European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

House of Commons, 30 March 2004.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move, That this House insists in its disagreement to Lords amendment 1F to Commons amendment 1C, but proposes an amendment in lieu thereof.

The House of Commons continues to believe that four regions must be included in the Bill, and that these regions should be the north-east, the east midlands, Yorkshire and the north-west. Earlier this afternoon, the House of Lords voted by a narrow margin to yet again prevent convenient all-postal voting in the north-west of England. Their Lordships voted by only 136 to 130 votes to drop the north-west from the proposals put by the Government and the House of Commons.

It is worth noting that the majority of Cross-Bench peers voting this afternoon voted with the Government against the peculiar alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Interestingly, there is a majority among life peers in favour of keeping the north-west in a list of four regions. The Government were defeated on that occasion by the votes of the hereditary peers.

Let us not forget that the House of Commons has voted for four regions on four separate occasions already—on 8 March, 16 March, 24 March and yesterday, 29 March. Four times the House has expressed its view. There is no doubt about the decision by elected Members of Parliament.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister continues to speak of the House of Commons, without recognising the fact that he is speaking about only his own party. As I have pointed out to him, independent commentators have said that important matters concerning elections, such as this, should be agreed between the parties. The Government should not involve the other place in a battle when there is no all-party consensus on what they are trying to ram through.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman clearly has a different understanding of our democracy if he thinks that we should have unanimity among all parties on all matters. The House of Commons makes its decisions on the basis of the majority of votes. We are accountable to our constituents for the decisions that we make, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The House of Lords has powers to revise and amend, which it often uses with authority and experience. On the Bill, we have listened to many of the Lords' concerns. We have conceded, for example, on the declaration of identity, which some of my hon. Friends will remember. We have allowed that provision to be in the Bill, so it is not the case that we have been unwilling to listen or to revise the Bill. The time has come for the House of Commons to make sure that it can assert its view, and we have decided to ensure that all four regions have the opportunity of all-postal voting in June.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

Is it not peculiar that the Conservative party is enunciating a new doctrine, whereby the will of the House of Commons should not prevail if only the government party emphasises that will? In view of the fact that the Conservative party railroaded the Single European Act through on a guillotine and the poll tax through with only its support, when did that new constitutional doctrine arise? The Conservative spokesman who advocates the new doctrine may want to go to the House of Lords pretty soon himself.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It would be somewhat cruel to exacerbate the Conservative spokesman's difficulties on the latter point, but it is odd that the Conservative party has scraped the barrel to the extent that it is resorting to requesting unanimity on such issues. The Conservative spokesman feels that that is the way to proceed, but the majority of elected hon. Members in this House disagree with him, and quite right too.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

In a previous debate in which the democratic House was attempting to have a democratic say on how we run our democracy, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to speculate on why both main Opposition parties seem hellbent on making it as inconvenient as possible to vote. Has he had a chance during the intervening period to speculate further on why we are experiencing such resistance from those who may be afraid of high turnouts?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The fear of high turnouts may well be a reason for the resistance. The alliance between the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats is peculiar. The phrase "liberal democracy" rings hollow when one thinks that the Liberal Democrats are happy to use and abuse the powers of the other place. Although the Liberal Democrat party is a minority party in this House, it wants to abuse the majority power in the other place to thwart the view of the democratically elected majority in this place.

Peter Pike (Labour, Burnley)

If one examines the Chamber this evening, the majority of Labour Members represent constituencies in the north-west, whereas few, if any, Opposition Members who represent constituencies in the north-west are present. We want to maximise turnout in the election to enable as many people as possible to vote, and we therefore support the inclusion of the north-west in the pilots.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend is right, and he knows that he is accountable to his constituents for the decisions that he takes. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is one of the few remaining north-west Opposition Members on the Back Benches, and he may speak for the Conservatives in the north-west, but I hope that he recognises that we are entering uncharted constitutional waters.

Today, the exchanges between both Houses have matched the current record for disagreements, and if peers in the other place were to resist the fifth decision by the Commons, they would overturn the will of the elected House in a completely unprecedented way, taking our constitution into uncharted waters in a manner not seen since detailed records began after the second world war. Can the hon. Gentleman justify the other place's abuse of its powers?

