asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why voters in the London mayoral elections were instructed on the reverse side of the declaration of identity to, "Vote once for your first choice and once for your second choice", when there is no obligation to exercise a second choice.
My Lords, I am only partially grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that I first raised this matter as long ago as 2000 during the mayoral election? I pointed out then that voters were being wrongly instructed that they had to vote twice. Is the Minister aware that I returned to the charge at the beginning of 2003 and I raised the matter again in good time for the matter to be put right for the mayoral election in 2004? However, on
Is it not obvious from the Hansard report of the proceedings on
My Lords, no. This matter is important and I must explain the background. Will the Minister state categorically that voters are not required to exercise a second choice? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will ensure that that will be made absolutely clear in future orders?
My Lords, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord and I congratulate him on his diligence, but in the end I cannot agree with his conclusion. It is made clear to voters that they can vote once for their first choice and once for their second choice. It is up to voters whether they wish to use their second vote.
My Lords, I really think that this is unacceptable. Perhaps the Minister should finish his answer.
My Lords, in the guide that is sent to all electors in the Greater London area it is made clear that they have no obligation to make use of their second vote. That was made clear in the mayoral address booklet that was sent to every elector.
My Lords, can my noble friend enlighten me on a matter of elementary logic? Does my noble friend agree that it does not remotely follow from the proposition put in the Question that one has to exercise a second choice? Indeed, it does not even follow that one has to exercise a first choice. There is nothing in the proposition that says that one must exercise any choice at all and, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is completely misguided—simply as a matter of logic.
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a report published after the first mayoral elections for London on how the elections had been carried out showed that a great number of votes were considered to have been invalid? The reason given to the London group of this House was that people had not fully understood the voting instructions. Is it too early to know whether a similar situation exists for this election?
My Lords, I know that concerns were expressed about the first set of elections for the Mayor and the Greater London Assembly and that greater flexibility was then given to the returning officer with regard to the wording. Fewer ballot papers were spoilt in the most recent elections—a drop of 10 per cent. On an increased turnout, we should be happy with that progress.
My Lords, I declare an interest as a candidate in the recent Greater London Assembly elections—although the question I ask has no bearing on whether or not I was elected. The instruction given suggested that people had two votes in those elections. Many electors followed that to the letter by voting twice in the same column, thereby invalidating their vote. Did the Greater London Returning Officer take advice from focus groups or take other steps to establish whether electors would understand the instructions given to them?
My Lords, I am not immediately aware of whether the returning officer conducted research with focus groups, but I know that there was extensive consultation. No doubt that will be fed back into the various inquiries which will be undertaken into the conduct of the elections, and suggestions and improvements can be made for subsequent elections.
My Lords, I do not necessarily agree that it was that complex because a large number of electors managed to get it right. We should congratulate them on doing so. However, the noble Lord makes a valid point and no doubt the Greater London Returning Officer will want to consider it in reviewing the outcome of the election.
My Lords, it is a matter for the electors. Adequate steps were taken to ensure that people were aware that they did not have to exercise both votes.
My Lords, is the issue here not the advice that was given to returning officers but what was written on the ballot paper? The issue that surfaced in the debate earlier this year was the wording on the ballot paper. Can we be assured that, at the next mayoral elections, the proposal made in the debate in February that there be a particular form of wording on the ballot paper to clarify the position is put into effect?
My Lords, I take my noble friend's point—it is clearly a matter for the Greater London Returning Officer. Doubtless it is an issue to which the returning officer will give full consideration.
My Lords, can I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that the regulations do not refer to voters having a choice? They state quite specifically that the voter is "instructed" to vote twice. That is my point—"instructed"—and it is wrong in law.
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's interpretation. The regulations are clear. Obviously noble Lords are exercised about this matter and the Greater London Returning Officer will have to consider it, quite properly, in the fullness of time.