Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future piloting of all-postal voting. As noble Lords will know from Grand Committee, I have indicated that the Government have no intention of rolling out all-postal voting as a default position for local elections. We have no plans ever to impose all-postal voting again, as in 2004. I should also make clear that the schemes that took place then—which noble Lords felt strongly about—did not take place under the Section 10 power that the noble Baroness is seeking to amend here, but required separate legislation. However, we believe that it is wrong to rule out an all-postal pilot in any election anywhere in the future. There are circumstances where the use of all-postal ballots can be justified, particularly for very small parish by-elections where the evidence is that they can dramatically boost turnout. King’s Lynn, which last undertook an all-postal ballot at a by-election in August 2005, in the Downham Market parish, is an example of an all-postal ballot being used to good effect with local cross-party support. Use of the system at that election significantly improved turnout from 11 per cent in the last comparable by-election to 27.6 per cent in the recent all-postal ballot. I gather that the election was won by the Conservative Party. It was a more efficient way of running the election than a traditional poll. It is also important to note that all-postal ballots provide places similar to polling stations where a person can complete their vote in privacy and deposit it in a ballot box. In that way, nobody is compelled to return their vote by post—although most choose to do so. Any election pilot is conducted at the request of the individual local authority, which must make an application to the Secretary of State. We think that local authorities are best placed to determine whether an all-postal election would be better, depending on their local circumstances, local party support and the type of election being held. Many local authorities have made requests to conduct all-postal elections in small by-elections. We believe that it is right to be able to consider those applications individually. I recognise that the amendments also seek to respond to concerns about postal voting fraud. However, the Bill contains a number of measures aimed at improving the security of postal voting and we have implemented a number of changes to improve that security through secondary legislation for the elections held on 5 May. I hope that that—and the fact that we have no plans to move all-postal voting beyond a system which local authorities may opt into—provides adequate reassurance. I would hesitate to support the voters of King’s Lynn in this way. Where local authorities have all-party support and there is a good case to be made for improved turnout, we would want that opportunity to be available. Amendment No. 44 relates to different types of remote electronic voting, which the noble Baroness touched upon. Piloting electronic voting allows for new technologies to be tested and for ways to be identified in which the security and accessibility of the vote can be improved. We have much learning from previous pilots that will enable us to continue to modernise how elections are held. However, I completely and utterly accept that it is critical to have security in any electronic voting. In any e-voting pilot we will seek to ensure that the most robust security standards are applied. It is also important to note the trend in recent years toward lower levels of voter participation in elections, as noble Lords know. Although we recognise the complex causes of that trend, one response to it might be to make voting more accessible and straightforward. Ruling out ways in which we could develop pilots to identify different ways of voting might have the impact of discouraging people to vote. That may be especially true—she says with feeling as one who has teenagers at home—for younger people, who consider using technology to be perfectly normal and ordinary. So, while I would not want to rule that out either, I completely accept the principles behind it. We must make sure that we have absolutely dealt with the issues of security. Local authorities have also demonstrated an interest in using electronic voting and we have conducted a number of such pilots, as I have indicated. Amendment No. 46 gives an additional layer of parliamentary scrutiny. Noble Lords know from our discussions that Section 10 allows local authorities to propose innovations to how they run their elections. They are assessed by the department, but the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission before he determines which pilots should proceed or makes an order changing the rules. Pilots are developed and implemented locally and an additional process of parliamentary approval would further complicate the issues and impose time constraints that would deter local authorities from applying. That is an important consideration as any reduction in the number of pilots would mean that we could not test as well as we would like. I know that Noble Lords may be concerned about political approval of such pilots, but the Secretary of State assesses the level of local political support for any proposal before granting approval. In the event that the composition of political parties on the council does not lend itself to that approach—or should support for a proposal be split—the Secretary of State would seek detailed reasons from the objecting party setting out its grounds for objection before deciding whether the application can be approved. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government acknowledge the importance of Parliament having the final say on whether the substance of any pilot scheme should be adopted permanently for local elections generally. For that reason, Section 11(3) of the Representation of the People Act provides for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply before any order implementing such a change can be made. So, on the basis that we think it right to be able to have all-postal pilots as I described in the King’s Lynn example, we should recognise both the importance of security in any additional forms of voting and the need to tackle the issues of those who might vote if they had more access to voting. We are clear that where the Secretary of State grants proposals it is done in conjunction with the local authority and the Electoral Commission, while seeking all-party consensus. Anything that was to be rolled out could be done only through approval in your Lordships’ House and another place. I hope that I have given adequate reassurance for the amendment to be withdrawn.