Electoral Administration Bill

My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill. I hope that it will help to increase participation and make the integrity of the vote more robust. I believe that the Minister is aware of the report prepared by the Local Government and Public Services Committee of the Welsh Assembly, which has been scrutinising the Bill. It lists a number of concerns. One is the co-ordinated online registration of electors. Other noble Lords have mentioned that. The committee states that the register of electors in Wales is available in both English and Welsh, as it is a document available to the public in Wales. The Electoral Commission’s Welsh language scheme commits the commission to equal treatment of Welsh and English in Wales. The committee’s view is that, as it is likely that the Electoral Commission will be the keepers of the CORE scheme, its commitment to the Welsh language should be extended to that scheme in Wales. It would be rather strange if the commitment of equal treatment of both languages were not reflected in the Bill. It seems that the policy with the Welsh language has been overlooked, although I was very pleased to hear my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mention the Welsh language in his opening remarks. I am sure that there will be an opportunity to correct this anomaly, if that is what it is, by amendments in Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s response on the matter. I welcome the new methods of paying the deposit, when submitting nomination papers, by credit card, debit card or electronic transfer of funds, rather than the traditional method of cash or banker’s draft. But how many local parties would possess such cards? From my own experience of local Labour parties, I cannot think of one that has such facilities available to it. But this is not to decry the attempt in the Bill to modernise our approach to the conduct of elections—and if the local parties did not possess such a card, maybe the election agent could use his own credit or debit card and live in hope that he would be reimbursed by his political party. I welcome the proposals to bring the age to stand as a candidate down from 21 to 18, although, when I first read it, I could not imagine why an 18 year-old would want to become a Member of Parliament. Of course there would be young people aged between 18 and 21 who might want to stand for election to their local council, parish or community council. Many young people are active in their local communities and would, I hope, be prepared to serve the community in this manner—and would it not be good to see these youthful faces on our local councils? That naturally leads me to another aspect of the Bill—those eligible to attend the count. Paragraph 75 of Schedule 1 lists the people who are eligible to attend the count. Sub-paragraph (2) (b) specifies,"““the candidates and their spouses or civil partners””." As this Bill hopes to modernise our approach to elections, I was surprised to see that restriction. As it will allow people from the age of 18 to be candidates, why can we not say that the candidate can be accompanied by a person of his or her choice? Unless the candidate is married or has a civil partner, that candidate cannot have a companion with him or her. In today’s society many couples choose not to marry. According to the Bill the candidate would not be able to bring his or her partner to the count, or, for example, a divorced person could not have a daughter or son with him or her. An 18 year-old who is neither married nor in a civil partnership may want a mother, father, brothers, sisters or close friends with him at the count to give moral support while awaiting the result. Surely these days we should not regard spouses or civil partners as the only persons who can accompany a candidate, especially with the proposal to have younger candidates. This measure discriminates against single people. I am aware that returning officers have the discretion to permit others to attend, provided the efficient counting of votes is not impeded. But, on this point, that would be insufficient. The rights of single people to have the person of their choice should be in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will have a good look at that matter and use this as an opportunity to allow candidates to choose whom they want to have with them at the count. Clause 15 deals with pilot schemes, and will allow local authorities to apply to run personal identifier pilot schemes. Subsection (3) states:"““The Secretary of State must not make a pilot order unless he first consults the Electoral Commission””." Subsection (10) gives the definition of a local authority; subsection (10) (b) states that it is:"““In Wales, a county council or county borough council””." As local government is a devolved matter, should not the devolution settlement be recognised here? Where a Welsh local authority applies to run such a scheme, should not the National Assembly for Wales, rather than the Secretary of State, be responsible for making a pilot order? I trust that the Minister can explain that anomaly, if that is what it is. Banning candidates from standing in more than one constituency is a good measure. It is an abuse of our democracy when candidates can offer themselves to more than one constituency. To give an example, a candidate—Catherine Taylor-Dawson, who stood on the Vote for Yourself Rainbow Dream Ticket—stood in four Cardiff constituencies in 2005. In Cardiff Central, she got 37 votes. In Cardiff South and Penarth, she got 79 votes. In Cardiff West, she got 167 votes. But in Cardiff North, she got one vote, and she says that she did not vote for herself. As she is a singer, I assume that she received quite a lot of publicity. She said that she did not make speeches; she sang and played her guitar. Her main sponsor was Rainbow George, who donated £2,000 to her campaign. He stood in 13 constituencies. There is something to think about there. I support the Bill. It contains many good and practical measures that will assist in the smooth running of our elections. Those measures include allowing returning officers the right to make minor amendments to nomination papers. I am sure that all election agents will very much welcome that. I know that when I used to take nomination papers along, however many times I checked, my heart was in my mouth hoping that there was absolutely nothing wrong with them. If there was, you were sent back—as those who used to do this work will recognise. Increasing time limits for the payment of election expenditure; a framework for local authorities to review polling places over a four-year period; and allowing observers and children to accompany voters to the polling station are just some of the good measures in the Bill. I look forward to taking part in debate on the Bill during its journey through the House.