabled new clause 4 after the publication of the Electoral Commission report, and to some extent it supersedes new clause 3. I am grateful for the support given to new clause 4 by Conservative Front-Bench Members.

3.15 pm

New clause 4 makes it clear that we feel that electronic voting should not form part of the pilot schemes to be held under the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been rejected in the Electoral Commission report. Paragraph 3.20 states:

"The Commission is not able to recommend that any region is suitable to undertake an e-enabled pilot scheme, as we believe that no region is ready for such innovation at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme."

Moreover, paragraph 3.21 states:

"The Commission acknowledges that there is some enthusiasm for electronic voting to feature in a 2004 pilot scheme but also that there is a recognition of the risks involved. We have come to the view that there is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June."

New clause 4 is one of two litmus tests before the Government this afternoon. Much has been said about the Electoral Commission's importance, impartiality and independence, and about how it has looked at these matters in depth. The Minister has said, quite properly, that it is Ministers who first propose legislation, and then in the end determine what is included in a Bill. However, we have said all along that it would be improper for Ministers to overrule the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, unless they have extremely good reasons for doing so. Moreover, they must be able to explain any such reasons to the satisfaction of the House.

I do not believe that the Government have any grounds on which to reject the Electoral Commission's findings, which in effect underwrite the concerns expressed in Committee. The test is whether the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's clear recommendation. If they exclude it from the Bill, we need to know on what grounds they have made their determination, and for what reason.

I shall not detain the House on these new clauses, as I suspect that the battle has been won. I believe that our concerns have been recognised, and that the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation. I do not know whether they will accept new clause 4. I hope that they do, but they may continue to resist it on the ground that they will take a decision on it at some nebulous point in the future.

We must wait and see what the Minister has to say on that score. I shall return to the matter if his response is inadequate. It is not my intention to press new clause 3 to a Division at the end of this short debate, but I shall certainly ask the House to divide on new clause 4, which would, in effect, put the Electoral Commission's recommendation into action. That recommendation is the only right and proper position for the Government and Parliament to take.

Alan Hurst (Labour, Braintree)

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the report by the Electoral Commission and he will have heard what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said on the issue, which may be supported by other hon. Members. While there is some evidence—it is not overwhelming, but it is considerable—that all-postal ballots increase turnout in local elections to about 50 per cent., some 40 years ago that would have been regarded as par for the course in ordinary elections. My father was a borough councillor and was often elected or defeated on turnouts of about 60 per cent. in local elections. These days, we might think that such figures represented progress in a general election.

There may be a case for all-postal voting, but there is probably no case for new-fangled electronic techniques, which many people—including one or two Members of Parliament—may not fully understand. Therefore, we would create two classes of elector: those who know about such things and those who do not. One of the problems caused by juggling around with the electoral process is that it creates uncertainty. I have read a helpful Library paper on turnout in various pilot schemes and I cast my eye over one or two of the tables reproduced in it. One of them gave the figures for spoiled ballot papers, and the largest number spoiled by voting for more than one candidate or for no candidate occurred in 2001, 1997 and 1979. Those were all years in which there was another election held alongside the general election, which created natural confusion in the minds of some people. Thus, the number of spoiled ballot papers rose dramatically, compared with other occasions.

I do not wish to labour the point too strongly, but we must be mindful that if we alter the mechanism of voting—the way we vote—we may change the decisions that the electorate make. If we make it easier for those who have electronic equipment to vote and more confusing for those who are unused to electronic equipment to vote, the result may be different from what it would have been had we not taken those steps. All those issues need to be considered with great care.

We have yet to reach the ultimate test for postal voting, which would be its application in a general election. It would take a courageous Government, of whichever party, to take that decision, because it would almost certainly create a different result to the old system. However, it is only when that step is taken that we will see whether all-postal voting, or anything other than ballot-box voting, increases turnout. In limited pilots, such as local government elections or European elections, we might only be raising the number of those who vote to the levels of general elections, and the changes in the voting system might not make any difference in a general election. The only final test would be applying the system to a general election and we may need to think long and hard before we take that step. Meanwhile, if we should beware of anything we should beware of electronic voting, which could distort the result of an election.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said, this group contains new clause 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats before the Electoral Commission report was published, and new clause 4, which supersedes new clause 3 and to which we have added our names. We had added our names before we saw the report, which pleased me because it showed that we realised which of the new clauses was going further in our direction.

The group also contains new clause 7, which we tabled. I anticipate that the Minister will be able to be helpful, in the light of the Electoral Commission ruling out e-voting for next year's pilot, but even if he were able to convince the Liberal Democrats not to press new clause 4, I would wish to press new clause 7. We want a total ban on e-voting included in the Bill, because we have no enthusiasm whatever for it.

I said earlier that the Conservative party sees no need for so-called modernisation, which would spoil our traditional election methods. We can see some case for some expansion in postal voting, although many of my hon. Friends have taken the view that the changes that have already been made—which allow people who want postal votes to obtain them easily—are as far as we need to go. However, with some reluctance, we have accepted the possible need for further pilot schemes for postal voting, but in our opposition to e-voting we go even further than the Electoral Commission, which says that regions are not yet ready for it. We are delighted that the Electoral Commission has come to that conclusion, because all the evidence of technical people that e-voting systems are not secure reinforces it. We want to make clear our complete opposition to e-voting being included in the Bill. It would demean elections to start treating them as though people were voting in a television game show such as "Big Brother"—[Interruption.]

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I know that the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to hear what I have to say before he decides definitely to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course I will give the Minister that courtesy, but unless my ears deceive me, I thought I heard the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary saying, "Hear, hear" to some of the things that I said about "Big Brother". If I am getting support even from the PPS, it reinforces the strength of my views.

We do think that the issue is vital, and I shall explain why. When it comes to e-voting, had the Government proceeded with their original plans—as they gave every indication of doing when the Bill was in Committee—one region would have had voting by telephone, by text messaging or so-called SMS voting, via digital television and via the internet. As the region that might have adopted e-voting would also have been an all-postal one, voting electronically in a polling station would not have been relevant.

As I said, my party is not in favour of e-voting, not only for the European election but generally. As the Electoral Commission has come to the view that there

"is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June 2004",

we are reinforced in our opposition. The commission continued:

"Although local election electronic pilots have been delivered in less than six months, we believe that the scale of a regional pilot presents a higher level of complexity . . . when assessed against the criteria no region would be suitable to conduct an electronic voting pilot."

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made that point clear.

One of our many objections to e-voting is that, apart from the fact that it demeans elections—I very much welcome the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) from the Government Back Benches—in the few pilots that have been held it has not had a significant effect on turnout. The Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2002 electronic voting pilots noted that

"the findings suggest that the advent of new technology did not inspire the electorate to vote in significantly greater numbers than would otherwise have been the case . . . there is no strong pattern of improved turnout."

That quotation comes from page 62 of the commission's report, "Modernising Elections", published in August 2002.

Even if one accepted the Government's criteria and agreed that the proposals might be a way of overcoming voter apathy, a view expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) in response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we were discussing the need to give young people extra reasons to vote, I cannot see that the e-voting pilots have in any way encouraged young people to vote.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Is the hon. Gentleman's opposition to e-voting solely related to the Bill or is it a point of principle with no time limit? In other words, is he simply opposed to e-voting? The reason for my question is this: since the congestion charge was introduced I have regularly paid it by text, which is a fantastically accurate and efficient system, and I imagine that at some point in the future—not next year, but within the next 10 years or so—most people will think that is a perfectly natural way of casting their vote.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman, especially on his congestion charge example. I continue to receive letters from throughout my constituency and to read many horror stories in the newspapers with descriptions of how people with vehicles such as vintage cars, which have never left the garage, are being wrongly charged by Capita. There are also cases where people fraudulently use number plates, so I do not think that the example is a good one.

I am about to go into our objections to e-voting in more detail as it is important to put such things on the record, but to answer the hon. Gentleman's direct question, they are not restricted only to the Bill. We take the view that e-voting is demeaning of the whole election process. However, the strongest reason for our objection to e-voting, not only for the Bill but for the immediately foreseeable future, is that IT experts say that the system is not yet secure against the danger of electoral fraud.

Our objection might not remain for ever, but we shall certainly maintain it for the foreseeable future. While IT experts say that the system is not secure and the Electoral Commission expresses concerns, my party cannot envisage being ready to welcome e-voting in the immediate future. There are two aspects at this stage: the practical points relating to the views of the Electoral Commission and to IT security; and the issues of principle. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Before one could possibly contemplate substantial e-voting developments, one would have to address the issues that have cropped up not merely in this country but elsewhere. We are hugely concerned about security. The hon. Gentleman and other Members may be interested to learn that I have some professional expertise in e-security. Before I was a Member of the House, I worked as a corporate lawyer at a senior level in the credit card industry, and during my 11½ years in this place I have continued to take a great interest in electronic security measures. Quite apart from my Front-Bench duties, I am personally interested in the issue.

Under the small-scale electronic voting pilots that have taken place, important information, such as pin numbers for e-voting, has been sent to voters by what the Electoral Commission conceded could be insecure means; for example, postcards that give the pin numbers could be read by someone else in a house of multiple occupation. The internet can also be insecure. Many Members have suffered from such problems in their offices and both the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and I have raised points of order about the insecurity of the parliamentary data and video network. Although we were reassured that such problems would not recur, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that not long after we raised the matter, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) experienced similar problems in his constituency when information from the Government was being sent to a hairdresser in Blyth Valley instead of to him. So there are even concerns about the e-security of the House. The internet is therefore notoriously insecure and vulnerable to attack.

There has also been significant controversy in the United States about the reliability and lack of security of e-voting machines. Companies in the USA that make the machines have refused independent scrutiny of their software for commercial reasons, raising concerns that there could be security flaws that have not been identified through proper testing. The technology correspondent for The Times, David Rowan, has remarked that

"the commercial companies supplying the technology for UK election pilots say that security is their priority. But growing evidence is emerging that some of these companies have covered up security flaws in the past . . . If Mr Blair insists on rushing towards e-voting, he must ensure that any software companies awarded contracts make their computer code available for independent scrutiny, and that every time a computerised vote is cast a paper copy is printed to let voters know that ballots have been recorded as intended . . . It will take just one security breach to undermine public confidence irreparably".

That is from The Times on 2 December—only a fortnight ago.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

The hon. Gentleman's comments are extraordinarily valuable. Does not the American experience also demonstrate, however, that these machines have a strange predisposition to award a greater number of votes to the Republicans than opinion polls show?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I was going to come to the so-called hanging chads controversy, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, in the main part of his remarks, supported the concerns that we are expressing.

Another expert, Dr. Ben Fairweather, a research fellow at De Montfort university in Leicester's centre for computing and social responsibility, has said:

"I have seen most, if not all of the pilot schemes demonstrated, and have spotted substantial flaws with some of them . . . There are serious worries about SMS voting. Operators can discard text messages if their systems are busy. Also people are obliged to key in long sequences to vote by text. It's a pale imitation of a cross on a piece of paper. Electronic voting in general has not reached maturity".

That was taken from a publication called The Register on 31 July this year.

The Foundation for Information Policy Research has asserted that election integrity can be assured only if e-voting machines produce a paper audit trail that can be verified by voters and later by election scrutineers. It remarked in The Register in May this year that

"the only safe way to allow electronic voting is through machines controlled by election officials that produce an auditable paper trail. Anything else is an invitation for fraud to hackers and virus writers around the world and could destroy public confidence in our elections. It's always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems. Election turnout would be increased if citizens were convinced their vote would make a difference. Simply computerising the current system is unlikely to achieve this".

—[Interruption.] The Opposition say, "Hear, hear," to that. As the son of two research scientists, may I say that I agree totally that it is always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems?