George Osborne (Conservative, Tatton)

The Minister says that 130 peers supported the Government in the vote in the House of Lords. Can he tell me how many Labour peers and how many Cross-Bench peers are in the House of Lords? If this is uncharted constitutional territory, the least the Labour Whips in the Lords could do is get their troops out.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

An awful lot of Conservative peers did not vote in the Division in the other place. It is interesting that the vote is becoming closer and closer as they realise that their argument for overturning this House of Commons becomes weaker and weaker. The time has now come for the other place and Opposition Members to recognise that they have tested the boundaries of revision and amendment to their limits. Their activities are becoming obstructive and vexatious. I hope that the House will now recognise that the issues are immensely simple. This is a matter of judgment as to which regions we pick to pilot all-postal voting in the June elections. We feel, and this House of Commons believes, that four regions are best.

Sylvia Hermon (UUP, North Down)

May I make a suggestion to the Minister that is genuinely intended to be helpful? Vote stealing is a very serious offence from which we in Northern Ireland have suffered for generations. To their credit, this Government introduced the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, a wonderful piece of legislation that was taken through, to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, by the Minister for Work, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne). That Act included specific identifiers to eradicate fraud in relation to postal voting. Will the Minister take it away—I will give him my copy—to see whether he can engage in some joined-up thinking with the Northern Ireland Office to reassure those of us who are genuinely concerned about postal voting giving rise to fraud that the identifiers that were used so successfully in Northern Ireland could be used in the north of England?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Lady makes a constructive offer: I will certainly take her copy from her after the debate. We have already made several changes to the Bill to improve our ability to counter fraud and malpractice. Our amendment not only reasserts that four regions are best, but helps to bolster still further the anti-fraud measures in the Bill by specifying that the declaration of identity accompanying the ballot paper must advise the voter that the ballot paper should be completed outside the presence of any other person, or, in the case of voters who require assistance—for example, those with visual impairment—only in accordance with the advice that we will provide to returning officers. Yet again, the amendment improves anti-fraud measures. It underlines our determination to combat malpractice, reiterates our belief in the secrecy of the private act of casting a vote, and supplements the myriad anti-fraud measures that we have already put in place.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

This has nothing to do with fraud, as we have been given no evidence whatsoever that fraud will increase as a result of postal voting, nor any details of prosecutions arising from the alleged fraud that we are told about. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is more to do with saving the skins of Liverpool Liberal Democrat councillors than the democratic process?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I cannot fathom why the Opposition parties have joined together in this strange way—we can only speculate on their motives. I now feel very strongly that all-postal voting is no more prone to fraudulence than conventional voting. We have been given no evidence for that—for example, a record of more convictions having occurred under all-postal voting in the pilots that have taken place than occurred under the conventional arrangements. Opposition Members have been grasping at straws to find reasons to oppose making voting more convenient. We want to make voting easier because we know that there are difficulties with turnout, particularly in local and European elections, and we are simply proposing that we find a way to ensure that we improve engagement in our democratic process. That is why we picked the four regions.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

I am sorry to disturb my hon. Friend again. One can completely respect the views advanced by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). However, although the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats talk about the potential for fraud, the Lords reasons say nothing whatever about it. What is more, the Lords reasons changed all the time. When the provision was sent back to us two weeks ago, the Lords reason for rejecting it was

"Because is appropriate to make provision for no more than two pilot regions, as recommended by the Electoral Commission."

However, their reason for doing so today is

"Because it is appropriate to pilot postal voting in three rather than four regions."

The House of Lords is equalling the Liberal Democrats' hypocrisy—that is a massive achievement.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As usual, my right hon. Friend has his eye on the detail. He is right that fraud did not appear in the reasons on this occasion. We have been reasonable with the other place and responded to their worries about fraud and malpractice. We have bent over backwards to make changes to the Bill, including the concession that has disappointed many of my hon. Friends. They are disappointed about the inclusion of the declaration of identity to be a witness to the signature. The Electoral Commission advised that we should move towards a single signature arrangement. However, we made the concession, which proves that we have tried our best to listen to some of the more reasonable objections from the other place.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

rose—

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The partisan decision of Opposition parties to persist with preventing the House of Commons from having its way is ridiculous, and the hon. Gentleman's words will probably prove that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister suggests that there is no evidence of a risk of fraud. However, he has often been reminded by me and other hon. Members of the Electoral Reform Society's views about the Bill. It has repeatedly said to all hon. Members who are involved that the risk of large-scale fraud now exists for the first time in more than 100 years.

