Electoral Administration Bill

I shall begin by responding to Amendment No. 102A. As I shall come to describe, the clause generally seeks to allow change to be made quickly when we think it necessary, which may well be in the run-up to an election. As there are 317 registered political parties on the Great Britain register, we fear that the amendment would slow down the process. I do not accept the need to consult everyone, but we would be keen to ensure that we consulted where appropriate. As to Amendment No. 102B, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and will have to be debated and approved by each House before coming into force. This is covered by Section 201 of the RPA 1983, which provides that it has to be the affirmative procedure, so that concern is covered and there would be appropriate discussion. As I think the noble Baroness recognises, the clause provides an opportunity to modernise the arrangements for the printing and production of ballot papers and their design. At present, the form of the ballot paper is set out in the parliamentary election rules in Schedule 1 to the RPA 1983. Clause 34 amends that. If you want to make any changes to the ballot paper at the moment, you have to do so by amending the 1983 Act—that is, by primary legislation—and obviously noble Lords will understand why we need more flexibility. The key concern, of course, is to ensure that the ballot paper is clear and easily understood. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can prescribe in regulations a different form of ballot paper from that currently depicted in the election rules; amend the directions to the printers of the ballot paper and consider issues such as the size and type of the details; and amend the directions for the guidance of voters in voting. As I have indicated, this will be by the affirmative resolution procedure. Furthermore, Clause 34 amends the current printing directions to provide that the front of the ballot paper may contain two or more columns of named candidates. The 1983 Act states that there has to be one column regardless of how many candidates are standing. We think it would be better to have two, for obvious reasons. There are also administrative difficulties in having one column and we know that there have been delays in the counting of votes. We want to include a sensible provision to deal with these problems specifically and, more generally, to provide through secondary legislation the ability to make the form as clear as we can. As I have said, the need for an affirmative resolution in both Houses will ensure that political parties are consulted properly.