rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007.

The noble Lord said: First, I thank the Committee for agreeing to take these three election instruments together. This is well established practice and continues to make the best use of parliamentary time. The two orders are made under different sections of the Scotland Act 1998, and the regulations are made under the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order is made under Sections 12(1) and 113 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allow for an order to be made for the conduct of elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament.

The order relating to local electoral administration is made under Section 104, which allows for necessary or expedient changes in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The regulations are made under various powers and laid by virtue of Section 201(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I hope that it is helpful to the Grand Committee to give a brief explanation of what the three instruments do, and I am very happy to answer any questions that noble Lords have.

The Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007 is made in consequence of the Local Electoral Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006—an Act of the Scottish Parliament that received Royal Assent on 1 August 2006. The 2006 Act introduced an offence in Scotland related to fraudulent applications for postal or proxy votes, the penalty for which includes the offender being disqualified from standing in local government elections in Scotland for five years. The new offence introduced in Scotland mirrors that introduced for local government elections in England and Wales in the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The provisions of the Act of the Scottish Parliament, and disqualifications made under it, could not extend to elections for Westminster, the European and Scottish Parliaments or local government elections elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as this is outwith the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence.

The Government and Scottish Executive believe that there should be co-operation to ensure that a coherent system of disqualification applies across the United Kingdom. This order will ensure that when a person has been convicted of the new offence and disqualified from standing at a local government election in Scotland, the disqualification will also apply to candidature in an election to Westminster. Under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 1983, when a person is disqualified from candidature to Westminster they are in turn disqualified from standing in elections to the European and Scottish Parliaments, the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies and local government elections elsewhere in Great Britain.

The specific purpose of the order is to maintain a consistent scheme and to ensure that disqualifications made following misconduct at Scottish local government elections apply to other elections across the United Kingdom. The 2006 Act of the Scottish Parliament provided for the recognition in Scotland of similar disqualifications made at local and parliamentary elections elsewhere in the United Kingdom; the order provides further links in the chain against electoral fraud.

The second instrument before us is the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, to which I now turn. The House debated the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 in October 2006. The regulations before the Committee mirror almost identically the regulations contained in the England and Wales version. There are separate regulations for Scotland to reflect different electoral arrangements; for example, the involvement of sheriff clerks in the retention of electoral documents. Otherwise, the regulations are very similar.

The regulations amend the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. The amendments flow from provisions in the Electoral Administration Act that introduce anonymous registration, alter certain aspects of absent voting, and improve certain administrative and procedural processes. Noble Lords will realise from my earlier comments that many of these amendments have been transferred into the Scottish Parliament order so that they may apply in May. I will therefore not repeat them here. The regulations apply the same amendments to UK Parliament elections in Scotland. Electoral practice is thereby consistent across the UK and Scottish parliamentary elections.

I therefore draw noble Lords’ attention to only some of the adaptations that have been made to the regulations to meet the Scottish context. Regulation 12 includes additional categories of qualifying officers in the case of those who can attest anonymous registrations to include chief social work officers in Scotland. We have removed certain references to “any election”, as this would intrude into devolved competence by picking up local government elections. References to the Local Government Act 2000, which does not extend to Scotland, have been removed. Scottish equivalents of those able to attest applications for proxy votes have also been added. Part 10 deals with the control of documents following an election. In Scotland, responsibility for the inspection and supply of documents rests with the relevant sheriff clerk. In England and Wales, it rests with the relevant registration officer.

Finally, I come to the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007. I appreciate its enormous length. However, around 80 per cent of it is standard and reflects electoral law that has been in place for decades. It contains a replication of the rules that governed the last elections to the Scottish Parliament in 2003, but they have been updated in line with recent electoral primary legislation. The order also consolidates all rules and legislation governing the conduct of the Scottish Parliament elections in this one document to assist with their application.

The changes made in the order fall into two main categories. The first category includes changes that are a result of new measures introduced by the Electoral Administration Act 2006. The second category includes innovative changes that are being introduced for the elections this May; namely, the electronic counting of ballot papers and a single, combined ballot paper for the regional and constituency votes. I propose to summarise these key changes here.