Since we are considering clarity, will the Minister respond to the challenge that I have issued three times to the Government to publish all the letters that the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers sent to the Electoral Commission? We have seen the Electoral Commission's letters but we have not seen the Deputy Prime Minister's threatening letters. Will the Minister publish them?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman will find letters from the Government to the Electoral Commission in the Library. I am sure that he will be delighted to read them. He is grasping at straws because he simply cites the views of others rather than producing hard evidence of malpractice. Has he offered the House details of prosecutions and convictions? Where is the hard evidence? He has anecdote, hearsay and allegations but no evidence that all-postal voting is any more prone to fraudulence than conventional arrangements. We have dealt firmly and completely with the argument about fraud.

The arguments are now focusing on what the public prefer. They want the opportunity for all-postal voting. They clearly expressed that by voting in greater numbers in places where we piloted the scheme in local elections. We have the resources for four regions to do that. We know that the regional returning officers desperately want all-postal voting and that they want a decision to be made now. They would face a considerable challenge if the Conservative and Liberal Democrat alliance forced them to go back on their preparations, find the polling stations in the new ward boundaries that the boundary changes have created and recruit the staff to conduct the elections. It would be a considerable challenge if the north-west were forced to revert to a conventional arrangement. I hope that Conservative Members and Liberal Democrat Members will reconsider and reflect on the fact that the House—reasonably but determinedly—wants to ensure that four regions are included in the Bill.

Important principles are at stake. Of course, there is a wider question about the elected House of Commons making decisions. However, it is also important that, having thoroughly examined all the aspects of the Bill and made concessions when necessary, we have the opportunity to take forward the decision that the provision for four regions is right. I hope that hon. Members will agree that it is time to settle the matter.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Will the Minister give way?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

No, it is now time to make a decision and insist on our disagreement with the Lords amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister still does not recognise the fatal weakness in the Government's case, which is that as recently as 16 December, on this same Bill, the Government said not once or twice but many times that they only intended there to be three pilot regions. As we know, the Electoral Commission originally recommended only two. The Government said that they intended to bring forward plans for a third, and they said it not once but many times. Then, suddenly, out of the blue, only five days after this Minister said that he intended to bring forward plans for a third region, they announced that they wanted there to be four. They wanted the whole of England north of the Trent to be chosen, and, for their partisan party political reasons, all of the areas that face referendums later on regional government. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister has been so obsessed by this matter.

The Government have had the benefit of the advice of their Electoral Commission—they set it up. As my noble Friend Baroness Hanham said:

"The Opposition did not set up the Electoral Commission—the Government did. They had a long report from it, part of which said that it thought that it would be suitable for two European electoral regions to be part of the electoral pilot".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 856.]

We have had this debate many times. This is about round eight of the contest. One thing has changed, which is that the Government are finding it difficult to get their own peers out to support their policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) pointed out, with the decreased majority in the other place, had the Government managed to get all the Labour peers to vote earlier, the result might have been different. I understand that it is difficult for the Government to get their own peers to support much of their policy, not just on this Bill but on many other matters. If the Government's problem is not so much the battle between the two Houses but their whipping in the other place, that really is serious.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

Can the hon. Gentleman clarify what the Opposition's position is on this issue? He seems to be saying that the Electoral Commission should decide which election system should be used in each election. If that is the case, he seems to be overriding the responsibility of the House of Commons to make the final decision. Can he clarify why he believes that it is acceptable to run a pilot in the north-west for regional government, but it is not acceptable to use it for the European Parliament and local elections?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman is making the same sort of mistake that the Minister made a few moments ago. He is talking about the Electoral Commission's recommendations as if the Electoral Commission had not given compelling reasons in its report, repeated by the chairman of the Electoral Commission as recently as in his letter of 24 March, as to why its concerns about the north-west remain strong. The Government set up the Electoral Commission. They are saying in terms, several times, as we debated last night, that their views about the north-west have not changed.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman is again repeating something that is not in the Electoral Commission's report, as he and other Opposition Members did yesterday. Let me quote to him the executive summary of the Electoral Commission's report on this issue—[Interruption.] He should just listen to this:

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

Where in that quote does the commission rule out an all-postal pilot in the north-west?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

May I quote again to the hon. Gentleman, as I did yesterday, —he obviously was not listening—the letter from the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Mr. Sam Younger:

"The considerations as set out in our December report regarding the north-west have not changed. For the reasons set out in my letter of 4 March, we are not persuaded of the merits of piloting in four regions."

