Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and Cathy Jamieson

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously that is the case. I should have thought that, given that none of the Ministers in either of the teams affected represents a Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland seat, it would have been more important for them to consult the relevant devolved Administrations just to be able to get the position right.

[Cathy Jamieson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Scottish female.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Was it not worrying to hear the Minister say that even if the Scottish Parliament passed a resolution that made clear that it did not support the Bill, he would not take account of that and would not change his mind in any way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Will he invite the Minister to ensure that the colour selected for the referendum ballot paper is not a colour that is traditionally used in Scottish Parliament elections?

[Chris Bryant]

That makes sense. If we had had enough time to go through this process at a slightly more leisurely pace, it would have been possible to consult on and agree to all such things. If the proposals were generally accepted, there would be a rather better feeling about the Bill.

We toyed with tabling an amendment to seek to determine the colour of the ballot paper, but we decided against that bearing in mind what the Minister said last week about leaving some decisions to officers. I have received representations from people who say that it would be inappropriate to use on the ballot paper a colour that is normally used by a political party, because we would then get into the complexities of defining which is a major political party and which is not, and what colours relate to them, which is a problem not least because I am not sure whether the Liberal Democrats are yellow or orange these days. I note that the Minister is wearing a Liberal Democrat tie today—it is mostly yellow but with little bits of blue.

Amendment (d) to new schedule 2 is on official poll cards. In new schedule 2, the Government state:

“If the counting officer thinks fit, the official poll cards used for the referendum and for the relevant elections may be combined.”

The problem is this: how is the counting officer to determine whether he or she “thinks fit”? Why ought we to allow that degree of freedom locally when it might make a material difference to the conduct of the ballot or referendum? We propose that:

“The official poll cards used for the referendum and for the relevant elections must be combined for all electors qualified to vote in all the polls.”

We all get a lot of junk mail these days. The danger is that voters will be confused if they receive two or three—or potentially four, five or six—polling cards for the different elections that are happening at the same time. They will not see how one affects the other. It would be far more sensible, wherever there is a combined poll, for the official poll cards to make it absolutely clear how many votes must be cast, how many elections there are, whether the voter has a postal vote, how they go about registering for a postal vote and so on. Our proposal would mean that there is clarity on a single piece of paper for the ordinary voter rather than a series of polling cards. The Government should make clear the nature of the franchise for each election and poll. As a proposed amendment to new schedule 2, amendment (d) relates exclusively to England.