The order introduces, and anticipates the introduction of, many of the new provisions made in the Electoral Administration Act, which received Royal Assent last July. One of the main aims of the Electoral Administration Act is to reduce levels of electoral fraud. Many of the new provisions to reduce fraud relate to postal voting. The declaration of identity has now been replaced with the postal-voting statement, which requires a postal voter to sign a statement confirming that they are the correct recipient of the ballot papers. The list of postal ballot papers is also required to be marked to show when the paper was issued and when it was received. A new provision is made to allow postal voters to confirm that their returned postal vote and postal-voting statement have been received.

Additionally, if a person applies for a postal vote to be sent to a different address from that shown on the record of absent voters, they will be required to indicate the reasons why circumstances require it to be sent there. This is to help prevent multiple papers being fraudulently sent to the same address. Provisions to register anonymously were introduced by the Electoral Administration Act. The order anticipates the introduction of this provision, which will come into force fully after May 2007. Voters will be able to apply to be placed on the register anonymously if their safety or that of a person in their household would be at risk if the register of electors contained their name or address.

Documents required by the order to be given to voters or displayed in any place can now be made available in Braille, in languages other than English, in graphical representations or by other means of making the information accessible to persons who might not otherwise have reasonable access to it. It also includes the information being made available in an appropriate, audible form. The deadline for registering to vote has been extended to 11 days before the date of poll. Under previous legislation, the closing date for registering to vote had been around six weeks prior to polling day, which gives people more time to register to vote in the election.

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the Government’s approach to these three measures. If I am not mistaken, we should have had a Motion stating that we wish to take all three measures together, but as we are all agreed on that point, it probably goes without saying.

I think the noble Duke will find that the Committee will take them separately, albeit that the last two Motions will be moved formally.

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.

I shall resist the temptation to tease the noble Duke about the fact that he is an expert on ballot papers when I do not think his name has ever appeared on one. I shall return to ballot papers in a minute and make four brief points about these regulations, which my party welcomes on the whole. The first is the question of prisoners voting. Why has this matter remained unresolved when the European Court came to its decision in October 2005? The issue was live even before that because some people saw it coming down the track. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, a former Home Secretary, is one of an all-party group that supports a campaign by the Prison Reform Trust and the ex-offenders’ organisation Unlock to give prisoners the right to vote. In April 2005, almost two years ago, the former Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland, Mr Fairweather, made the point that:

“We say to prisoners, we’re preparing you to be more responsible when you come back out and then in the same breath if you say you can’t vote then we sound a bit hypocritical”.

It was a live issue before the European Court came to its decision. Yet we had to wait 14 months after that decision before the Government even issued a consultation document in December 2006; and the consultation closes today or tomorrow. Why the delay? It is unnecessary to produce an order when the Merits Committee has drawn the attention of both Houses of Parliament to it on the grounds that it makes an unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by Section 12 of the Scotland Act. That is a polite parliamentary way of saying that the Minister is chancing his arm—not this Minister, I hasten to say. The Government are chancing their arm as it is contrary to the court decision. I want to know why this has been so long delayed. Now that the consultation period is closed, is the Minister able to give the Committee any indication of how long it will be before this matter is resolved so that we do not have a repeat in future elections of orders that run counter to the European Convention on Human Rights?

The second issue I wish to raise is about ballot papers. Like the noble Duke, I am entranced by the exotic paper. It is an improvement to have one paper instead of two, as we had in previous elections. If my recollection serves me right, however, when we had two separate ballot papers the party ballot paper had the names of the candidates nominated by the parties. They seem to have disappeared, so when somebody goes to a polling station, will he have factual information about who is being nominated by the parties before he gets into the booth to put his cross? Otherwise, the candidates remain anonymous on the left-hand side of the ballot paper. I welcome the use of the symbols. When I first came into politics, there were no party labels on ballot papers, simply names. There was a very good reason for that, which was that we were elected to serve a particular constituency and your party was irrelevant because once you were elected you served everybody. That was the theory. At a later date, it was the general view of the House of Commons that it was for the benefit of the electors to have the party label. I do not dispute that. There was a change, and the party labels started to appear.

