---

Electoral System

My Lords, the Scottish Parliament is a good example of an exception to what I have just said. I think that the noble Lord would agree that, throughout Europe in particular, when a coalition is formed post-election, it is difficult to translate what can be serious differences in manifesto commitments into something on which we can honestly say that the country has voted. I think that my point still stands, although I take the point that Scotland is proving to be a good example that we must consider carefully. It is also interesting that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that each election since the Second World War has produced a government that more people have preferred. I will come back to that point. That is the philosophical standpoint from where I begin. We have to be very clear about what we wish to achieve and which of the priorities that I have outlined come at the top of our list. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, talked about the Boundary Commission in particular, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, talked about the   time-lag between the recommendations, which I recognise as an important issue. Noble Lords know that the reviews by statute have to be between eight and 12   years. I take the point about mobility of population. Your Lordships will also know about the commissions transfer to the Electoral Commission as soon as they have done their work by way of the 2000 Act, which is important in terms of the Electoral Commission picking up what happens. I will feed into their work what noble Lords have said about looking carefully at the issues relating to the difference in time, although it is important to get certainty—as noble Lords know, changing boundaries is not a simple process—and also make sure that that point is recognised as important. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, spoke about, I think, two reports from the Electoral Commission, including Voting for Change. I hope to receive a note saying more about when the legislation is coming in specifically so as to address the point raised by the noble Baroness. As the noble Lord will know, we have published responses to Voting for Change. We are looking carefully, of course, at Securing the Vote, which is very important. Obviously, it is important to continue to offer electors a choice of ways in which they cast their vote. I accept fully what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about the importance of secrecy of the ballot box. But, as noble Lords have heard me say many times, I am also concerned to offer a variety of means for people to be able to express their vote. I recognise that disabled people and people with young children—and for many other reasons—may not be able to go out and express their votes in the traditional way, if I can call it that. We need to think carefully about how to do that safely and securely, and give people absolute confidence. The critical thing about Securing the Vote is that the commission says that we need to command public confidence. I could not agree more. That brings us back to postal voting. As of this morning, no petitions have been received on this election, but that does not mean that I am complacent. We need to think this issue through very carefully, which we have already indicated that we will do. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for his immense work, not least that which he has done with my right honourable friend Mr Cook. Before I came today, I looked at the constitutional reform agenda agreed by the Joint Consultative Committee in March 1997. I was pleased to see how much we have done. I am sure that the noble Lord will indicate what we have not done, but I was pleased to see how much progress has been made on the work that the noble Lord undertook.