All that the other place is doing is sticking to what the Electoral Commission says—turning down the north-west, and keeping to three regions, not four.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

The hon. Gentleman is not standing up tonight to say that he wants to stick to what the Electoral Commission recommended, according to his version of what it recommended. That was the position two weeks ago, but the House of Lords has sent back this amendment saying that it is appropriate to have three tests. How can he shift now? Well, I know how—it is because that argument has been snatched away from him, just as his seat is about to be snatched away from him.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been following every stage of the procedure. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, the Bill has been amended since the earlier stage.

We have sought, in another place, to be reasonable with the Government. We have offered them what the right hon. Gentleman's own Minister was putting forward as recently as 16 December in debates on the Bill. At that time the Government were saying—not once, not twice, but many times—that they wanted three regions. It is the right hon. Gentleman's party that has changed its preference from three regions to four, and that is one of the reasons why the other place is so determined to stick to its view.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman one last time.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

The hon. Gentleman and I have sat through debates on the Bill on a number of occasions. On each occasion, he has made great play of allegations of fraud in the north-west. I told him yesterday that Lancashire constabulary had said there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the very elections to which he had alluded. In fact one allegation of fraud is outstanding in the north-west—against a Liberal Democrat in a traditional ballot. Where now is the hon. Gentleman's argument against an all-postal ballot in the north-west?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday, if he wants evidence he need only read the speeches of Lord Greaves, an expert on elections. His views are set out in great detail.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

But an even stronger point is that, having expressed its fears, the Electoral Commission—

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

Order. Members seeking to intervene must not remain standing for any length of time if the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I was responding to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). The Electoral Commission expressed its fear that any allegations that might be proceeded with might coincide with the elections. As recently as 23 March, the commission has said that those considerations have not changed. The hon. Gentleman does not have to agree with its judgment; all I am saying is that I do.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

As the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, he should perhaps reflect on what he has said. He suggested that speeches by Lord Greaves constituted evidence. How on earth can that be so?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman may not agree with Lord Greaves, who represents a different party in another place. I have simply said that I have read the noble Lord's speeches, and they strike me as a pretty compelling argument. The fact that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with them does not mean that his judgment is any better than the noble Lord's.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have listened to the debate, and while there are good and sound arguments on both sides, does my hon. Friend not think that it is the action of a knave to deride opinions held sincerely by people who disagree with those arguments? Some Conservative Members who have fought many elections believe that merely making voting more convenient is not the way to generate a greater and more genuine interest in politics. Does my hon. Friend not agree that a more genuine interest in politics is very much part of this argument?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. What I particularly object to is the attitude of Labour Members who, if they do not agree with an argument, seek to deride it rather than listening to it and considering it in a mature way.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) has said, there are no outstanding cases of electoral fraud in the north-west as a result of postal ballots, and if the hon. Gentleman now accepts—as I assume he does—that three pilots would be acceptable, what possible objection can he have to a fourth?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman, who used to be a Minister, knows that his Government set up this Electoral Commission, and it has not changed its mind. However well I may get on with the hon. Member for Leigh, I will not necessarily prefer his opinion to that of the Electoral Commission, on the north-west or anything else. We must be guided by the experts in the Electoral Commission that the Government set up. We are not going to make much progress if Government Back Benchers want only to deride other opinions. I take the view that the other place is absolutely right to stick to its guns, and I hope that it continues to do so. We welcome the fact that the Government have made another small concession towards greater security of the poll, but we are certain that we are right to stick to three electoral regions. I hope that the other place also continues to do so.

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

It is sad that we have gone back to having a slanging match, when what is needed is some cool thought and cool persuasion of the House of Lords to act sensibly in this matter.

We have now reached a position whereby returning officers in the north-west region will face almost impossible difficulties. In the past, most of them have been able to organise general elections efficiently with relatively short notice, and I am sure that they have been preparing since Christmas for an all-postal ballot. Both of those tasks can be managed perfectly efficiently.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

rose—

Andrew Bennett (Labour, Denton and Reddish)

Let me develop my argument a little further.