Most significantly, the Electoral Reform Society, the independent experts on these matters, has asserted that

"the fact is that e-voting, whether by telephone, internet, digital TV or text messaging, does not raise turnouts in any significant way . . . We are concerned that any form of remote voting is potentially more open to abuse than polling station voting".

That is the basis of one of our most significant concerns.

Even the Local Government Association has maintained that

"we have concerns about e-voting on a regional basis, particularly in the short space of time between now and the next elections. A failed e-voting pilot in 2004 could jeopardise this being seen as a realistic development for the future".

Even if the Opposition agreed with the Local Government Association that that might be a helpful development for the future—which we do not—if even it says that a failed e-voting pilot could happen and could jeopardise that, that shows how bad an idea it would be.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does my hon. Friend agree that just one of the difficulties is that e-voting could only ever be an option alongside other types of voting, because it could never be ensured that everybody had access to a computer? Many people now use the people's highway in libraries, which presents its own difficulties. The selection of methods of voting during an e-voting pilot would make the audit trial to which he has just referred very difficult.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As always, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. One of our concerns is that some of the voters who believe in the traditional method of voting, which has been tried and tested over more than 100 years, might be put off by feeling that their votes were being devalued in some way if they could not get access to a mobile phone or the internet. Ultimately, pilots will not tackle the general problem of voter apathy, as even Cabinet Ministers in this Government agree. On 26 April 2002, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills told Public Finance:

"Generally, I don't think the experiments are the answer".

If Cabinet Ministers do not believe that the experiments are the answer, the Government would be wrong to pursue them.

Finally, I want to quote The Guardian—not my regular reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 17 April, the IT journalist Bill Thompson wrote:

"I do not think it is possible to design an e-voting system that can be guaranteed secure against a concerted and well-funded attack . . . The Government's continued obsession with e-voting in its many forms, especially voting over the internet, is a perfect illustration of how style has triumphed over substance. Instead of finding ways to make people believe that voting actually matters, they want to reduce it to the level of texting a friend or buying a book online".

Hear, hear to that. That is why we are so strongly against the experiments.

When the Minister stands up, I hope that he will accept both new clause 4, to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names, and new clause 7. If they are included in the Bill, we will at least know that we will not be faced by such experiments and that the Government have conceded that all the points that we made in Committee and on Second Reading were right. We were right and the Government were wrong. The Electoral Commission now agrees with us that the security for the use of technology is not ready. The Electoral Reform Society and all those experts also agree with us. I hope that the Government will accept new clauses 4 and 7.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We have heard that new clauses 3, 4 and 7 would prevent e-voting pilots from taking place unless certain security and contingency measures are in place. Similar amendments were tabled in Standing Committee, but they were not debated. It may be helpful if I set out our latest thinking.

Electronic voting methods have been used successfully at the local level in nine authorities in 2002 and in 17 authorities in 2003. Overall, electronic voting did not significantly increase voter turnout, but it provided people with greater choice in how they voted. In e-pilot areas where traditional polling stations were open, more than one fifth of voters chose to vote by electronic means. Electronic voting therefore remains a key part of our longer-term plan to provide people with greater choice and access, reflecting their lifestyles and circumstances.

The Electoral Commission's view is that at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme, no region is yet ready as a whole to pilot electronic channels. Although we still believe that such a pilot could have been both successful and valuable, the commission's advice is clear, and we are inclined to accept it. I can therefore inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to proceed with electronic voting at next year's European and combined elections.

We recognise that our decision will be disappointing for those who are especially keen on electronic voting. The local authorities that have successfully piloted e-voting will, no doubt, regret that e-voting will not go ahead. However, we remain committed to the development of e-voting channels and will continue to work with local authorities and others to pilot those methods at future local elections. Our aim remains that there should be a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election some time after 2006. However, we have always been clear that we will not rush the implementation of e-voting, which we know is the reasonable concern of Government and Opposition Members. If it takes longer to develop, test and secure e-voting channels, so be it.

Although the Government remain committed to electronic voting in the long term, we do not intend to rush its implementation. Given that I have said that we intend to pilot solely all-postal voting at next year's European and combined local elections, it is clear that new clauses 3, 4 and 7 are superfluous and that their aim has been satisfied sufficiently by my comments and the decision not to proceed with electronic voting. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will withdraw the new clause.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Let me say at the outset that I welcome what the Minister says. I do not have a neurotic opposition to e-voting. Indeed, it was trialled in the South Somerset district council area, which includes my constituency. Although it had little apparent benefit for voter turnout, it provided voters with a further option, as the Minister rightly said.

I opposed including electronic voting in the pilots because the technology is not yet available to make it safe and resistant to fraud. Although I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been made, it is absolutely crucial to have not only verifiable systems of identification that are not open to abuse, a proper audit trail that allows people to trace from where a vote was cast and a recapped facility, which is not available under the present system yet is critical to the integrity of the process, but public confidence in the system. Such confidence would have been put at risk by rushing ahead with the proposals.

As the Minister said, some people will be disappointed by the Electoral Commission's conclusions. Disabled voters, whom I mentioned previously, will be disappointed because e-voting would have allowed them to cast their votes in confidence, which they cannot do by other means. They will be disappointed that further proposals have not come forward. Nevertheless, our reasoned conclusion must be that the technology is not yet right and that it would be improper to introduce e-voting on a wide scale until we are assured that that has been addressed.

Although I welcome the Minister's response, I fail to understand why the Bill makes provision potentially to permit a form of voting that he does not intend to be used. The House is responsible for the legislation before it rather than ministerial assurances on secondary legislation, so consonant with the Minister's assurances, it would be entirely appropriate to make the Bill fit the circumstances, which is why I shall press new clause 4 to a Division. However, I shall not press new clause 3, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4 — Conduct of elections under a pilot order

Clause 1 — Piloting conduct at european and local elections

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 4, after 'must', insert—

', if a three-quarters majority of the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot agree,'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

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

No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—

'(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region unless he has first satisfied himself that the region meets the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region.'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—

'(4A) The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section specifying a region which the Electoral Commission has identified as—

(a) not suitable for a pilot scheme; or

(b) a region for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability.'.

No. 12, in page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5).

No. 13, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

'(c) Scotland;

(b) North East.'.

No. 14, in page 2, line 3, at end insert—

'(c) any region which borders Scotland;

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

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

This group of amendments includes amendment No. 8, tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, amendments Nos. 1 and 6, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, and amendments Nos. 12 to 14, which we tabled. Naturally, I shall do the Minister the courtesy of listening to what he has to say, but I anticipate that, with the leave of the House, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I will seek two separate Divisions, on amendments Nos. 8 and 6. However, we will hear what the Minister says before we make a final decision.

We made it clear on Second Reading that we were very suspicious about the fact that the Government had lined up massed ranks of Labour Back Benchers from Scotland and from the north-west of England in particular, who were pressing for those two areas to have pilot schemes. Also, the Government had lined up several Labour Members from the midlands, who said that there should not be pilots in that region. If that was intended by the Labour Government or by those Back Benchers to put pressure on the Electoral Commission to recommend Scotland or the north-west of England, I am glad to observe that the tactic has not worked.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, whom I entirely absolve of any suspicion that I might have. He has always taken, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, an intelligent interest in these matters and did so in Committee.

The reason why we were pleased is that, last week, after the Government must have done most of their planning for Report and Third Reading, the Electoral Commission suddenly recommended not Scotland or the north-west, but the east midlands, which I do not recall any Government Back Benchers calling for, and the north-east, which one or two Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), supported on Second Reading.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that those Members who, on Second Reading and in Committee, called for particular areas to be used as a pilot for 100 per cent. postal voting did so only because they were invited to do so by the party Whips? Does he accept that that is an insult to those hon. Members who were accurately reflecting the views of their constituents? By exempting me from his accusation, he does not get himself off the hook.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I repeat that I exempt the hon. Gentleman. The debate was constructed in a peculiar way last time, and I was by no means the only hon. Member to comment on it at the time.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Given the hon. Gentleman's experience in the north-west, and given that I am sure that he recognises the success of the pilot in Chorley, does he agree that there is merit in expanding from that successful pilot to a wider area, including the north-west? Does he agree that the commissioner should take into account the wishes of local people, who prompted some of us to submit evidence?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point. If any Member of Parliament submits evidence to the Electoral Commission, it should be taken into account, and I am sure that it was. On his first point, which was about the north-west in particular, I shall quote to him the Electoral Commission report from last week.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Before my hon. Friend does that, is he not curious about the identity of the local people who are being quoted by Labour Members? Might it not be interesting if we were told who those local people were? Are they average punters? Are they voters who are in some way dissatisfied? Might they just be—I almost hesitate to mention this to my hon. Friend—political activists who see some advantage in a particular disposition? Has he any information about that?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I rather think that my right hon. Friend is right. Let me cite what the Electoral Commission says about the north-west, which might increase his concern about the suggestion from a number of Labour Members that the north-west was an appropriate area in which to hold a pilot.

As one of its specific reasons for not choosing the north-west, the Electoral Commission, in paragraph 2.84 on page 19 of its report of 8 December, states:

"There have been several allegations of electoral fraud in the North West in recent years. These have centred around interference with postal votes or intimidatory procurement of proxy votes in conventional elections. Some of these investigations could proceed to court in early 2004; this would be likely to produce unfavourable publicity about the security of postal voting."

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to intimidation earlier. I am sure that he will agree that when the Electoral Commission, which the Government set up under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, refers to the issues that I have cited as a reason for not choosing the north-west, it is an important matter.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing especially sinister in the fact that relatively few submissions were received from people in the east midlands, which has been chosen as one of the two regions. The rationale is well laid out in the document. The east midlands is the third smallest region in England and has a small number of coincident local authority elections on polling day. It has had successful pilots in recent times and supportive local authorities. We are happy about that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is happy, but the regions have not been chosen yet. He referred to a recommendation to the Government. We would be perfectly content if only one region were finally chosen for an all-postal pilot. I do not think that any Labour Back Bencher would be safe to assume that the Government were necessarily going to agree with what the Electoral Commission recommended.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

St. Helens was involved in a pilot scheme last year, and we saw take-up double. Most hon. Members would think that that was a good thing. However, I find it strange that the Electoral Commission should say that fraud is one of the reasons why it has not chosen the north-west when that relates to the old system. The hon. Gentleman was talking about the old system, not the new one. When the Electoral Commission considered the pilot schemes, it said that it saw no evidence of fraud. Why should my voters be discriminated against in the way that it proposes?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman could address that point to the Electoral Commission. Perhaps he has already written to it, but he can certainly do so again. The issue is a point for the commission; I was merely quoting its report.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

The hon. Gentleman recognised that I spoke in favour of the north-east as a pilot region. I am glad that that is the recommendation. In response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I can say that I pressed the case for the north-east because my constituents in both the Gateshead and Sunderland parts of my area had experienced the benefits of all-postal voting and made their points strongly. That is what motivated me, as I am sure it motivated my hon. Friends.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am delighted that the right hon. Lady conducted a substantial survey, as it were, of her constituents and was reflecting that in her remarks. I would be interested to see a copy of the survey, if she would be kind enough to send it to me, showing her constituents' views. That might be an answer to the interesting concern expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which might be dealt with if we could see that Labour Members had commissioned and done their surveys.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It could be sent by text message.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not think that it would be possible to send the survey by text message, as the Minister mischievously suggests, because it would be far too long—an issue that arose when we discussed problems with text voting in the previous debate.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I hope that no one would dream of attempting to provide me with information by any sort of text message, as I would be incapable of receiving such a message and even less interested were someone to attempt to send one. I would say, "Hard copy only", not only to my hon. Friend, but to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin).