I am all in favour of the symbols and party labels appearing, but I now read in the press that there are attempts to sloganeer on the ballot paper. That is an abuse of the ballot paper. We are told that the Scottish National Party is not happy to have “the Scottish National Party” listed on the ballot paper, but want something like “Alex Salmond for Top of the Pops”. That is quite wrong. I hope that, if not these regulations, then future ones will be more tightly drawn to prevent that abuse of the ballot paper.

Thirdly, on the actual franchise, I had an interesting experience. I am a registered local government elector in London by virtue of the rented flat I occupy. I pay council tax to Westminster City Council and therefore have a vote as to who my councillor is; well, I had, but I have given up the flat. I did, however, have a local government vote in Edinburgh by virtue of the small flat I own there and which I occupied when I was presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament. My name has been removed from the register, and I questioned this with the registration officer. He is correct. He said that it depends on the rate of occupancy of the flat, and I am obviously not now occupying it as I did. That raises a difficult question, however. Why should we have taxation without representation? I pay council tax in Edinburgh. There are issues around my flat which concern me and about which I have been in touch with my local council. Yet, I have no opportunity to vote and choose who my local councillor is. Perhaps that ought to be examined in the future.

Finally, I am sure that electronic counting is an advance. Like the noble Duke, however, I have some lingering doubts, stemming from my experience of observing election counts in other countries. In countries where computer systems are used, they have been greatly suspect. I am not for one second saying that they would be suspect in Scotland, but they are less transparent than the manual system of counting. Can the Minister give us any more indication of how electronic counting would work, how we are protected against system breakdowns and whether there is a fall-back position for manual counting?

I am interested in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about electronic counting. The electronic system is absolutely imperative for the local government elections in Scotland, because no human being would be able to do the calculations in time.

Oh yes we could.

That has something to do with the Scottish Parliament, but that is by the way.

On what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said about the naming of the parties, I, too, read in the press that parties can call themselves anything they like and have more than one name. I do not know if that is correct; perhaps the Minister can confirm it. If so, my understanding was that the Scottish National Party’s intention was to use different names in different areas, according to what suited them electorally. It would be interesting to know if that is possible. If it is, how would it affect the framework for the ballot paper that the Government have kindly let us see? The left-hand column of the paper will simply give the party. I, too, was surprised that we have lost the names of the candidates. I am not sure if that has been a deliberate change. Where it gives the name of the party—let us suppose it says the Alex Salmond party—will the same party be on the right-hand side of the ballot paper? Does it have to be? Will it be the same name in all the regions of Scotland, or could there be different ones? The regional Members’ list concerns only the region of Scotland where the number of votes are counted to see who the list members will be. Could one region have the Alex Salmond party, another the Scottish National Party and another the “division of the United Kingdom” party, or something like that, according to how people in the area feel? It will be interesting to know whether there has to be consistency in the regions on the ballot paper itself. It is unfortunate that you can do that in law. I think I detected from my reading that previous legislation allows that. It is not in this order so we can do nothing about it, but it seems a mistake. I should have thought that a party should have one name and should proclaim it loud and clear so that people know exactly what they are doing.

I was not going to intervene on these Scottish matters, but I agree substantially with everything that my noble friend said. I give him my full support, as ever.

I rise because there are other people alive today who share my horror at the way in which political slogans are now put on ballot papers. I thought that I was the only person in the world who objected to that; I have raised the matter with the Minister before. Political parties can now register however many versions of their name—the Minister will tell us, but I think it is 10 or a dozen. They can use any of them in any circumstances in different wards in the same authority, for example. They are all at it, including my own party, so perhaps my noble friend Lord Steel will join me in a Liberal Democrat campaign to stop it. Two mayoral elections ago the Liberal Democrats stood as something like “Liberal Democrats against Privatisation of the Tube”. That is wrong. Names of political parties are their names, and we should not be using ballot papers as political standards.

