The debate has been constructive and the Bill contains some good provisions. Nevertheless, I urge my hon. Friends to support the reasoned amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) moved so eloquently. As he said, much remains to be done, for example, on individual registration. The Government have not given a good reason for not doing what has been tried and tested in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) accurately showed.
The Minister did not give a good reason for lowering the threshold for the loss of a deposit. In my constituency, the BNP took 3.9 per cent. of the votes in the general election. Rewarding it with a return of a deposit—the Bill would do that on those figures—would give it a status that it does not deserve. In making such a generalisation, I do not suggest that the Scottish National party does not have a status. It has a high status, which it deserves. The fact that it gets only a small share of the vote is another matter.
We have heard much about the problems and pitfalls of postal voting. Again, no good reason has been given to justify the Government’s position. Modernisation is justifiable only if it replaces the status quo with something better, not simply with something different. Of course, we all want more people to participate in elections. However, in the final reckoning, there must be an element of personal motivation that makes someone exercise his or her democratic right.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) said, it is Parliament’s duty to ensure that every citizen has the opportunity to vote and, as the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) said, no one should be denied access to the polls, physically or otherwise, because of a disability or an inability. The Bill deals with that fairly adequately. However, it is absurd to develop a system that bends over backwards to try to make people vote and consequently destroys the checks and balances that make the system fair. That serves only to undermine the democracy that we intend to enhance.
I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) on his maiden speech. It was a pleasure to hear his tribute to his predecessor and friend, whose charm, wit and wisdom we all miss, whether we agreed with his policies or not. The hon. Gentleman’s description of the way in which he had administered a ““jag”” to a man who was ““off his heid””—I understood what he meant—certainly marks him out for a great career in the Government Whips Office.
I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) supports the Bill. We all commend the Government for adopting his proposals to remedy situations similar to the unique state of affairs that arose when his Liberal Democrat opponent so tragically died a few days before the general election. My hon. Friend eloquently explained how such a situation could precipitate a constitutional crisis. I would venture to suggest that the absence of my hon. Friend’s constitutional wisdom from the House was itself a mini-crisis, and we were pleased to have him restored to us after only seven weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) was right in what he said about the disgraceful treatment of members of the armed forces, large numbers of whom were deprived of the right to vote, even when they were fighting for their country and losing their lives in Iraq. The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) appeared to agree that that state of affairs was unacceptable. However, there is nothing in the Bill to remedy the situation. We look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Inverclyde (David Cairns) has to say in a few minutes’ time, when he will have the opportunity to explain further what the Government intend to do to remedy the injustice currently meted out to serving soldiers, airmen and others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), as a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, brought wisdom and experience to the debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) both made the fundamental point that, as the whole electoral system is vulnerable to fraud, and that a small amount of fraud has a large effect on undermining confidence in the system, it is very important that we ensure that our precious democracy is not undermined in that way. Let us not exaggerate. We all know that, fundamentally, we have a great system. It is probably the best and most secure electoral system anywhere in the world, and it is one on which many other democracies have based their systems. So let us not now, for the sake of modernisation or political correctness, go blindly down a road that would be likely to diminish the security of that system and to undermine it.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, made it clear why they are not the official Opposition in the House—
Electoral Administration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Laing of Elderslie
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 25 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Electoral Administration Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c265-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:08:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269491
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269491
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_269491