May I ask my hon. Friend not to be too seduced by what Labour Members, including even the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West say, until we can set the matter in context? We each have roughly 70,000 voters. I would want to see what proportion of that 70,000 had expressed wild abandoned enthusiasm for the pilots before I got too carried away.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My right hon. Friend anticipates me. I look forward to seeing the surveys, which I, too, would prefer to receive as hard copy. When we see all the surveys carried out by Labour Back Benchers, we will find what proportion of their electorates want the pilots or whether a relatively small number of people have been expressing their views.

On amendment No. 8, we believe that it is vital that three quarters of all the local authorities that have individual returning officers, including acting returning officers, should agree to conduct pilots. That is a reasonable amount, and not a bare majority. The Electoral Commission talks throughout its report about the crucial importance of considering the views not of the regional returning officers, but of the local returning officers in each local authority area. It is those people whose views are most important. Unless at least three-quarters of local authorities support the pilot, as our amendment would require, it should not go ahead.

We shall hear in due course from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but I understand that the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 1 is replaced by their amendment No. 6. Of those two alternative versions of new subsection (4A), Conservative Members prefer amendment No. 6, which is why we added our names to that amendment, but not to amendment No. 1.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The hon. Gentleman suggests that if more than half the returning officers in Scotland have said that they would like an all-postal ballot, there should be one. That is indeed what they have said.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The figure in my amendment is not more than half: it is three-quarters. The hon. Gentleman may well be right—I have not seen all the responses from the returning officers in Scotland—but his problem is that the Electoral Commission, for the good reasons that we can all read in its report, recommended against Scotland.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

But the Electoral Reform Society came out in favour of Scotland by saying that it should be a pilot area for the simple reason that it has only one election on that day. [Interruption.]

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I hear the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome expressing doubt about that. I am sure that he will give us his views in a moment. The problem for the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) is that the Electoral Commission, which is advising his party's Government, came out against Scotland, for good and compelling reasons.

Amendment No. 12 queries whether there is good reason for ruling out London as a possible pilot area. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised that matter in the Chamber previously, I touched on it in Committee, and we thought that it was worth debating again. We are not surprised by any ideas that the Government have about London elections, given the peculiar things that have been happening recently, with the Labour party ignoring its own rules and allowing back into membership someone who was thrown out for five years.

Amendment No. 13 suggests that we rule out Scotland or the north-east as pilot areas. I tabled it before I had seen the Electoral Commission's recommendations, and wondered subsequently whether I should take out the north-east, but decided not to do so. Conservative Members have always opposed having Scotland as a pilot—now, the Electoral Commission agrees—and there are no advantages in having pilots in two regions that border one another. For example, it may lead to confusion in relation to the media and political advertising. I found the Electoral Commission's assessment of that issue strange in one or two respects. Table 6 on page 15 of its report is headed, "Ease of organising discrete media opportunities in selected European Parliamentary regions". The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland will be pleased to see that Scotland is at the top of the table in relation to radio and the regional press. The north-east is third in relation to radio and second in relation to regional press—I can see some logic in that—but I had to query the whole basis of the analysis when I saw that Wales was down at the bottom in eighth place out of nine. Having spent a lot of time in different parts of the UK, it seems to me that Wales has a thriving and discrete regional press, and I cannot understand how it could possibly be described as having a less discrete regional press than the west midlands, the east midlands or the eastern area. That seemed bizarre and made me wonder whether one could believe the rest of the order given. Wales should certainly have been ahead of the west midlands, the east midlands and the eastern area.

Amendment No. 14 returns to a point that we raised on Second Reading and in Committee, when we suggested that any region bordering Scotland would be inappropriate for the pilots because any region with common boundaries would be inappropriate. One reason for that relates to media coverage. I have many friends who live in the borders, both on the Scottish and English sides. Television and radio broadcasts are often received on both sides of the border, as is press coverage. The Electoral Commission has talked about some of the difficulties involved in that, and it is difficult to see how one could avoid the electors becoming confused in those circumstances. If electors in the same election are told that on one side of the border voting will take place in one way and on the other side in a different way, many of them will be confused. That could damage the prospects for participation.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely believe that people living in the north of England do not know whether they live in Scotland or England? That would appear to be the only basis for confusion in a postal vote.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is accusing me of putting forward an over-simplified argument. It is not that people do not know whether they live in Scotland or England but that they will be confused about a European election in which people will use one voting method on one side of the border and another method on the other. I am not the only one expressing these concerns; the Electoral Commission has talked about the dangers of people being confused if the media cross borders and there are different methods of voting.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

In Merseyside, we had a pilot scheme in St. Helens. It did not confuse the voters in Knowsley or Wirral, who were capable of making their own decisions about how and when to vote. If there was no confusion there, why should there be confusion in other areas?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Electoral Commission's concerns. In a small postal pilot that is heavily advertised in one part of Merseyside such as St. Helens, it is possible to say to the electorate, "This is something new and different", but to hold a regional pilot in a European election with the media broadcasting across regional boundaries will cause problems. It is not just me who says so—the Electoral Commission believes that, too.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I support my hon. Friend's argument by mentioning Berwick-upon-Tweed, which is a classic example of a large community situated right on the border. Its football team plays in the Scottish league, and it receives media broadcasts from both sides of the border. It would be deeply confusing to receive different messages.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend reinforces my point.

I have outlined the concerns that we have expressed in this group of amendments.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The Electoral Commission talks about the areas that it considers should be chosen and describes in detail those that should be chosen, in order of merit, if the first two are not chosen. Of course, Scotland heads that group. One might think that, according to those criteria, Scotland should not be chosen, and I would agree. However, I have investigated what the returning officers in Scotland think about this. I have received a lot of help from several of them who, unfortunately, have to remain nameless because they are independently employed to do their job. I have it on good authority that it is not just more than half of them but nearly all of them who favour an all-postal ballot that would meet the criteria of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). Why, then, has the Electoral Commission said that the Scottish regions should be excluded? It is because of resources.

All returning officers have always complained about resources at every election, but it should be understood that resources will be available in the pilot areas. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister not to exclude Scotland, which meets all the criteria kindly supplied by the Opposition. Consideration should be given to areas where only one election is happening.

Much was made of the fact that parts of Scotland are very rural and do not have postal deliveries every day. Surely it is not beyond the Post Office to organise more than one delivery each day, or even every other day, during an election—especially given that only one political party seems to want to enfranchise people. The English nationalists, known as the Tories, and the Scottish nationalists, known as the tartan Tories—along with their friends the Liberal Democrats—seem to want to ensure that we do not get a proper turnout. Why is that? Why should we not want people to go out and vote? Why should we want to put obstacles in their way? It was said on Second Reading that an increase of between 10 and 12 per cent. in the voting figures resulted from voting by postal ballot.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I must put the hon. Gentleman right, as he clearly did not follow what I said in Committee. I too want Scotland to be an all-postal voting pilot area, and was surprised and disappointed to find that the commission had excluded it, but surely he appreciates the commission's concerns. It is a question not just of resources but of a lack of experience. There have been only three pilot local government postal ballots in Scotland.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I apologise. The hon. Gentleman agreed with us that Scotland should have a postal ballot. However, I do not agree that lack of experience should prevent people from doing something. The Electoral Commission makes that point in its report. After all, how are people to gain experience? Should they decide not to do something because it sounds like a bad idea?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Yes.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I am sorry, but I believe that Scotland more than fulfils the criteria, especially those identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not made a decision, or if he is swivelling in any particular direction, I ask him to consider Scotland. It is an important part of the United Kingdom, and it is important for the Scottish people, like those in every other area, to be given the chance of a pilot.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Most of the arguments on Second Reading concerned the principle of whether there should be pilot regions. We heard cogent arguments, which have not gone away, about the possible creation of an uneven election in which some had heard all the campaigning of each party while others voted without having had that opportunity. There was a general feeling that a disparate pattern of voting would be created.

The amendments deal with recommendations on which pilot regions should be chosen and for what reasons. I think that my amendments Nos. 1 and 6 go to the heart of the issue—although I would say that, wouldn't I?—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) for supporting amendment No. 6. As he correctly surmised, it was tabled after the publication of the commission's report, whereas amendment No. 1 was tabled before it. Amendment No. 6 proposes the inclusion of the commission's recommendations in the Bill. I should tell Members on both sides of the House that in this matter, the commission is the one firm rock on which we should depend. Whether or not we like what it says, it should not be for politicians, with their own interests at heart, to seek to persuade the Minister to overrule the commission.

In considering the previous group of amendments, I said that there were two tests that the Minister had to pass this afternoon. He has passed one by withdrawing the electronic voting provision, and I have some confidence that he will pass the other one as well. However, it remains to be seen whether he will accept the commission's advice.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the prospect of half the voters in St. Helens not voting in the forthcoming European and local elections should outweigh any practical problems that may occur with the introduction of all-postal ballots? Frankly, I am amazed that people who supposedly support the democratic system want to deprive my voters of the opportunity to cast their vote in the way they want, which is the most effective way.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I cannot understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. No one is deprived of such a vote—every single elector in his constituency, if they wish to do so, can vote by a postal ballot. [Interruption.] He says that they will not, but why not? They have the opportunity to do so. It is not a question of depriving people of a vote. If that is what he really believes, he should not support the Bill. Instead, he should introduce a private Member's Bill that would establish all-postal ballots on all occasions in all areas at all times. That is the only logical conclusion. [Interruption.] He is nodding, so that must be what he wants. I am sorry, but the Minister will be disappointed, because he has lost one of his supporters. The hon. Gentleman wants a conclusion that is quite different from that which the Minister is offering in the Bill.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

It is not a question of what I want; the point is that, according to the commission's finding on all-postal pilots, such voting is what the commission wants. It says that most people thought this a very positive move. In my case, the vote nearly doubled, and the national average is some 15 to 20 per cent. It is not only me who wants all-postal voting; so does the commission, which is why I find the recommendations so very strange.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Gentleman, but the commission has set down clear criteria that it has followed to their logical conclusion, and it has made recommendations accordingly. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) believes that Scotland should be included irrespective of what is said. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), he said that the commission had clearly supported the inclusion of Scotland. I do not know which part of the commission's conclusion that it feels unable to recommend that Scotland is suitable to undertake a pilot scheme in 2004 he does not understand, but in the circumstances that seems pretty explicit to me.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

The hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me; I was talking about the conclusion of the Electoral Reform Society.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

In that case, I accept the hon. Gentleman's clarification and I apologise for misquoting him; I did indeed mishear him. In fact, the commission came up with not one but 10 different reasons why Scotland should not be included at this stage. I shall not take a subjective view as to whether Scotland should be included. In fact, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will perhaps recall, I criticised him in Committee for wanting to exclude Scotland from the Bill, which he still wishes to do so. One of his amendments would have excluded Scotland on the ground that it has universities and rural areas, and that those are debarring factors. He was wrong to try to exclude Scotland from consideration.