Unfortunately, if the Lords hold to their proposals, we are now going to have a hybrid. Everyone has the chance to go to a polling station, but many people in the north-west will be annoyed that the House of Lords has thwarted their opportunity to have a postal ballot automatically. What will they then do? They will apply, as they have every right to do, for a postal vote over the next six or seven weeks. Instead of most people going to the polling station and just 3 or 4 per cent. voting by post, anything up to 25 or 30 per cent. of people will apply for postal votes. That will produce circumstances that are extremely difficult for returning officers to cope with. All the polling stations have to be in place, but so will most of the postal mechanisms, producing the worst of all worlds.

Conservative Members say that they are concerned about fraud. There may have been some fraud with postal votes, but the fraud has been in the traditional, not the experimental areas, and has affected a relatively small number of votes. It might have been better to take earlier action to reduce the possibility of such fraud. As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, steps were taken in Northern Ireland to achieve that, but it is not an option at this particular moment. My plea to the House of Lords is to make certain that we can have an all-postal ballot, which can be supervised as efficiently as any other system to reduce fraud.

As it stands now, people can apply for a postal vote to be sent to any named address. That makes it possible for people to collect such votes, which they should not be doing. Under an all-postal vote, however, those votes go to the address on the electoral register, which provides a very important safeguard. In fact, an all-postal ballot makes an election safer and less likely to result in fraud than one in which law-abiding citizens are put to the inconvenience of having to go to the polling station, when those who want to perpetrate fraud or malpractice can get postal votes.

I repeat my strong plea to the House of Lords closely to examine the current position. If the Lords want to eliminate or reduce fraud, the most effective way of doing so is to have an all-postal ballot in the north-west of England. That is clearly what most of my constituents want, and if the Lords try to deny them that opportunity it will spur many of them to secure postal votes, which will create the worst possible administrative nightmare for electoral registration officers.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), although I would like to do so with slightly less frequency on this subject. I suggested yesterday evening that we were experiencing a version of "Groundhog Day", but I retract that comment because according to my recollection of the film, things eventually got better. Unfortunately, we seem to be making no progress with the Bill whatsoever, due to the Government's intransigence.

The facts of the case remain exactly as they always were. The Government wish to have pilot schemes—I stress the phrase "pilot schemes"—for all-postal voting, and they have considerable support, certainly from Liberal Democrats, in doing so. They said that they wanted three regions, and felt that that was an appropriate scale for the trial. That is exactly what they have in the Bill, before they amend it this evening. They set up the Electoral Commission some time ago in order to give advice, and they sought its advice on which and how many regions would be suitable. We realise that they were disappointed with the commission's initial response, which was that only two regions could be positively recommended.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman intervenes frequently in these debates. I wish that he would actually make a speech—then we could have all the interventions rolled into one. Let us have this evening's intervention.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The essence of his argument seems to be that the commission should override the democratic will of this House of Commons. He was quite happy to overrule the commission in respect of countersigning, but he seems less willing to do so when it comes to postal votes. Does that have something to do with the elections for Liberal Democrat-controlled councils in Liverpool?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

No, it does not. If the hon. Gentleman is going to intervene several times in each of these debates, I wish that he would invent some new interventions. Answering the same one time and again is getting rather tedious.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Some Members would rather that we did not have the independent arbiter of the Electoral Commission, but why do we have it? It is in order to avoid ugly confrontations between the parties on matters on which there should be consensus and agreement. Indeed, that is exactly why we have the boundary commission. Of course, we remember the last Government who tried to overrule the boundary commission—it was Jim Callaghan in 1969 who tried to gerrymander the constituencies. That was a huge mistake, as even Labour party members now accept. What prevented that Government from doing so was the constitutional role of the other place. That is the clear precedent for what is happening today.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

rose—

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) has intervened many times, but I have not heard from the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall).

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

Does the hon. Gentleman realise what the Liberal Democrats, in collusion with the other lot, are trying to achieve? In effect, they are trying to reduce the potential turnout in the north-west by half. He understands the electoral arithmetic as well as anybody else. He understands that the British National party is more likely to gain seats on a low turnout than on a high turnout. How would the Liberal Democrats square their conscience if their effort to achieve their aims returned one or two BNP Members of the European Parliament under that voting system? To paraphrase Sir Thomas More, it is one thing to lose one's soul for the whole world, but for Liverpool?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman did come to an end—eventually. I am still—

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that I have intervened many times in this debate. For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that I have intervened once.

