Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007

It would no doubt meet some of the curiosity of noble Lords as to why these measures are being considered at the eleventh hour if the Minister could give us a bit more information about the obstacles that had to be overcome in order to reach this point. We on these Benches have voiced our concerns about measures in the Electoral Administration Act, which was passed with the aim of modernising the electoral process. There is a danger that, in practice, they may compromise some of Britain’s traditional reputation for free and fair elections and undermine the integrity of the system and public confidence in our democracy. The measures before the Committee today represent a tightening up of the possibilities for misrepresentation and fraud in some areas and for that we are grateful. I note that the Electoral Commission, along with our party, has been pressing for the use of personal identifiers to underpin the security and integrity of the electoral system. However, it appears at present that that is being considered for postal voting only. Can the Minister tell us what plans there are to try it out on a practical basis? These regulations implement some of the changes made by the Electoral Administration Act 2006, among which was the system of anonymous registration. At first sight, it appears that this measure will largely be confined to postal voting. If it is not, can the Minister tell the Committee in what way the anonymous voter will be identified when he or she appears at the polling station? How anonymous will he or she then be? Does the Minister have any estimate of how many people are expected to avail themselves of this facility? A particularly curious element in the Explanatory Memorandum is point 7.11, which states that, "““returned postal ballot papers after they have been removed from their covering envelopes … should now be sorted face down””." Which face is supposed to be down? I would be grateful for a bit more clarity on how the procedure will work. Would it not be easier if the postal ballot paper was like the normal ballot paper where the identification is one side of the paper and the vote is marked on the other? The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007 brings together all the measures that are required for running an election, which is a splendid move by the Government. As the Minister mentioned, this order has obviously considerably exercised the minds of noble Lords on the Merits Committee. The Minister drew our attention to the appendix to the Merits Committee’s ninth report, which I had not picked up on as I was looking at it only yesterday. Even in their initial response, the members of the Merits Committee developed an argument that appears to make this exception acceptable. But the measure will be taken forward under the legal systems of the European Union and Scotland and may possibly be referred under the third system of the legal system of the United Kingdom. What assurance can the Government give us that in the days after the election the outcome will not be taken to the courts by some dissatisfied person and the whole election then put into some kind of limbo? In trying to get some understanding of the problems that exist and which the Government have had to deal with, could the Minister explain to the Committee whether removing the prohibition on participation on voting by those who are defined as having the ““legal incapacity to vote”” will require a change in the franchise regulations? The Committee is no doubt aware that under Section 12 of the Scotland Act the Secretary of State has power to make provision about elections, but under Section 11 he has no power to alter the categories of people entitled to vote. Is that why the Government have been forced to present this statutory instrument with the strange admission that it does not comply with Section 61 of the Human Rights Act? What steps do the Government expect to take to overcome that situation and when will they do so? I am grateful to the Minister for presenting us with copies of the voting paper, which I find a delightful curio. If it was not for my enjoyment in addressing your Lordships, I could be at a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is dealing with the 50th anniversary of the independence of Ghana and Kwame Nkrumah and pan-Africanism. To show my age slightly, I was in Ghana when that first election took place and a great novelty was the inclusion of pictorial representations. It was felt that the locals in Ghana, who speak three different languages and could possibly neither read nor write, could identify their parties much better in that way. Kwame Nkrumah’s party was identified by a crowing cockerel—and if I remember rightly, I think that the party was known as the NCP. It is interesting that 50 years pass and these things come around—and here we are, using them with great aplomb in the Scottish elections. Scottish Conservatives support reforming voting procedures to improve the integrity of the electoral system and we support the majority of the measures proposed, including anonymous registration and improvements to procedural measures. I am still slightly puzzled about the limits on the incorporation of commonly used names. I have no doubt that some gentleman called Screaming Lord Sutch might put his name forward as what he would wish to be known as on voting. We also support confirmation of the receipt of postal votes, as it is currently a lottery as to whose vote has been included, and there is no checking process. The Minister said that he expected that electronic counting would be put into use at the May elections, but are the Government satisfied that the operators have sufficient skills and resources to carry it out? If that is the intended method for future elections, what is the expected cost of delivering it in Scotland? There is one provision in the measure which sounds like an immensely efficient tidying-up process for the administrators of the election—the substitution of counterfoils by the corresponding number list. When you vote, your name will be put on the list against the corresponding number, as far as I understand; in the nature of things, that list will eventually become available under the Freedom of Information Act. Does the Minister not agree that, because that simplifies the situation so much, it also dilutes one of the prime attributes of our system—the secrecy of the ballot? A small amount of that might be restored if we progress down the path of personal identifiers. In that case, if voters wished to appear at the polling station with their personal identifier, it could then be what appeared against the number list, which might make the traceability of their vote that much more confidential. Finally, the Scots currently enjoy the delight of four different voting systems. Of course, my party has benefited from that. The new system that this measure introduces is the single transferable vote, which is to be used for local elections. It could be argued whether the measure is suitable for that level of government. The Scottish Conservatives continue to believe that first past the post is the best electoral system at other levels, providing a clear and direct link between the voters and their elected representative, and ensuring that the voters, not the politicians, decide who governs.