The Electoral Commission has been given a job to do and it has done it. It has produced a recommendation that I did not anticipate. In its view, just two electoral regions are appropriate for pilots this year: the north-east and the east midlands.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the only thing preventing the electorate of St. Helen's, North from voting is the individual electors who choose not to vote? There is nothing impeding them from voting either through the ballot box or by availing themselves of the opportunity to use postal votes, which are available to anyone for various reasons. The electors take a political decision, for whatever reason, not to vote.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I have to say that I partly agree with the hon. Lady. We hear about the supposed great successes at getting 30 or 40 per cent. of the electorate to vote, but that should be compared with the turnout in constituencies where votes matter in a general election, such as my own—

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

In every constituency.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I wish it was in every constituency, but I am afraid that that is not the case. It is only in the marginal constituencies where people feel their votes make a difference. We should, of course, encourage voting by whatever method, but I am not sure that the argument of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) is realistic.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I give way to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), who I am sure will have something relevant to say.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned percentages of 30 and 40 per cent., but I must point out that in local elections in my area, the vote increased to 60 per cent. in non-marginal wards. That represents a huge difference.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The right hon. Lady is right that local pilots for postal ballots are worth having. As I explained on Second Reading, a pilot scheme in my area brought about similar results in the local elections—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

May I deal with the first intervention first? The postal voting went up considerably in my area, but the same effect was not reflected in electronic voting. I have never tried to argue that there is no case for postal voting. I argue quite differently in respect of European elections, as I am sure the right hon. Lady would accept.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Although the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) talks about a good experience in her constituency, the hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated in Committee the implications of a controversial by-election in the London borough of Lewisham where the seat changed hands. The turnout hardly increased at all, so not all the evidence goes the same way. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is concerned, as I am, that the enthusiasm for one postal pilot might quickly wane and be followed by the lower turnouts that are often seen in local government elections.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am also aware of the by-election where, as I recall, the Liberal Democrats won the seat from Labour. The hon. Gentleman is right that the turnout did not go up, so the experience is patchy, but that does not negate the value of the experiment. The argument is not about the concept of postal voting and its application in the pilot areas under previous enactments, but about its relevance to nationwide elections through its application in certain areas.

To that end, my amendment No. 6 is surely one that the Minister cannot possibly resist. The litmus test is whether he accepts the advice of the Electoral Commission. If so, he will have to acknowledge that two areas were accepted and that the others were rejected as either unsuitable or, in the words of the Electoral Commission, as regions

"for which the Commission does not feel able to make a positive recommendation as to its suitability."

Those precise words are incorporated into amendment No. 6.

Let me say a few brief words about other amendments in the group. We have kept together quite well during the passage of the Bill so far, but I have to part company with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on some of the amendments in the group. I hope that I do so in a spirit of good will, but we differ on some matters.

Amendment No. 8 is the lead amendment, on which we may divide the House. I have three criticisms. First, I am not sure that "a three-quarters majority" is clearly expressed. Secondly, I am concerned that the amendment mentions the majority of

"the local authorities in the area",

without clarifying whether that means principal local authorities, or authorities with electoral responsibilities or, as it clearly means in the context of the Bill, every local authority including every parish council and, in the case of Wales, community council, which cannot be a sensible proposition.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman would be right if the amendment could be taken to mean every single local authority. I accept his criticism that, if there is a shortcoming in the drafting of the amendment, it is that. However, I made it clear when I spoke to the amendment that it refers to local authorities that have a returning officer. That is what the Electoral Commission reports talk about. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is what was clearly intended.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Were we in Committee, I would accept his contention, but the Bill has reached Report stage, and will leave the House in the form that we determine now. We will return to this debate when we discuss amendment No.25, in a later group. In that amendment, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath proposes to remove the word "relevant" from clause 4, even though that word is used to identify local authorities with electoral responsibilities. There is therefore more than a technical problem with this amendment.

In addition, the proposed benchmark of 75 per cent. also gives me cause for concern. I note that the Electoral Commission reports the figure in the north-east as being 74 per cent. That may change as a result of the Minister's announcement today. We do not know when that temperature was taken, and we need to be more explicit than the amendment suggests.

For all those reasons, I cannot support the amendment. Like the Electoral Commission, however, I accept the principle that local authorities, and returning offices in particular, need to be consulted. They must be kept onside if the experiments are to work, and that is one of the criteria that has caused several potential pilot regions to be excluded.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath knows that I have difficulties with amendments Nos. 12 to 14. He wants London to be included again in the pilot regions, whereas I think that the mayoral elections mean that there are good and sensible reasons why London should not be used in a pilot. The hon. Gentleman also wants to exclude Scotland—for reasons that I still do not understand—and the north-east, on the ground that it is near Scotland. That does not seem an adequate reason for exclusion.

In case we did not get the message the first time, amendment No. 14 talks about

"any region which borders Scotland"

and

"any two regions with a common boundary."

I was going to test the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on that in Committee, but never got the opportunity. Once the south-west has been excluded because of Gibraltar, and London because it is London, and Scotland because of the hon. Gentleman's definition, it is difficult to find three regions of which two do not have a common boundary.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is only two now.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Until the Minister speaks and tells us that he has confined himself to two, we cannot be certain. There is a real problem with the geographical proposition in the amendment, although I guess that it had a proper basis in the initial stages.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

Does the hon. Gentleman think it possible that the Opposition's anti-Scottish sentiment stems from the fact that people in Scotland will not vote for them?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That is demonstrably true, time after time. Most importantly, people in Scotland will not vote for Conservative candidates on a first-past-the-post system. However, I think that there must be deeper reasons for the Conservative party's phobia about anything to do with the north. The phobia is not now confined to places north of the border; anywhere north of the Wash appears to be suspect in the eyes of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. But let us set that aside for the moment.

In Committee, we debated the question of media areas, and whether it is possible to run discrete campaigns in areas that are not discrete. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that Wales was a discrete media area. However, people in parts of Somerset receive S4C, much to their upset, as they want to watch rugby being played in Bath rather than in Llanelli. In addition, there is also press intrusion in the north, as I believe that both the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post have high circulations in north Wales. So perhaps the Electoral Commission's assessment of the matter is not wrong.

The crucial point is that the Minister should pass the test of agreeing to the views of the Electoral Commission, without any outside pressure or noises off or anybody saying that he has to take a political view. His job as Minister, especially in his most prestigious Department, is to take an impartial and judicious view of what is proposed and to implement it in legislation. I am confident that he will do so by accepting amendment No. 6, on which I intend to divide the House if I have the opportunity and if the Minister gives me insufficient assurances. 4.45 pm

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

When the Electoral Commission consulted on this issue—the report is the result of that consultation—it put forward nine criteria from the Government and five of its own which, it said, it had distilled into four. The first was the number and type of local authorities, the second was the number and type of local elections, the third was experience—which was thought to be important, but not essential—the fourth was whether the media could conduct a discrete public information campaign, and the fifth was the enthusiasm of regional and local electoral returning officers. People might have some doubts about the efficacy of the recommendations of a commission that enumerates four criteria and enunciates five, but we should pass over that.

The Electoral Commission did not take into account, but should have done, the lessons learned from the pilot. The whole point of a pilot exercise is to learn lessons from it, so that one can decide whether they should be applied more generally. The lessons of the pilot should have been taken into account when determining the criteria.

Instead of taking the judgments of the Electoral Commission at face value, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) wants us to do, we should judge them against its own criteria. If we do that, it is clear that the north-east scores highly on almost all the criteria, and I would have no difficulty in making the north-east one of the pilot areas. However, the second recommendation is the east midlands and we should consider that more closely. The first criterion is the number of local authorities. The Electoral Commission says, in paragraph 2.119 of the report:

"it is our view that a region with many small authorities would not be suited to running a pilot scheme in 2004."

The east midlands has 40 local authorities, of which 36 are small district councils, but that has not been taken into account in the recommendations.

The second criterion is the number and type of elections, but the east midlands will have only six. We will not learn much if the pilots run in only six local authorities. The third criterion is experience, but only three out of the 40 local authorities have had experience in the past. On the fourth criterion—the ease with which local media could run a discrete information campaign—the east midlands comes seventh for radio and fifth for the regional press. On the fifth criterion, the regional electoral returning officer says that he does not want a pilot scheme. He is quoted as saying:

"I would not want our region put forward ahead of those who are actively seeking to be chosen".

However, the local electoral returning officers have made a case for being included.

The case for the east midlands to be selected for the pilot is poor when judged against the Electoral Commission's own criteria.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Is the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument that we, as politically motivated individuals, can better apply the criteria developed by the Electoral Commission than it can itself?

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

Yes. This is no deus ex machina giving judgments on tablets of stone. We can surely make criticisms of the commission. Its judgments may be incorrect—as may those of the House—although that may be more likely in the case of the commission, as it may be less aware of the political situation.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have an electoral commission on the Electoral Commission to ensure that it acts properly according to his good judgment. If we take the route that he suggests, what is the point of the Electoral Commission?

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

No, I do not want an electoral commission on the Electoral Commission, because Parliament should make the judgments. The commission gives us advice but we make the judgments. Parliament decides those issues.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

It would appear that my hon. Friend's region is similar to mine, as in my region, too, only the people at the top were consulted and not the electoral returning officers for the whole area. Does he agree that in his area, as in mine, a vast majority of them are in favour of postal ballots?

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

I shall develop that argument later, if my hon. Friend will permit me, although I do want to talk about Scotland now. It is only fair that if we make judgments, based on the evidence of the Electoral Commission, about one region, we should make judgments about all of them.

In Scotland there are 32 unitary authorities that have weighty electoral experience, so that is a strong reason for holding a pilot, yet no local elections will be held there. Some people might think that is a good thing, but I do not. Our learning experience will be limited if mixed elections are not held. The commission found that only a few by-elections had been held in Scotland, so experience of the pilot systems was very limited. The score on media, however, was excellent. Scotland was at the top of the list.

To return to the point made on several occasions by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), a letter purportedly from the electoral returning officers in all 32 authorities states that they do not want the proposed system, yet he seems to have evidence that a substantial majority want it. Again, that raises questions about the judgment of the Electoral Commission and gives us a good reason to question its recommendations.

In Yorkshire and the Humber, the commission found that there was a reasonably large number and type of local authorities and elections, including whole-council metropolitan elections, so we shall learn a substantial amount from that region. However, there was limited experience of pilot systems in elections, only half the number that have been held in the north-west. On the media, the area comes fifth for radio and seventh for the press. On electoral returning officers, the commission noted in recommendation 2.117 that

"it is clear that Returning Officers would strongly prefer not to be involved in any all-postal pilot at the combined elections in 2004."

Electoral returning officers in Yorkshire and the Humber do not want the proposed system.

In the north-west, there is a wide variation in the number and type of authority. Various elections, including whole-council elections for the metropolitan authorities, take place at the same time. Experience of running pilots was second only to the north-east. On media, the region was fourth for radio and third for the press. The electoral returning officers have made a good case for going ahead with the proposals.

We have to balance the risks relating to the number of elections with the enthusiasm of the returning officers. They are the people who will ensure that the election is properly carried out, and if they are enthusiastic, the risk of having whole-council elections at the same time in metropolitan authorities will be substantially reduced. We need to take that point on board.

I am extremely disappointed that the Electoral Commission has come to conclusions that its evidence does not merit. Earlier in the debate, the Minister said that it was for him to make decisions on advice from the commission. To paraphrase my hon. Friend's words, he said that we are not giving the commission the right to make decisions and that that is the right of Parliament and of the Government. I hope that he will consider that point.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Is it not the case that the commission acknowledges that the north-west has conducted a wide range of pilots? There is no criticism whatever in the report of the conduct of those pilots. The criticism levelled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has nothing to do with the process that we are currently debating.

Neil Turner (Labour, Wigan)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

I want to wind up with one last point. Members from the north-west gave good reasons on Second Reading as to why their's should be one of the regions chosen. We talked about its diversity in terms of geography, economics, finances, social range and rural and urban areas. That argument could also be made for both the north-east and Scotland. If the regions are judged against the Electoral Commission's criteria—apart from the fact that those criteria do not include learning—then I hope that the Minister will reject the east midlands and come to his own conclusions on the basis of merit, rather than following the flawed conclusions of the Electoral Commission.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), because he is the first contributor to today's debate who has not displayed nauseating sycophancy towards the commission, as everybody else seems to feel obliged to do.

I am one of those old-fashioned people—hon. Members will be astonished to hear—who is suspicious of the proliferation of commissions. We get ourselves into the most awful difficulty when we set up these bodies, appoint to them people who are sometimes great and good and more often than not who are neither, get from them a self-justifying flow of recommendations, most of which are probably unnecessary but are produced by commissions to justify their existence, and are put in the invidious position of having to respond to them. The hon. Member for Wigan has put his finger on the dilemma.