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

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I was referring the serial debate that we are having on this subject. I shall of course apologise if I am incorrect in saying that the hon. Gentleman has intervened during the previous occasions on which we have debated these matters.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

For the sake of accuracy, may I say that I have never intervened in a debate on this matter previously? The hon. Gentleman clearly has made a mistake. I accept that he did not do so with any ill intent.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I certainly did not do so and I apologise unreservedly to the hon. Gentleman. I sought only to introduce a new face into the proceedings.

George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley North and Sefton East)

rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Does the hon. Gentleman now want to intervene substantively?

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

Order. May I gently suggest that we get on with the debate?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Let us return to the genuine issues involved.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

May I just make some progress? I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene later.

The debate is now simply about whether we should have the three regions that the Minister said were his intention. For 90 per cent. of the proceedings on the Bill, that was exactly what he wanted. He was disappointed when he got only two. Like the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), he was apparently unaware of the later advice of the Electoral Commission. It said that Yorkshire and Humberside could be added. My noble Friends tabled an amendment to precisely that effect in another place and that is what is now in the Bill. It was only when the Minister had three regions that he decided to add another to his shopping list.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

In a moment.

The hon. Member for West Lancashire asked me why we were trying to reduce the options for the north-west, but of course we are not. I want a sensible answer from the Government and the Back Benchers who are here this evening—I notice that many of them are from the north-west or Yorkshire and Humberside—to why, if this is so imperative for the north-west, it is not for the south-west. If it is so imperative for the east midlands, why is it not for the west midlands? If it is so imperative for the north of England, why is it not for the south of England, or Scotland or Wales? The Government have failed to answer that question.

The Government simply say that we have to increase turnout, but only in those regions where we choose to increase turnout. I have said all the way along the line that had the Government come forward with a proposal for universal postal voting across the whole country, I could have understood that. That would have had a logic to it. There is a logic to doing it across the whole country and there is a logic to having pilots. There is not a logic for postal voting in areas that are not recommended by the Electoral Commission; in one half of England, one third of the United Kingdom and not the rest.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

The hon. Gentleman suggested one reason. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) suggested another and entirely different reason for the change. It was a repetition of one suggested by his noble Friend Lord Hoyle in the House of Lords. It is the novel doctrine that if one does not like the anticipated outcome of an election, one changes the system. That is exactly what the hon. Member for West Lancashire suggested.

Colin Pickthall (Labour, West Lancashire)

No.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

He denies it, but he said that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would have on his conscience a success for the British National party if he did not allow the measure through. I would like to know whether that is the doctrine of the Government or merely the doctrine of a few extraordinary Government Back Benchers.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is another of the spurious arguments that we have had introduced into this debate on a number of occasions. I do not think that it is the Government's official position.

Andy Burnham (Labour/Co-operative, Leigh)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

No. The hon. Gentleman has intervened an awful lot in this debate. We have really had enough of the hon. Gentleman on this subject.

If I had heard any logical explanation for the Government's position, I might have been more persuaded of the validity of it, but the genuine case was more than clearly exhibited earlier. When the Minister was introducing the Government's case, who were sitting on either side of him? We had the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Local and Regional Government and the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). They are the ones who are running this show, not the Department for Constitutional Affairs. What an excuse for a Department it is. It cannot make its own decisions or do what it believes is right. It is led by the nose by another Department. What a disgraceful position for the Minister and, even more, for the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who—surprisingly—appears to have no interest in the legislation.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Whatever the hon. Gentleman may think of my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local and Regional Government, they are elected Members of this House, unlike the hereditary peers next door—the marquesses and barons—who are overruling the primacy of this House. That is all that this argument is about.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

If one does not like the unelected House of Lords, one should do something about it. One should not shilly-shally because one is afraid of what the Prime Minister will say. One should not ignore the views of one's Back Benchers because one is not convinced that one can get it through the other place. One should legislate. Until the hon. Lady is prepared to persuade her right hon. Friends in the Cabinet that it is time that we had a proper, democratic House of Lords, she has no reason to argue anything else.

