Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) (Amendment) Order 2008

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the broad welcome accorded to the instruments. I shall endeavour to deal with the various points that were raised. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, asked why there was a five-year rather than a four-year term, and why one proceeds in that way. The rationale for the five years is simply for providing fresh signatures. The five-year term is consistent with what applies in England and Wales. An attempt to obtain some kind of uniformity throughout the United Kingdom is being made. Over the course of time, signatures will be refreshed. There is therefore no particular virtue in either five or four years, but five years is a prudent way forward. In response to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, about ““wild countries”” where different practices arise, I say simply that these regulations for Scotland follow what is happening in England and Wales. That perhaps provides some guidance as to these jurisdictions. As to whether one would be struck off, I say that the position is that if one does not proceed correctly to fill in the application form, one is notified that one is removed from the register. One can then reapply if one wishes to continue to be an absent voter. I welcome the noble Lord’s enthusiasm for the attempt to improve the health of our democracy by what he correctly described as ““prudent measures””. In answer to his question whether it is easier in person to carry forward one’s electoral obligations, I say that the Government are attempting to improve the way in which voting will proceed. While they know that people lead busy lives and do not always find it convenient to get to a polling station during the week, The Governance of Britain Green Paper set out an intention to investigate how to make voting more accessible, in particular through considering the option of weekend voting. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was concerned about the ““chaos””, as he described it, in Scotland, but the measures are merely to reflect what has operated in England and Wales. There is no suggestion that these measures created any difficulties there, but rather improved the position in terms of avoidance of fraud. As to the noble Earl’s wariness of anoraks, I agree with him that that is something of which one should always be wary. He was concerned about whether he may or may not be content about the provisions because of the position regarding the Scottish Parliament. It has been the settled will of the UK Parliament, pre-devolution, that the UK Government reserve the responsibilities for these elections. I would submit that nothing has changed since 1998, suggesting that a change is necessary. The problems that arose in May were not the direct result of the fact that responsibility rested with the UK Government, because the elections in 1999 and 2003 had proceeded smoothly. The Scottish parliamentary review is very much a matter for those who are running it; it is certainly not for me to allow or disallow any such approach that they may wish to take. My noble friend Lord Maxton was absolutely correct in his concern with fraud. These measures endeavour to reduce the possibility of such fraud. The suggestion that one should look forward to progress is, of course, something that this Government share, and would always seek to do. There is no way that these instruments cut down or curtail the possibility of progress in the future. I trust that I have at least endeavoured to answer the questions raised by noble Lords. Accordingly, I move that the draft order be approved. On Question, Motion agreed to.