I do not accept the argument put in some of the amendments that have been tabled that if we set up the commission and it comes forward with recommendations, we must accept them, because the people on the commission are wonderful, splendid, impartial and knowledgeable, and since we are politicians we cannot make a judgment on matters political. That seems to be the thrust of some of the arguments that I have heard this afternoon. My preference would be to get rid of all these dreadful institutions and to take responsibility to ourselves, as we used to do in the good old days—to use the parliamentary process and the governmental process to consider and produce options, to make decisions and to stand by them. The electorate will judge our decisions—those of them who take the trouble to turn out, a problem to which I will refer in a moment.

As part of today's debate, I hope that some of us will think about whether we want these commissions in our lives. They are bureaucracies, they are appointed by politicians, they then make trouble for politicians, and I doubt very much whether they carry forward the quality of life or the quality of politics in our society today. For that reason, I do not feel obliged in any way to accept what this or that commission has recommended, and I follow the hon. Member for Wigan happily in saying that we should be robust enough, as should the Minister—knowing him as I think I do, he will be—to make our governmental, parliamentary decision, stand by it and be judged by it.

My other point is that, sadly, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in his attempt to draw London back into this ghastly process. I was happy when I saw in the Bill that London was to be excluded. The voters of London are perfectly capable of making their own decision, with the existing provisions, as to whether they want to vote. It is not unreasonable to ask someone to go to their nearest polling station and to make their choice, in the traditional way, on a ballot paper. That is not an obstacle put in the way of their voting. In fact, it is patronising to suggest that voters are now so dumb, idle or venal that they cannot be bothered to stir themselves to vote in a polling station on a ballot paper. The arguments involved with this Bill come close to making the patronising accusation against our voters that they are incapable of voting in the traditional way. My view is that voters are perfectly capable of making the judgment and the effort— small that it is—to exert the privilege of casting a vote.

The issue is important for millions, perhaps billions, of people around the world, many of whom have given their lives for the chance to vote. In this country, we are complacently saying that our citizenry cannot even bestir themselves to walk a few hundred yards down the road to a polling station to cast a vote in a ballot. If that is our judgment, what on earth are we saying about our voters? The business about "Can't we give it to them on a plate? Can't we almost bribe them? Can't we make it so easy for them that they might almost do it by accident?" strikes me as patronising in the extreme.

I am glad that the Bill excludes London from the pilots. Proud as I am to represent a London constituency, I am confident that the voters of Bromley and Chislehurst, and indeed London as a whole, are perfectly capable of exerting their judgments, walking to the polling station and casting their votes. If Government Members are suggesting that their voters are so awful that they cannot even do that, they are not as in touch with their voters as they like to suggest.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

Government Members who support postal voting do so for factual reasons. They know that postal voting increases turnout. If postal voting increases turnout, it makes the system more democratic. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that anything that increases turnout must be good for democracy?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I do not agree. That is an assumption that everybody makes and it is regarded as unchallengeable, but I am challenging it. A simple increase in turnout does not increase the quality of the democratic process. If pushed, I could almost suggest the opposite: the quality of the vote cast in the traditional way is possibly higher than one cast in an easier voting process. I do not accept the assumption.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage any type of voting other than the traditional one of going to a polling station and casting a vote in a ballot?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

No, I do not. Our traditional method has stood the test of time extremely well. It combines a degree of confidentiality—for example, we touched earlier on the risk of intimidation in the postal voting system—with a little degree of effort, which is in itself a very good thing. At its best, it provides a degree of integrity in the voting process that we should all welcome.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman understands the procedures of the House very well and I am reluctant to stop him. However, he will appreciate that he must not get into a Second Reading debate. The amendments are reasonably precise.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have allowed myself to be led down those paths, but you know how enthusiastic I am to try to help Members when they want to challenge my assertions. I will draw my remarks to a conclusion.

Those are the reasons why I will not follow those who want slavishly to follow the commission, why I support the original wording of the Bill and why, on this occasion, I sadly cannot support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, which seeks to draw London back into the morass.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made two comments in his contribution that I would like to refer to. He made the accusation once again that Government Members hope to pilot all-postal voting schemes for party political advantage. I said this in Committee, I shall say it again now and I am sure that I reflect my hon. Friends' views: we believe that a net increase in participation in the democratic process is a good thing of itself, regardless of which party may or may not benefit. If there is a 100 per cent. postal vote in Scotland next June, I do not believe that the end result in terms of seats obtained by each party will be any different from what it would otherwise have been. The political process will have been improved, however, if we involve more people than would vote under a traditional voting system. I will depart from that point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it should be reserved for Third Reading.

The hon. Gentleman made what was almost a throwaway remark as he finished his speech by saying that he disagreed with one of the Electoral Commission's recommendations—I cannot remember his exact words, but I am sure that he can check them in Hansard—but he contradicted his own argument. I totally agree with what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about the Electoral Commission. The commission makes recommendations; it does not pass down edicts from on high. We are the elected representatives of the people of this country and we are in the democratic Chamber in which decisions are taken on whether to instigate pilots for 100 per cent. postal voting or any other matter. The Electoral Commission provides advice but it does not tell the House what to do.

In Committee, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that although the Electoral Commission's criteria were important, many were subjective and could not be assessed simply through a tick-box exercise. There will sometimes be a question of judgment when deciding whether criteria have been met, so the Electoral Commission cannot be allowed to have the final say on such matters. We have a Minister and elected Members of Parliament so that we may take the advice that the Electoral Commission is paid to provide and base our judgments on that.

I do not have an especially dogmatic view on whether Scotland should be a pilot area, although I hope that it will be. If evidence were to show that Scotland's political process would not benefit from all-postal ballots, I would accept the Government's view. I shall press the case for a pilot in Scotland because I believe that Scotland meets the necessary criteria, but I shall not take a dogmatic approach. We all have our constituency and regional interests—I am no different—but I accept that arguments must be made for selecting specific areas. The arguments for Scotland have already been made, but I am prepared to listen to opposite views.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) admitted that the drafting of amendment No. 8 leaves something to be desired. He mentioned chief executives rather than local authorities several times in his speech, although the amendment makes reference to local authorities. It is one thing to accept the view of a chief executive who has professional experience and judgment and is appointed as an objective and apolitical member of staff by the political establishment—a local authority—but a chief executive's view is in no way equivalent to that of a local authority. A local authority may adopt a view at a meeting of a full council after the ruling Labour, Conservative or Liberal group has met in caucus to decide the view to take forward to the council meeting. A chief executive's view, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned on several occasions, is the personal opinion of a senior council official, so the view of a chief executive could not be considered to be an equivalent alternative to that of a local authority. If the hon. Gentleman had intended the amendment to relate to chief executives, he should have used the words "chief executives" rather than "local authorities".

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is conventional that a chief executive is the returning officer or acting returning officer for many elections, although I accept that that is not the case in all local authorities. Many local authorities also have electoral officers, but the person who performs the role of returning officer or acting returning officer is frequently the chief executive—I assume that the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and other parts of Scotland is the same as that in England. The amendment refers to local authorities, but if he examines the Electoral Commission's report, he will find that it refers to local returning officers, who may or may not be chief executives.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

I accept that explanation, but the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and has been a Member of the House for longer than me, so he knows that we must be specific when drafting legislation rather than assuming that those who will interpret a law in many years' time will refer back to an Electoral Commission report.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for once again entertaining us with his views on Scotland. He made the highly entertaining argument in Committee that Scotland should not be chosen as a pilot area because it has lots of students and farmland. He was challenged to name a region apart from London that did not have rural areas and was unable to do so. His latest argument is not only that Scotland should be excluded from a pilot area, but that any bit of land that touches Scotland should not be used as a pilot area. I want to take offence, but he has been so generous and courteous to me that I am sure his comments are in no way anti-Scottish.

The hon. Gentleman's idea is remarkable. Is voter confusion really so prevalent in those parts of England that border Scotland? I am happy to give way to him if he can tell me how many voters in Carlisle thought they had a vote in the Scottish Parliament elections in May this year, because that is what he is arguing. I can imagine the scene. Someone in Carlisle is watching Border television news and hears the announcement that a postal ballot is to be held in Scotland, so he says to his wife, "We must have a vote then", while she argues, "No, we live in England." The hon. Gentleman's new argument is up there with the idea that we should not give Scots a postal ballot because there are too many students in Scotland.

I am disappointed that the Electoral Commission decided that Scotland was not eligible or should not be chosen as a pilot area for an all-postal vote. I like to think that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister will give the Electoral Commission's proposals the serious consideration they deserve, but that they will, at the end of the day, make a judgment that is worthy of the House and the Government.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). I will not involve myself in the politics of the borders. As someone who represents a seat on the English side of the border, I am aware of the long history of antipathy between the two sides, which I am sure does not continue today.

I chide the hon. Gentleman for being nit-picking about amendment No. 8. Although it may not be 100 per cent. technically, I can let him into a little secret. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will not mind if I reveal that we will probably not win when we press the amendment to a vote. The purpose of the amendment is to have a serious debate on the views of local authorities. That is important. I hope that the Minister will help me with that when he responds.

One problem that local authorities face in the north-east, which will be a pilot area, is the cost of the operation. My district council of Tynedale and others in the region are small rural district councils. We do not have the staff or the ability to have the large-scale mailing that is required for the postal ballot. They will have to employ mailing houses, if that is possible bearing in mind the security implications, to do the job for them, which will be costly. We will not know about that in detail until the Electoral Commission pronounces on it, but the issue is important for local council tax payers in the north-east.

I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in what he said about the Electoral Commission. We set up such bodies, but all the Electoral Commission has done is bombard us with a huge number of expensively produced documents, which have made elections more complicated. What it is trying to do, and what it may succeed in doing, is to take the politics out of elections. People do not turn out to vote because they are turned off by politics and politicians. If we want people to vote in larger numbers, and we do, we have to make elections interesting.

I represent the only Conservative constituency in the north-east. The Labour party in the north-east thought that it should be a target and drafted everyone in. Ministers, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) had to dress up in red shirts and sit cross legged on a muddy pitch with the Deputy Prime Minister. The Labour party thought that it had a chance of getting my scalp. As you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it did not and I remain a Member of this place. The turnout in my constituency was the second highest in England, being more than 70 per cent. Other turnouts in the north-east were down to slightly more than 50 per cent. In Glasgow, it was less than 50 per cent. People will vote when there is a reason. They will go to the polling station if politics is made interesting.

My criticism of the postal voting system and of what the Electoral Commission is doing is that politics will be made more boring. In the north-east, we will have a job to stimulate interest in the European elections. The difficulty for the people of the north-east is that our campaign will be completely out of step with that of the national campaign. As the national campaign reaches a crescendo a day or two before polling day, our votes in the north-east will have been cast. People will receive their voting slips—I do not know when the Electoral Commission will rule on this—about 10 days, a fortnight, or three weeks before the election. They may decide to vote there and then, or they may decide to put the slip in the bin there and then. Later, as the national campaign starts, with television coverage, for example, they will start to become interested. They may then discover that they voted for the wrong party or that they threw their ballot paper away.

We shall have a lacklustre campaign because it will have no national backing. It will be an entirely local campaign. That may be satisfactory in local government elections but, while postal voting may encourage turnout, if our campaign in the north-east is not as exciting as the national campaign, that will discourage voting. I suspect that the net result will be little gain for the north-east of England.