The hon. Lady talks about primacy. In this instance, she is talking not about the primacy of the House of Commons, but the primacy of the Labour party. It does not like it when an argument is made against it.

Paul Tyler (Liberal Democrat, North Cornwall)

Has my hon. Friend noticed that it is the Deputy Prime Minister who has resisted all attempts in Cabinet to introduce an elected second Chamber?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister is the guilty man. His attempts at bullying on the issue are well documented. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was wrong to say that the letter to the Electoral Commission had not been put in the Library: it was there on Thursday. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman has a copy now.

The most remarkable aspect of the debate is that the Bill was introduced in the last Session because it was so urgent that it needed to be in place by the beginning of the year.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

It was blocked.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It was not blocked. The Government did nothing with it. I have the chronology of events in my hand. The Bill was introduced into this House on 17 September, but it was months before it was even debated in the other place. We are now told that the returning officers are in a terrible position, but that is because of the Government's actions—[Interruption.] What did the Deputy Prime Minister write to the chairman of the Electoral Commission—[Interruption.]

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

Order. May we have fewer interventions from sedentary positions? I am having difficulty hearing the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

What the Deputy Prime Minister wrote to the chairman of the Electoral Commission on 22 March shows the regard in which he holds that body. He wanted a revised opinion and, after several paragraphs about what he wanted the commission to give an opinion on—in the hope that he would get something helpful to his position—he wrote:

"I appreciate that tomorrow you have public Hearings in Scotland, but Parliament needs to know what the commission's position is to enable it to consider amendments to the bill. I would be grateful if we could have your response by 3pm tomorrow at the latest to enable us to table any necessary amendments to the Bill before it returns to the Commons on Wednesday 24 March."

The Deputy Prime Minister asked for a revised opinion from the Electoral Commission, giving it fewer than 24 hours to make a considered response.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

If the hon. Gentleman were being fair, he would recognise that the letter was a response to the amendment tabled by the odd alliance in the other place, which suggested that we should abrogate this decision to the Electoral Commission. In that case, it seems only reasonable to ask the Electoral Commission its view of that amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman may think that it is reasonable—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] Hon. Members say "Ah" as though they had considered the matter carefully and considered it an outrage. Were the Government really expecting reasoned advice from the Electoral Commission in only five hours on a matter that had been before the Government since September last year?

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. He has made a compelling case for the inclusion of the south and the south-west in the pilot scheme, but the Government have resisted it. During the many debates on this issue, has he come across a compelling reason for denying us that opportunity while including the north-west?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The most irritating thing about the whole debate is that the Government have never given us their reasons for doing that, apart from the fact—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I shall not give way any more. I have already spoken for long enough. I have given way far more than any other Member and there have been enough interventions.

The point—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman has just heard the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) say that he will not give way again.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

By saying so, I disappointed my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh)—but never mind, I am not going to take any more interventions.

We have never been offered any sensible arguments for the choice of the north-west over the rest of the country. All we have heard is the Government's assertion that they will have their way in the north of England. They have not tried to address the issues for the south of England, Wales and Scotland.

In the other place, Lord Filkin argued that the choice would somehow improve the quality of information to be gathered from the pilots to inform future decisions. Having worked for Lord Filkin in local government, I have some respect for him—

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

What about me?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I shall have respect for the hon. Gentleman when he stands up to his colleagues and actually does something sensible about the Bill.

Lord Filkin's argument was that the value of the pilots would be greatly improved if the north-west were included. However, the reverse is the case. If we are seriously holding pilots to improve election technique, what better control could there be than to hold all-postal elections in Yorkshire and Humber on one side of the Pennines and in the north-west on the other side? We could then compare the two. We could look at the problems, such as the level of any fraud that took place and any difficulties in the system, and make sensible arrangements for universal provision. A scientist would say that for an experiment, one needs an experimental subject and a control—[Hon. Members: "The south-west."] The south-west is hardly a comparable region to the north-west. If any hon. Member believes that the north-west has similar characteristics to the south-west—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that when a Member refers directly to another Member, that Member is allowed to intervene?

