National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for introducing this remarkable document. I add to the concerns already voiced by my noble friend from the Front Bench about the process with which we are engaged. It is not a satisfactory way of dealing with parliamentary business to have a 277-page order for debate, unamendable, for consideration in such a short timescale and timetabled in this way. It has been said that this is an important document; it is also complex. There are a great number of footnotes and explanations in the order itself, as well as the useful document that we have received that tries to make clarity out of obscurity. To see if the whole thing had been drawn up in a proper way, I tried to cross-check by homing in on something with which I thought I was familiar: election expenses. I quickly discovered that the current definitions of election expenses bear little resemblance to those that applied when I was a candidate, admittedly many years ago. I inquired of the admirable staff of the Library whether the definitions here were the same as those that had applied in the last two general elections, and if not why not. The Library told me that the definitions are not the same and have been altered because of subsequent legislation. The Minister briefly referred to that point. I emerged satisfied from this exercise that some pretty thorough work has gone into this. I hope that it has gone in so efficiently throughout that there are no errors. Let us face it: it is complex and errors may have occurred. We cannot correct them at this stage and the whole process is advancing at a pretty fast pace. I have one other observation on electoral expenses: the exclusion of those expenses that have to be put in the candidate’s return, such as accommodation that is the candidate’s sole or main residence, or accommodation provided by others that is a sole or main residence. In practice, is this matter examined with any great closeness by those who administer electoral expenses? Do those who fight for large constituencies and sometimes have to stay away a night from their main residence always return every item of expenditure? That may be so, but it is news to me that this was the law. Then my noble friend referred to this whole worrying matter of postal votes. I, too, have received a communication from my local authority asking me to give a signature and to identify myself. My wife happens to be abroad, and I will have the greatest possible difficulty in getting a signature back. If, as my noble friend was suggesting, the timetable is even shorter in the case of the Welsh Assembly elections, we really have some practical difficulties to consider. I am not sure how we will resolve them. My noble friend referred to what he called the controversial part of the 2006 Act, under which candidates may not stand for election at the same time in both an Assembly constituency and an electoral region. My description would be rather more critical than his. I thought that it was a pretty nasty piece of electoral gerrymandering. The most interesting and revealing part of the documentation that we received was the Explanatory Memorandum, which I found fascinating and very useful; I am grateful for it. In it, we are told that the Electoral Administration Act 2006, "““aims to make progress on the Government’s four principles found at the core of a healthy democracy””." The first is ““improving access and engagement””. As my noble friend said, with turnout down to 38 per cent, we have a long way to go on the matter of engagement. The second is ““improving confidence””. In the light of the scandals to which my noble friend referred and the botched attempt by the Government to rush into much wider postal voting, I think that we are a long way yet from ““confidence””. The third is, "““extending openness and transparency in party financing””." The Metropolitan Police may have done more than most in developing that process. The final principle is, "““maintaining professional delivery of election””." My noble friend was right to refer to the article in the Sunday Times and the concerns expressed, not just in that article but by those who are responsible for supervising elections, about the whole question of fraud and postal voting. We have to go quite a long way before we can be entirely satisfied that the system is working in the way that we would all want. I only hope that the fact that we are rushing through this enormous statutory instrument without being able to cross-check it or comment on it in detail will not add to our difficulties and that the Minister is right in hoping—I know that he is genuine in that hope—that the order will improve things rather than make them worse.