I ask the Minister to ensure that proper assistance is given to local authorities, which will face difficulties. Will he please arrange, if possible, that individual voters can deliver their votes at the last minute rather than have to put them in the post several days in advance? That is the only thing that will give some of them an opportunity to see the national campaign come to a conclusion before they make up their minds for which party they should vote.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We have had a useful and thorough debate on the selection of regions. Before I address each amendment in turn relating to the selection of regions for elections pilots, I shall set out the Government's intentions, having now received the advice that we requested from the Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission was asked to recommend up to three regions or nations that might be able to pilot all-postal voting, and which of those regions would be most suitable to include an e-enabled element. It published its recommendations on 8 December, concluding that the north-east is most suitable, followed by the east midlands. The commission then ranked a number of other regions

"which could be potentially suitable"

but for which it felt unable to make a positive recommendation. Those regions, ranked in order of potential suitability, are Scotland, Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west and the west midlands. The commission concluded that the remaining regions are not suitable for a pilot in time for the June 2004 elections. Moreover, it recommended that the Government do not include an e-enabled element in any of the pilot schemes. The Government are immensely grateful to the commission for conducting such a thorough and sophisticated study on that issue, ranking the regions against the criteria.

I mentioned earlier in the debate our acceptance of the commission's recommendation not to proceed with any electronic voting on a regional scale in the June 2004 elections. We remain keen, however, to proceed with all-postal voting in three regions. In scaling up towards a multi-channel general election after 2006, we believe that pressing ahead with a wider range and variation of piloting provides the best opportunity to learn lessons and to develop capabilities in new electoral techniques. I can therefore announce that we intend to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east and the east midlands, and that we are also minded to proceed with all-postal voting in a third region or nation.

The commission has been helpful in saying that

"there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme."

The Government will consider in more detail each of the potential candidates with a view to announcing the location of the third all-postal pilot in the coming weeks. There are good grounds for further consideration of several suitable regions, and it is right not to rush into a decision on the third pilot, given the advice from the Electoral Commission. For example, although Scotland is well placed as a location for a pilot because it has no local elections, returning officers voiced reservations that require consideration. We therefore intend to discuss the issues raised by the Scottish returning officers with them over the coming weeks to see if their concerns can be ameliorated and any difficulties ironed out.

The Electoral Commission also took into consideration the preferences of returning officers in different parts of regions such as Yorkshire and the Humber and the north-west. Further scrutiny by my Department of those issues will now take place, so that we can conclude which third all-postal voting pilot will proceed. The Electoral Commission regards that as consistent with its report and recommendations. All-postal voting in the north-east, east midlands and a third region or nation will not only improve the turnout in those areas but give voters a more convenient method of expressing their democratic choice in the June elections. The Electoral Commission will report on the lessons learned from those pilots, so that in future those new opportunities can be rolled out on a wider scale.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend said about the north-east. A strong case was made on the basis of the numerous pilots that have already taken place in the region, and there will be a warm welcome for what he has said in regard to my local districts of Sunderland and Gateshead.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. She has campaigned hard for the north-east, and I am glad that we have been able to make that decision, subject to the legislation. She has been vociferously keen for that decision to be made.

John Robertson (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

I thank my hon. Friend for not excluding Scotland, but can he assure me that all 32 returning officers in Scotland will be approached and asked about its suitability for a postal ballot, rather than the decision being left to one person?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I said earlier, it is right to investigate further the findings and advice of the Electoral Commission about Scotland. It ranked Scotland highly as a suitable candidate, but was unable to make a positive recommendation. However, we want to have three pilots and, over the coming weeks, we shall seek the views of returning officers to see whether there is a substantive case for their nation or region, whether there are obstacles, and whether those problems are surmountable.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

The Minister cannot leave us hanging like this. Will he tell us which other electoral areas he is considering, and can he confirm that Scotland is now back in the frame as a pilot for all-postal voting? What is the time scale, as elections are now only a few months away? How quickly will we find out who will be next?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Soon.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, we hope to conclude soon which region or nation will be the third choice for our pilots. The decision has to be made relatively swiftly over the coming weeks, as I said. The Electoral Commission set out in its report which regions and nations are suitable, and we are proceeding in line with the nature and architecture of its advice, which is the right and proper way to proceed.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister obviously feels under pressure from the large number of Labour Back Benchers representing Scottish constituencies, but when he and his colleagues are considering their decision, will they bear in mind the fact that the Electoral Commission, a creature of his Government, said that the regional returning officer for Scotland has informed it that there is insufficient time available to put in place the necessary mechanisms to deliver an all-postal pilot in Scotland with any reasonable guarantee of success? We will strongly oppose any suggestion by the Government that Scotland would be appropriate, as it would fly in the face of that rejection by the regional returning officer.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I hope the hon. Gentleman will refrain from becoming too rhetorical on the matter. As I said, it is necessary now to investigate the views of the returning officers more thoroughly, as the Electoral Commission suggested in the report. May I correct a mistake that the hon. Gentleman made? It is not my Electoral Commission or the Government's Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to the House as a whole through the Speaker's Committee. I believe that it is widely respected and independent.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

My hon. Friend has presented himself with a dilemma—a judgment of Solomon. When he makes his judgment, will he consider carefully the advice from the Electoral Commission about the success of pilots conducted in the north-west of England, and in particular the diversity of that region, which makes it ideally suited for conducting continued pilots?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I said, all-postal voting may be possible in a number of other regions. We are considering the matter further, so that we can conclude in a proper and reasonable manner which region or nation should be the third choice. The advice in respect of the north-west, as in respect of Yorkshire and the Humber and in respect of Scotland, is clear in the Electoral Commission report, which we will consider as a matter of urgency.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

If, at the end of my hon. Friend's consultations with the regions and after investigating the merits of each case, he comes to the conclusion that more than three regions could go ahead, why should not four or possibly five be selected? Will he reconsider the total number if the criteria are met by more than three regions?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I understand the eagerness of many hon. Members for all-postal voting. The Electoral Commission recommended that eventually all local elections be all-postal. I am reluctant to move further than three regions or nations for all-postal ballots in the June 2004 elections, not just for practical administrative reasons, but for economic and budgetary reasons.

Patrick McLoughlin (Conservative, West Derbyshire)

I have caught most of the debate; I was not in the Chamber earlier. The Minister says that he is still considering Scotland. He asked the Electoral Commission to consider it. It said no. He told us that the Electoral Commission is independent, so will the decision be a political one?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman should have been in the Chamber listening to the debate throughout, like other hon. Members. Let me quote from page 4 of the Electoral Commission's report. The commission advises—incidentally, it does advise, and Government and Parliament decide—

"We believe that there are a number of other regions which could potentially be suitable for conducting an all-postal pilot scheme. However, we do not feel able to make a positive recommendation on their suitability following our assessment of them against the criteria."

It is that middle group that we will scrutinise in more detail, along the lines recommended by the commission.

Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

My hon. Friend mentioned that the local authorities in Scotland will be consulted before a firm decision is made about a postal vote in Scotland. May I offer him some help and tell him that all my colleagues on the Government Benches from Scottish constituencies would be more than willing to contribute to that consultation, if he is looking for advice from the representatives? I am sure that Members of Parliament from the Opposition Benches, including the Scottish National party, which supports the measure, would also be willing to meet the Minister to persuade him of the right course. I am sure that that would apply to every Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament as well.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I intend to make a decision relatively quickly on which third region or nation we wish to select. It is important that we have wide-ranging consultations, but I want to reach a decision relatively swiftly, and I hope that we will be able to make an announcement fairly quickly.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

rose—

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I wish to make further progress but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has not been present in the debate until recently, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Given that the Minister said that he is effectively overruling the clear advice of the Electoral Commission, is he asking the Electoral Commission to apply the same criteria to this repechage, and if so, how does he suppose the commission will come to a different conclusion? If he is not asking it to apply different criteria, why does he not say now that he will admit Scotland irrespective of its advice, so that everyone knows where they are?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We are genuinely considering the matter along the lines of the process followed by the Electoral Commission, which has recommended that there should be three all-postal pilot regions. Given that framework, who would suggest that we should do anything but investigate further the other regions that the commission said were potentially suitable, although it could not make a positive recommendation about them? That is a reasonable and practical way forward, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I think that the Minister is doing exactly the right thing—[Interruption.] Do not be surprised at my saying that. I feel a sense of bewilderment about why Scotland cannot technically proceed with a postal ballot if it meets many of the criteria. Is the postal service in Scotland so inadequate in comparison with postal services elsewhere that it could not deal with the ballot? I think that he is correct to examine the matter more fully and to satisfy himself. There is a lot of support for proceeding with Scotland as a pilot area if that is technically possible.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is perfectly possible that Scotland could have an all-postal pilot, as could a number of regions in England. It is important to look further into that matter along the lines suggested by the Electoral Commission, and that is precisely what I shall do in the coming weeks.

The amendments are similar to those tabled in Committee. I ask hon. Members to resist them, not least as they would jeopardise the proposal for all-postal voting in the north-east, the east midlands and a third region or nation. Amendment No. 8 would require three quarters of local authorities to consent to piloting. It would be wrong to pick an arbitrary threshold, as that would be convoluted and against the spirit of pressing forward with wider-scale piloting. It is true that the capacity and willingness of local authorities and returning officers are important, and we have considered those matters carefully. However, what is proposed is different from giving local authorities an effective veto over proceedings. It is in the national interest to scale up all-postal voting in order to improve access to democracy for the whole population. It would be inappropriate to allow local authorities to veto such plans.

The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) asked about funding. If we had had more time, I would have given an assurance that there would be no additional financial burdens on local authorities, as I did in Committee.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 would involve proceeding only where all the Electoral Commission criteria were fully satisfied. We have now indicated our interim decision, which is consistent with the advice given by the Electoral Commission, which indicated that it had no objection to our proposals for the north-east, the east midlands and a potential third area. Indeed, it provided its advice in ranked order to enable that precise way forward to be taken. The amendments are defective to the extent that they seem to regard the criteria as quasi-scientific, rather than as broader factors such as population and geographical size requiring consideration, which is how they must be considered.

In line with comments by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris), it would be wrong to alter the role of the Electoral Commission de facto by making it the decision maker rather than the adviser, as the amendments imply that it should be. It has given us advice, but it is for the Government to decide and to be accountable to Parliament for our decision.

Amendment No. 12 would allow pilots to occur in the region to be combined with Gibraltar—the Electoral Commission has recommended the south-west—and in London. As I said in Committee, there is added complexity in London because of the nature of the various local and mayoral electoral systems, which will require particular administrative effort in June. The south-west should not be eligible because of the special circumstances of any combination with Gibraltar, should that recommendation be adopted, given the new arrangements necessary for including voters from so far away. There has never before been integration of those electoral arrangements on such a scale. In any case, the Electoral Commission's separate consideration of the south-west indicated that that region is unsuitable for holding a pilot next year.

Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 would, strangely, exclude Scotland and anybody vaguely near it. No arguments of substance have been advanced in support of that ridiculous proposition. It would be perverse to penalise Scotland and its neighbouring regions by ruling them out and, particularly in the case of the north-east, it would go entirely against the recommendations of the Electoral Commission. We are reaching conclusions on the question of location. The recommendations of the Electoral Commission are important, and we are taking heed of its advice to work hard on identifying the third pilot area as soon as possible. I hope that the House will welcome the approach taken by the Government and reject the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief. The Minister has made it clear that, as we feared all along, the fix is going in. Despite the fact that the Electoral Commission did not recommend Scotland and that the regional returning officer said that it is clearly not ready, the Minister is foreshadowing his decision to bow to the strongly expressed views of Labour Back Benchers. Important issues are involved in our amendment No. 8 and Liberal Democrat amendment No. 6, to which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have added our names. I suspect that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will seek a separate Division on amendment No. 6. I seek to press amendment No. 8.