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

That is entirely a matter for the Member who is addressing the House at the time.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The only person to whom I can recall making a reference was Lord Filkin and I do not think that he is allowed to intervene in this place. I am baffled by the hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart)—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am so baffled that I shall accept his intervention so that he can explain what he is talking about.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

In his very theatrical contribution, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to know who had asked for the pilot to be held in the north-west and why that region had been chosen rather than another one. I am in favour of other regions having the same facilities, but the question now is why should the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and Members of an unelected House stop my constituents from having the right to a postal ballot. We held a postal ballot pilot in Salford and in one ward where turnout had been 12 per cent. it went up to 25 per cent. That is one reason why we should hold postal ballots.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

All right. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman said. He has had an all-postal ballot in Salford; I have had an all-postal ballot in my constituency. He is denying my constituents—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

indicated dissent.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Yes, he is. That is what the Bill says. He should read the Bill. It will be illegal for—

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

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

Order. I very much hope that this is a point of order, not a matter of debate, because time is running out and other hon. Members want to contribute.

Ian Stewart (Labour, Eccles)

It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made it clear in my contribution that I am in favour of other regions having postal ballots.

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

That is a spurious point of order; it is a matter for debate.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Bill says that there will be no all-postal ballots this June in any municipal election in any area outside the four regions.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

No, I shall conclude my remarks. I have taken long enough.

I simply say that the only way in which we can have integrity in our voting systems is if all parties in the House respect the integrity of those systems and accept the fact that they need to build consensus and accept the advice of independent arbiters. That is exactly what the Government are determined not to do. They have got exactly what they asked for at the start of the Bill's consideration. Why do they not just accept it, stop this nonsense right away tonight and let the returning officers get on with running a successful election?

Gordon Prentice (Labour, Pendle)

We have only a few minutes, and I have only a few points to make. This ping-pong cannot go on indefinitely. I want the north-west to be included in the postal ballots, but we have a common interest in ensuring that the integrity of the ballot is maintained. That does not divide us.

Reference has been made throughout the debate to what happened in Pendle in 2002. Members can read the remarks of Lord Greaves in the Lords Hansard of 29 January. It is all set out there, but the fact is that, after a year-long police investigation, no prosecutions were brought and there were no convictions. I am getting fed up with the constant smearing about what is happening in my constituency. Some practices are not unlawful, but they are unsavoury. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) referred to the fact that it is not unlawful to send postal ballots to an address other than the voter's address. That is an incredible state of affairs, but it is true. If postal ballots are universal in the north-west on 10 June, as I hope, every elector will get his or her postal ballot delivered to his or her own address. That will do more than anything else to combat fraud.

The Electoral Commission produced a report, with a series of recommendations, a year ago in March 2003. I am glad to say that one of those recommendations has been picked up by the Government and forms the basis of the Government amendment tonight. That is good—I welcome it—but the Electoral Commission's other recommendations are still in the pipeline. I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that to nail those smears—if that is what people do to smears—let us put in place those recommendations from the Electoral Commission. I am thinking about the development of a protocol that considers who is responsible for following up allegations of electoral fraud. That was suggested by the Electoral Commission a year ago. Let us do it now, and let us send people who are guilty of electoral fraud to prison for a long time. That is what Labour Members want because we believe in maintaining the integrity of the ballot. Rigorous checks should be made after significant elections to unearth fraud if it takes place. All those recommendations have been around for a year and I want the Government to act on them.

Before my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) tries to intervene, let me conclude by saying that I am fed up with all the spurious arguments that have been recycled three, four or five times in the House of Lords. The will of the elected House must prevail on this matter. Let us vote this through and let us have clean elections on 10 June.

John Pugh (Liberal Democrat, Southport)

When this process started, I really did not believe the conspiracy theory that it was a ploy to get more Labour votes. I was genuinely relaxed about the electoral outcome. I could see the arguments for and the good arguments against. However, tonight I have been astonished by the Government's unwillingness to compromise with the Lords and the Electoral Commission, by their willingness to find more and more time in the parliamentary calendar for this quite small piece of legislation, and by the massive turnout in force of Government luminaries, including the Leader of the House.

If this issue were just about electoral pilots and not Labour's political advantage, why has there been all this pressure and excitement among Labour Members? The game has already been given away by the reference by the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) to the Liverpool outcome and by the reference by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) to what the British National party might do. Fundamentally, it has been given away by the excitement of Labour Members.

Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North)

Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that it is more likely that the motivation—