asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What measures they are taking to ensure that there is no postal fraud in the forthcoming local elections.

My Lords, the Government take very seriously the integrity of the electoral process. We have introduced a number of measures to tighten up the security of the electoral system, which will be in place at the forthcoming May elections. We also support the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission in preparing for those elections updated guidance on preventing and detecting electoral malpractice.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware that the Council of Europe reported in January of this year that the household postal vote on demand was open to fraud and urged that changes be made to the postal system and to registration? Is he further aware that it was judicially decided last month that it is childishly simple by corrupt practices to opt out of or bypass— that was the word used—the Act? In those circumstances, what do the Government intend to do to protect the May elections? If they are not prepared to take any steps, will they consider implementing the recommendations of the Electoral Commission in its booklet of January 2007 posted on its website?

My Lords, that was a very extensive question. Of course I am aware of the Slough case and of the Conservative councillor who was found against, and of the Council of Europe committee’s deliberations. It is fair to say that, although it identified some challenges that we face, it also made it absolutely clear that UK elections are conducted democratically and represent the free expression of the will of the people.

Changes have been made to the system to provide more checks. I was present at the launch of the guidance given by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers. There is very clear guidance to returning officers about electoral integrity and advice for polling staff about maintaining integrity during the voting process. Of course, we will keep that closely under review, but the changes made to the postal voting system are to encourage more people in this country to vote. Surely that is an aim that we all share.

My Lords, is it not the difficult and unpalatable truth that much of this fraud is centred on the ethnic minority communities? With that in mind, is it not quite wrong to proceed with more and more draconian regulations and controls? Should we not concentrate our efforts on dealing with the problem precisely where it exists and not in this very widespread way?

My Lords, if one looks at the record, it is clear that, overall, we have a system of which we can be proud. There are areas where there has been fraud, some of which may well have included people of different ethnic backgrounds. The best way forward is for the Electoral Commission to continue its work of giving general guidance and target its efforts where the appropriate information is available.

My Lords, the Minister said that a number of steps are already planned. Is one of those steps to ensure that people cannot knock on the doors of lonely and frightened old people, take away their postal votes and tell them that they will fill in the forms for them? There was much evidence of that in Birmingham and it is very worrying.

My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that there has been concern about a number of cases in Birmingham, the latest of which was reported yesterday. The issue of party workers handling postal votes, to which I think the noble Baroness is referring, was discussed during the passage of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Although agreement was not given to legislation, a national code of conduct for political parties was developed. I do not want to read out all of it but I shall make it available to the noble Baroness. It makes it clear that you—candidates and party workers—should not touch or handle anyone else’s ballot paper.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a crucial part of the integrity of elections on election day is related to the mechanism of the electoral system that is employed? Does he further agree that evidence from the recent report shows that there are tremendous advantages in the merits, quality and integrity of the first-past-the-post system which the Government and everyone else should recognise?

My Lords, the excellent report to which my noble friend refers is widely admired because it provides evidence for any voting system you care to support.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the vast majority of crime in this country is unreported—and therefore not prosecuted—and that the recent scandals of postal vote abuse in places such as Birmingham and Slough may be only the tip of the iceberg? Does he not now accept that we should either follow the advice of the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life that we should have individual voter registration in this country, or that we need to abandon postal voting on demand and consider other methods of boosting voter turnout, such as voting at weekends?

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that the issue of voting at weekends is being considered. I do not agree with his general point that it is the “tip of the iceberg”. Noble Lords have commented on worrying cases but, overall, we can be confident in the integrity of the system. As to individual registration, I agree that it might offer a way forward but the risk is that it could lead to under-registration. Ultimately, we want to see registered everyone who ought to be registered, and voter turn out as high as possible, but if individual registration leads to under-registration and under-voting, we would be cautious about going down that route.