Clause 2 — Pilot Order

Clause 4 — Electoral Commission report

Michael Ancram (Conservative, Devizes)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. A remarkable piece of news is running on BBC television at the moment. It reports that the Prime Minister has revealed in an interview with the British Forces Broadcasting Service that there is massive evidence of systems of laboratories throughout Iraq that could have produced weapons of mass destruction. He has also talked about programmes for the building of intercontinental ballistic missiles. I raise this matter because although I understand that the statement is based on the Iraq survey group's interim report, it goes a good deal further than anything that the House has been told. If true, the news is very significant and the Prime Minister should surely have told the House before broadcasting it. Has the Prime Minister asked your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to come to the House and make a statement on the matter?

Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, these issues were extremely controversial, both before the commencement of military action against Iraq and during the hostilities. They have continued to be of controversy, not least given the inquiry being conducted by Lord Hutton. Is not it appropriate that the House of Commons should be advised about these matters before anyone else?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the points already made, can you confirm that Mr. Speaker has repeatedly ruled from the Chair that announcements such as this should be made to the House first? Can you therefore ask whether urgent inquiries can now be sent from this Chamber to No. 10 to determine whether the Prime Minister has spoken in the way suggested? If he has, can he be invited—very strongly—to come to the House of Commons promptly, in order that he may tell us what on earth is going on?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Obviously, the Chair knows nothing of these broadcasts or their content. The Chair can say that there has been no request from No. 10 for permission to make a statement. These are obviously serious matters, and they have been heard by Government Front-Bench Members. I remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is due to answer questions in this House tomorrow.

Order for Third Reading read.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Many hon. Members have contributed significantly during the Bill's passage through the House, especially by effective scrutiny in Committee. It is also worth commenting briefly on several other initiatives as we conclude the consideration of the Bill. First, I wish to put on record my appreciation of all members of the Committee, especially those who have also contributed to the debate today, for generating useful ideas and assisting the development of policy.

One example is the amendment that has just been agreed unanimously, to change the part of the Bill that relates to the definition of a voter or elector. The amendment was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and affects the terms as defined in the Representation of the People Act 2000. The change that has now been agreed will extend the duty of local authorities so that when assisting the Electoral Commission they may be required not only to assist in the ascertaining of the views of those who have actually voted, but those eligible to vote and who chose not to vote. A consequential change has also been made to the nature of the Electoral Commission's report. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion and I am glad that we have been able to accept it.

Members from all the parties who took part in the debate in Committee—the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish nationalists, as well as Labour Members—made several helpful suggestions about how the marked register or—in legal terms—the polling progress information should be piloted in the case of all-postal ballots. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to provide political parties and candidates with an electoral register marked to show who had cast their ballot in the all-postal process, to be provided prior to the close of poll. Amendments were tabled and the Government have been able to accept them. That is the right way forward.

My Department has been in contact with representatives of all the main political parties and electoral administrators about the form that a marked register should take and how it could practicably be produced. The conclusion was that it should not take the form of an electoral register marked to show those who have cast a ballot, but instead be provided as a list of those who have returned an envelope purporting to contain a ballot paper, thus enabling worries about human rights, secrecy and privacy to be overcome. Parties would then cross-reference the list with their own copies of the electoral register. That was the clear preference of all parties and the favoured mechanism of regional returning officers. The purpose of the change—which has now been made—is to state explicitly in the Bill the principle that the information will be provided and to make clear the obligation on electoral administrators.

The rationale behind this Bill is simple: we need to modernise our electoral systems so that the public as a whole can express their democratic choice more easily and conveniently. There has been much discussion recently about the levels of participation in our political process, reflecting the sense that the turnout at elections is too low and needs attention. While there are no doubt deeper undercurrents that create voter apathy or fatigue—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has mentioned some of them—some practical and achievable steps can be taken now to make the process of voting more amenable and suitable to modern ways of life.

I have announced today the Government's intention to extend the process, begun some time ago, of trialling new and innovative voting mechanisms, extending the scale now from the local to a regional level. All-postal voting is of benefit not just to those with difficulties physically getting to a polling station—those with disabilities or the elderly—but is of positive convenience to the wider population as well.

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

In Committee, the Minister assured me that we would see a dialogue between the Electoral Commission and the organisations that represent those with disabilities. Will he assure the House that he will take up any recommendations from the commission on people with disabilities?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I can assure the hon. Lady that we have continued that dialogue, not only with the Electoral Commission but with organisations representing disabled people and elderly people. A number of initiatives may need to be included in the pilot order; for example, in relation to a device to assist visually impaired people to vote. The debate on those matters, in which she took part, was useful in developing policy.

At the local election pilots so far undertaken, all-postal balloting ran at nearly 50 per cent. turnout, compared with an average of 33 per cent. where conventional arrangements applied. That illustrates the likely impact of the removal of some of the physical obstacles that lie between the voter and the ballot box. We propose to pilot all-postal voting in the north-east of England and the east midlands. I hope, too, that a third region or nation will be identified over the coming few weeks, following conclusion of the considerations advised of the Electoral Commission.

The Government recognise that all-postal voting is not a panacea for all the problems of voter participation in our democracy. Nevertheless, it is surely right to take steps where we can on practical and popular improvements to make voting more accessible and simpler. All of us in Parliament have an interest in ensuring that our democracy remains healthy and that elected representatives have a clear mandate from their constituents to act. The Bill represents an important step forward in that objective and I commend it to the House.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said on Second Reading, this is not a very good Bill. It is a bit of a mess. It started as a mess, and has been made worse by the Government's great surprise last week when they did not receive the response that they expected and wanted from the Electoral Commission. They did not receive the response they wanted on the number of regions; the commission recommended only two, not three. Indeed, the commission went further and said that there could be only one pilot region. On page 25 of its report of 8 December, the commission states:

"Should the Government be minded to provide for only one pilot scheme in 2004, the Commission recommends that it provides for an all-postal pilot in the North East."

Clearly, as we have been suggesting, the Government could end up with only one pilot region.

During the last substantive debate on amendments, the Minister gave the game away. As I said then, and as we feared when I wound up on Second Reading, it is clear that the fix will be put back. We expect that the Government will bow to the demands of all their Back Benchers who represent Scottish constituencies and announce that the region will be Scotland. If they do, they will be flying in the face of the Electoral Commission's recommendations. Not only has the regional returning officer said that he does not think that Scotland would be an appropriate place for a postal pilot—although the Minister chose to quote selectively from the commission's report—but the commission's conclusions are even more strongly against the idea.

Section 3.8 on page 26 of the report states:

"The Regional Returning Officer for Scotland has submitted to the Commission, on behalf of himself and all 31 Local Returning Officers, that: having carefully considered the opportunity to conduct an all-postal ballot for the European Election in June 2004, we"—

that is all the returning officers—

"have concluded that the success of an all-postal ballot cannot be guaranteed . . . Returning Officers feel that the lateness of the proposal and the difficulties which this brings to planning and contracting are significantly more important than many of the questions posed in the Consultation Paper.

This conclusion is based on very real fears that the necessary infrastructure, which would be required to support the process, cannot be delivered in time to ensure that the election could be conducted properly.

The risks are identified and commented upon in this response. We believe that these risks are cumulative and centre upon concerns over: the legislative timetable; the general lack of experience in Scotland of all-postal ballots; the lack of time available for forward planning; the recent busy electoral history in Scotland; issues relating to the security of the ballot; possible problems of delivery and return of ballot papers; the very significant staffing implications of an all-postal ballot; concerns about the ability of suppliers to deliver effectively; lack of time to test critical computer systems; and resources to plan for and deliver the election."

That is the regional returning officer for Scotland setting out his objections on behalf of all 31 local returning officers.

I wanted to put those comments on record on behalf of my party because those present earlier who listened to the contributions of some Scottish Members—who, perhaps significantly, have not stayed for Third Reading—might have got the impression that local returning officers took a different view from the regional returning officer. It is made absolutely clear in the report of the Electoral Commission—which the Government set up—that the regional returning officer was writing on his behalf and on that of all 31 local returning officers. If the Government were to go ahead and soon or quickly—as the Minister variously put it—announce that Scotland was suitable, they would be flying in the face of all those detailed objections. I do not overstate the case by saying that the Opposition would regard that as a constitutional outrage and a recipe for disaster.

The Electoral Commission therefore concludes, in the light of all those factors, that those issues remain unresolved and must be addressed before any decision to designate Scotland a pilot region. We are talking about elections in June 2004, so there is no way that all those serious concerns could possibly be addressed in time.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

indicated dissent.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

If the Minister thinks otherwise, I would be interested to hear shortly how that can be done. If he wants to set out how he would answer all those detailed bullet points, I will take an intervention.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's excitement but surely it is worth looking into the points raised by the returning officers further to see whether they can be overcome. Is that not reasonable?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, because the Government set up the Electoral Commission. I agree respectfully with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said about commissions and I will say more in a moment. If the commission does not give the answer that the Government want and expect, they seek to undermine it and go back on its recommendations. We are talking about an election in only six months' time. The Electoral Commission, all the returning officers and the regional returning officer say clearly that these matters cannot be dealt with in time, and they say it, if I may say so, in spades.

The Minister conceded finally that everything that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said about e-voting in Committee and on Second Reading was correct. The Electoral Commission has supported us, and the Government have had to abandon their previous obsession with so-called e-voting. Unfortunately, they have not abandoned their other obsession with so-called modernisation. Today, the Minister added a further abuse of the English language with what he described as a multi-channel general election after 2006. I do not know what that neologism is supposed to mean. Whatever it is, I suspect that Conservative Members will dislike it intensely. I am getting almost to the stage at which when I hear a Minister—he is one of the worst offenders—trot out yet again their dreary mantra of modernisation I want to reach for a revolver or a sick bag.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Perhaps the Minister had in mind reality elections, in which all the candidates go into some horrible room, and people are invited to telephone in and throw them out one by one.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That reminds me of the old-fashioned balloon debate in a university or school debating society, in which people would vote to decide who should be thrown out. We know that every time the Prime Minister has a reshuffle he indulges in a political version of the balloon debate in deciding who has been slavishly loyal enough to stay in the Government's balloon and who must be thrown out. It is the same with modernisation as with some of the Government's other obsessive buzzwords such as "sustainability". The Government believe that anything that is old must be bad. Conservatives, however, believe in our parliamentary and electoral traditions. We say that the reason that they are old and have survived is that they work—they are tried, tested and true. We strongly agree with the basis of the Electoral Reform Society's concerns about the Bill, which they have repeated before Third Reading to assist all hon. Members. It clearly has great concerns about issues such as the misuse of postal ballots in houses in multiple occupation and student halls of residence, and even cases in which the head of a household could purport to vote on behalf of everybody in that household.

I hope that the my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will acquit me of what he called nauseating sycophancy towards the Electoral Commission, because I strongly agree with him that the Government keep setting up such commissions, which is a recipe for constant flux. Once there is a commission, it will always make recommendations and it will always want to change things. It would be far better if we said that the reason why our electoral traditions have survived is because they work.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made several important points, which I shall touch on because they are equally relevant to Third Reading. The Opposition believe that the decline in turnout for European elections, which the Government are concerned about, is at least partly because of the introduction of the party list system under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, which abolished first-past-the-post voting in European elections.

In our view, the decline is also because of the centralising, remote and bureaucratic process of further and deeper European integration. Perhaps the fact that last weekend's European Commission summit to try to draw up a new European constitution collapsed is a welcome sign that the European position is now collapsing under the weight of its own inadequacies and internal inconsistencies. There is certainly the problem that issues to do with further European integration will undermine trust and respect in the political system, and a referendum on any future constitution that may emerge from any future summit will be absolutely essential. We believe that we should return to first-past-the-post voting in European elections. If that were the Government's proposal today, instead of all the nonsense in the Bill, it would increase turnout in European elections, which the Government say is the object of the exercise.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke on Second Reading, he drew attention to the fact that the European Scrutiny Committee—which has a Labour majority and is a chaired by a Labour Member, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood)—urged the House to reintroduce first-past-the-post voting for European elections. We sought to introduce such a proposal in Committee. First past the post is the only system that maintains the immediate link between a representative and his or her constituency. That is particularly important now that we have these enormous, so-called European regions, which may have up to 6 million voters.