As the noble Duke said, Scotland is going to the polls on 3 May with three different electoral systems on the same day. The first past the post system will be used for the constituencies of the Parliament; a top-up form of proportional representation by lists will be used for the regional Members of the Parliament; and, something that we never thought we would see on the British mainland again, there will be the single transferable vote—a delightful system—for the local authority elections in Scotland.

Some time in past history the Government, from whichever department it was then, set up an inquiry into electoral systems, which has been looking at the different electoral systems for the European elections, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Since we are told that the inquiry is still going along—not very fast, but it is still deliberating—will it include this year’s Scottish elections? In particular, will it include an investigation and a study of the single transferable vote in the council elections as part of that inquiry? The Minister may not be able to tell me now, but perhaps he will write to me.

I have been asked 19 questions, and it is a credit to officials from the Scotland Office sitting behind me that I have answers for 18 of them. Ten of them were asked by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who may never have voted but as always he is good at asking a whole lot of detailed questions.

I have been on a ballot paper.

Right. Question number one from the noble Duke: why has there been such a lack of time for consideration? We were unable to lay the instrument before the Committee any earlier. To allow us to include Schedule 5, “Combination of Polls”, in the order we had to wait until after the local government election rules had been made in the Scottish Parliament on 1 February.

The noble Duke asked about personal identities being inconsistent with England and Wales where other changes are also being introduced. We are keen to remain consistent with England and Wales and will commence this provision for Scotland after May. We felt that already a number of significant changes were being introduced for electoral administrators in May, including the introduction of electronic counting and the single transferable vote for the local government elections to be held on the same day as the Scottish Parliament. That is why they will not be introduced until after May.

The noble Duke also asked about the number of anonymous registrations. We have no knowledge of how many people will avail themselves of the right to register anonymously, but we will monitor the numbers after the provision comes into effect in June. He also asked how anonymous registrants will vote at polling stations. The voter at the polling station will be identified by poll card, which the voter will need to take to show to the presiding officer.

The noble Duke asked what it means when we say that the sorting papers should be face down. It means that the front of the paper on which you cast your vote goes face down. He asked what the Government are doing about incompatibility with the ECHR. The Government’s consultation paper was issued on 14 December with a 12-week deadline for comments. As signalled in the foreword by the Lord Chancellor, the Government wish to launch a debate on how best to implement the Grand Chamber judgment in the Hirst case, which required a review of the current blanket ban on prisoners’ rights to vote. The responses to the consultation, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, told us, closed today, will be analysed and, if appropriate, drafting of phase 2 consultation will occur between April and June 2007. The response paper for the phase 1 consultation completed on 7 March is expected to be published in June 2007. The noble Duke also asked whether elections would be put in limbo by an ECHR challenge. The answer is no: the elections will proceed in May as planned. He also asked whether there would be a limit on commonly used names. It refers to a commonly used name defined in legislation and there is no prescription on what that should be.

My issue on the challenge and the ECHR was not that it would stop the election; it was that the challenge would come after the election. A number of people might challenge their inability to vote, which might change the result. Would that mean a breakdown in the progress from the election?

I am advised that we do not feel that there is any danger in that happening.

That is not an answer.

It is the only answer Members of the Committee will get today. I will write to the noble Baroness if she can tell me exactly her concern.

My noble friend suggested that the outcome might be affected by the fact that prisoners had not voted, which is possible. We need to know the answer. Could the fact that prisoners have not voted put the result of the election in limbo? It is a straight question and not a question of whether or not it might happen.

The straight answer is no, it could not happen, because what we are proposing is not an illegal action.

I am grateful to hear that from the Minister. The question is whether a whole bunch of smart lawyers would also consider that it was not an illegal action; they might raise a case.

Another point is that the election cannot be illegal as prisoners are not eligible to vote.