The evidence on all-postal voting is mixed. In some areas, it has undoubtedly increased turnout, which is why we have not, as a party, opposed all the Government's proposals for all-postal voting. When examining the Bill, it is right to point out that the evidence is contradictory. In the Hackney all-postal pilot, turnout actually fell by 3 per cent., and in Greenwich it dropped by 0.4 per cent. Some of the postal pilots have not worked well even to increase turnout, which the Government say that they want to do.

Our concerns about fraud and the dangers of personation remain. As the Electoral Reform Society has said, the chances of large-scale fraud are now back with us for the first time in 130 years—for the first time since the ballot reforms in 1872, there is serious concern about large-scale fraud. If the Government had not dropped their e-voting pilot plans this afternoon, we would be even more concerned that there would be large-scale attempts to distort a ballot by hacking into insecure computer systems. I am glad that the Government have belatedly listened to us and the Liberal Democrats and dropped those proposals.

Many senior police officers—some of whom I have spoken to—including Detective Chief Superintendent Dave Churchill, the head of West Midlands police major fraud unit, remain concerned that postal voting systems have too few major checks or controls to ensure that the true identity of the voter can be relied upon. The Bill contains too little protection for the security of the ballot, which is why we tabled amendments to provide for greater protection.

The security of the postal system gives rise to several questions and it might be relevant to mention the strange saga on which I briefly touched earlier. Although I have received hard copies of most Electoral Commission documents in good time by post, there was one that I did not receive, so I had to get it from the helpful people in the Library. Perhaps I did not receive it because of the pressures on the Christmas post, but if even a shadow Minister cannot get a hard copy of a relevant document in time for a debate, despite the fact that it was issued a week before, how can we be certain that the postal system will be able to run an effective all-postal ballot in an area as large as a European constituency?

My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) expressed worry about potential problems in rural parts of north-east England such as his constituency. If the north-east is selected for all-postal pilots—the Government are likely to accept the Electoral Commission's recommendations on that—the area might be out of synchronisation with the rest of the national campaign. Problems such as the way in which the media will cover the election are set out in the commission's report and despite the fact that the north-east and midlands have been recommended for pilots, it does not say that all the problems have been solved.

I agree with the worries expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham and for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). There should be more delivery points in the postal system. Given that the Bill will impose all-postal pilots on local authorities that might not wish to participate, it is important for there to be delivery points in each local government ward so that people who wish to vote by post will be able to drop off their ballot envelopes by hand in a secure location that is convenient for them. There is a danger that there might be strike action by Post Office workers, which has happened throughout the country in recent months and years, so there are genuine worries about the reliability of the postal service. Indeed, militant unions could regard the fact that an election depended on the postal service as a good excuse to try to blackmail the Government of the day, which would cause a real problem.

We are also worried that, according to Postwatch, figures that were issued at the end of January 2001, an average of 1,500 items of mail are lost every week across every parliamentary constituency. I received a letter in the post only today from a constituent with whom I correspond regularly. She said that she wrote to me during the last postal dispute in London, but I have not received her letter. That situation confirms the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster cited earlier.

We did not have time to discuss amendment No. 26 because of the earlier Divisions. Conservative Members believe that the Government should make it clear that local authorities will be fully funded for all the costs of all-postal elections. Many small local authorities, such as those in my area and Tynedale council, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, are in danger of being left seriously out of pocket because the Government keep loading more obligations on such authorities without providing the funds to pay for them.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The hon. Gentleman is raising several perfectly reasonable concerns about the practicality of all-postal ballots, but the stuff about people being open to blackmail from militant trade unions is grossly offensive to postal workers. What is the difference between his argument and the situation if people were to refuse to deliver polling cards or man polling stations? He is going into the realms of fantasy.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but let us wait and see what happens when we have the all-postal pilots. The situation for polling cards is different. All hon. Members will be familiar with canvassing electors who say that they have not received their polling cards. Under the traditional system, we tell them that they can go to the polling station because if they can prove their name and address, the officials will accept that and give them a ballot paper. However, if ballot papers are delivered only through the post, electors who do not receive them will be deprived of their right to vote.

Although we have tried to improve the Bill and the Government have belatedly accepted several of the things that we said—we welcome the changes that they have made—we remain worried about it. We do not think that it will improve elections. In the light of what the Minister said about ignoring some of the Electoral Commission recommendations and proceeding with three pilots instead of two, we believe that we are right to mark our disapproval by voting against Third Reading.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

There are times when Governments need to introduce legislation in haste because of events. It is rarely good legislation. A habit is forming in the Department for Constitutional Affairs that also existed in its predecessor, of introducing legislation in haste when there is no need and when they have failed to predict or accommodate within their legislative plans the deadlines determined by the electoral timetable. This is one of those occasions. Nevertheless, our consideration of the Bill, especially in Committee, has been good. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House who were involved in that, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Southport (Dr. Pugh). He has sat patiently waiting to contribute to the debate and I hope that he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Progress has been made. The Government accepted my amendment No. 4, which they took over and called their own by adding the Minister's name to those who tabled it. I thank him for that because it improves the Bill. I am also grateful for his consideration of marked registers, which we pursued in Committee. He has accepted that they are in the interests of all parties and his proposal for them is sensible.

I am grateful to the Electoral Commission for knocking on the head the idea of a mixed all-postal and electronic election. We still have grave concerns about the efficacy of voting by electronic means and the avoidance of fraud. Those concerns have been strengthened rather than eliminated by the Electoral Commission. I am glad that the Minister has ruled out mixed voting for the pilots.

I wanted us to make more progress on fraud, personation and so on. The commission's proposals are good and need to be implemented. Although the Minister gave us vague assurances, they will be considered further in another place. The key concern for many people is whether the integrity of the ballot is maintained in all-postal elections. That is not only a problem for houses in multiple occupation. In general, there is a problem with the secrecy of the ballot and the ways in which it is more likely to be subject to malpractice than voting in person.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on people with disabilities. I hope that that work will continue and bear fruit so that everyone is properly involved in our electoral process.

There are some key problems. I have said all along that I am not intrinsically against novel forms of voting. There are cases for exploring ways of making the voting process better and more accessible to our electorate, but that process must be beyond challenge and reproach. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) nods, but I disagree with his argument that the Electoral Commission has no role to play. We need a degree of external arbitration on what is beyond reproach if Ministers are to introduce proposals for the House to consider, as they have done. In this case, they have decided that the north-east and east midlands should hold the pilots. I do not accept the premise behind the Bill, but I do accept that recommendation. If that is the conclusion of the Electoral Commission, those areas should hold the pilots.

The Minister is not satisfied with that. He wants a third region. As I said, if he is not changing the criteria that the Electoral Commission uses, it is bound to come to the same conclusion. In that case, he will have to override its decision for his own reasons, which he must give. If, on the other hand, he had accepted our amendment, he could have asked the Electoral Commission to do more work in those areas to ascertain whether it could come to a positive recommendation. The right approach would have been to say, "When you come forward with a positive recommendation for a third region, we shall adopt it, but we must have that recommendation."

In the present circumstances, the Minister will do far better by just accepting the runner up, as it were—Scotland—and be done with it. Any other solution that the Minister comes forward with will be unacceptable. It will appear to be a gerrymander, whether it is or not and that is the problem that the Minister faces.

I have not entirely supported the Bill. My colleagues and I opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. We do so because we do not believe that there should be pilots on such a scale in a national election. It is a sensible and reasoned proposition that when there is a national election or an international election, in the case of European elections, every voter in the country should be voting on the same basis, not with some voters in full possession of the facts as they are elicited during the election campaign and some not. Some electors should not have easier access to the ballot than others. There should be consistency. That is our key objection to the proposal. What the Minister said in the course of our considerations has not changed that fact. For that reason I recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends oppose the Bill on Third Reading.

Joyce Quin (Labour, Gateshead East and Washington West)

I welcome the Bill and I shall briefly explain why. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the way in which he has presented the Government's case throughout our proceedings, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee.

I naturally wish to express my pleasure that the north-east has been recommended by the Electoral Commission as one of the pilot regions, and that the Minister has accepted that recommendation, which reflects the scale of the pilots at local elections that we have already conducted in the north-east. I think I am right in saying that the north-east is the only region where more than half the local authorities have already been involved in all-postal pilots.

The experiments have been extremely successful. Returning officers and others who have been involved in conducting such elections have not encountered the problems and genuine fears—I accept that they are genuine—that have been expressed by a number of Members during our proceedings. I accept that with all-postal elections candidates conduct themselves and campaigns are run in a somewhat different way. However, in our local experiments it has been possible to cast one's vote right up to the last day either at the civic centre or at some other designated point. It is true that even with all-postal ballots it is possible to vote fairly late in the proceedings.

I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the difference in the national campaign when compared with others. However, we must recognise that local elections are often affected by national issues. Some issues that are relevant at local elections are relevant to local authorities throughout the country—issues relating to council tax, for example. They may be similar from one local authority area to another even though a particular local authority may be participating in a pilot and another local authority with similar issues may not. I do not think those obstacles are insuperable. If we were talking, as I hope we shall be, about rolling out on a more extensive scale, we would have to think of the consequences in terms of campaigning overall.

I reaffirm how popular the experiment in my area has been with voters. In parts of my area we have had the experiments now for three consecutive years. Like all Members at local election time, I canvas, knock on doors, and speak to people on the doorstep. The reaction to postal voting has been extremely positive, and I do not believe that we should stick with a traditional way of voting just for the sake of it. Many people, particularly in households where both partners are working, have stressed the fact that the all-postal system fits much better with their lifestyle. Of course, people may know in advance that they are going to find it difficult to get to the polling station, perhaps because both partners are working, or because they work long or unsocial hours. At the same time, my constituents warmly welcome an automatic entitlement to a postal vote. In parts of my constituency, people are used to the postal system, which they have used for three consecutive years, so there would be resentment if we went back to what they consider an old-fashioned and less convenient way of voting.

For all those reasons, I am very pleased indeed that the north-east was selected as a pilot for the experiment. I agree that we need to learn from our experience and evaluate carefully what happens in the elections, but I encourage the Government to think innovatively about voting systems. They should not be deflected by the doom and gloom that we have heard in our proceedings, because in my experience it is not borne out by reality.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I have listened with great interest to the debate. When our debates started this afternoon, I was opposed to the Bill in principle because of my experience in the most recent local elections of the postal ballot pilot in Havering, which threw up a range of difficulties. I hoped that, during the debate I would gain confidence that those difficulties could be overcome, but having heard Members' contributions, I remain opposed to the Bill.

The pilot in Havering threw up problems with the postal service, such as the non-receipt by electors of ballot papers and the difficulties of getting duplicates. In Havering, the one-envelope system was a particular problem, because a lot of electors resented having to put their declaration of identity in the same envelope as their ballot paper on the grounds of lack of confidentiality. The person who opened the envelope could link the ballot paper to the elector's identity, which was wholly unsatisfactory. There was also the problem of finding out whether completed ballot papers had been received at the town hall. A significant number of voters contacted me to ask how they could be certain that the town hall had received their ballot paper. In fact, there is no way of knowing. If we acknowledge the large amount of post that goes astray every year, we must assume that a certain proportion of ballot papers do not reach their destination.

In principle, an all-postal ballot is a bad thing, because it removes choice from the elector. Anybody who wants a postal vote can have one. In the past, it has been necessary to give a reason, such as going on holiday, work commitments or illness. Now, however, anybody who wishes to vote by post can do so if they submit an application. Nobody is therefore denied a postal vote if they want one.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.