To turn to the noble Duke’s ninth question, he asked what confidence we had in electronic counting. The electronic counting system has been independently verified; the same system is used in GLA elections and comprehensive training and guidance are provided to electoral administrators.

Finally—or not quite finally, because there are 11 questions—the noble Duke asked how much e-counting would cost. It is difficult to be precise because some costs will not be known until after the count has concluded and accounts are submitted to the Scotland Office. At this time, however, we estimate the costs at around £4.7 million.

The noble Duke asked whether the corresponding number list would be publicly available. The answer is no; rule 71 prevents public inspection of the list and keeps ballot papers confidential, unless a court wishes to inspect them.

I move on to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. He asked why it had taken so long to issue the consultation paper. It is on a complex and controversial area that required full consideration within government. I can confirm that statements made by David Cairns in press and media after the declaration of incompatibility judgment reflect accurately the Government’s view. The Government are not persuaded that lifting the blanket ban on prisoners is the best way forward in these circumstances, but we must take account of the European judgment and initiate a public debate and reflection on the present position.

I was asked why the JCSI’s report on the order highlights that it represents an unexpected and unusual use of power under Section 12 of the Scotland Act. The JCSI brought to Parliament’s attention that the order contains certain provisions that carry forward the blanket ban on prisoners voting contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983, which had been judged to be not ECHR compliant. The view of the JCSI is that Parliament would normally expect that the power to make any subordinate legislation would be exercised in a way that is compatible with the ECHR. It is, therefore, unexpected that this order is being exercised in this way. However, the JCSI has also indicated that it does not think the provisions of the order are unlawful.

The noble Lord, Lord Steel, asked about the ballot paper and whether the names of nominated regional candidates will be displayed in polling stations. Details of all regional candidates will be clearly displayed in the polling stations. The lists will also be sent to all postal voters with their postal ballot papers.

The noble Lord also asked about multi-party descriptions and whether, for example, Alex Salmond’s name could be used on ballot papers that were not for the constituency in which he was standing. That would be possible as long as the description used on the ballot papers was one of the 12 descriptions registered by the party. However, it would appear as the party description and not the candidate’s name.

I am sure that what the Minister said is factually absolutely correct, but my complaint, and that of my noble friend, is that the registration process ought to be looked at again. I hope that the Minister will draw that to the attention of those responsible for the registration process because once that is done I accept that it has to be on the ballot paper. It is questionable whether this practice should go on.

We will be very happy to draw the noble Lord’s concerns to the attention of the relevant people.

On the question of the eligibility to vote in local government elections, registration officers make decisions on who is entitled to be on the register based on the information received. We are introducing the co-ordinated register of electors to assist in future with a UK-wide approach to registering eligible voters.

I have already dealt with confidence in the electronic counting system. I was asked whether we can use manual counting as a fallback. The electronic system has been independently verified and tested, and a manual count can be used if the electronic system fails.

At the moment, there is one question that we are unable to answer. It came from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and I shall write to her on whether the different descriptions of parties have to be consistent between the regions and between the constituency and regional lists. I will send a copy of that letter to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that parties can register up to 12 descriptions with the Electoral Commission.

I was asked when the Government will provide the results of their voting systems review. Discussions are continuing within government in preparation for the review. No decision has yet been taken regarding timing for conducting it.

I was really asking whether the review will take account of the current crop of elections as well as of elections in the past. Will they be new evidence for the inquiry to look at?

We do not know and will have to write in answer to that question. I think I have answered all the questions—

My noble friend asked about what happens when an anonymous voter goes to vote and the Minister said that he has to take his polling card with him. Will he be told that he has to? At the moment, when one votes, one does not have to take one’s polling card. Lots of people think that they have to and produce them, but one does not have to. At the moment, there is no personal identifier system, so will that person be told and if so, when? Will it be when it is agreed that he can be an anonymous voter? That is important.

I can confirm that he will be told when he is sent the postal vote.

On Question, Motion agreed to.