Report stage in the Lords
- Speaker
Lord HenleyConservative- Quote
- My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 82. We put forward similar amendments in Committee, as a way of probing; it will only be a further bit of probing this evening. As I am sure the Minister will remember, the amendments are designed to make sure that all postal votes are checked. Given the amount of fraud in the system, it seems only sensible that that should happen wherever possible. When I moved the similar amendment in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in response: “We agree in principle that all postal votes should be checked, and will wish to require 100 per cent to be checked when it is practicable to do so. A key factor in determining when it will be appropriate to move to 100 per cent checking is when there is deemed to be sufficient capacity within postal voting software systems to support 100 per cent checking”.—[Official Report, 13/5/09; col. GC 435.] He went on to talk about the then forthcoming elections for the European Parliament on 4 June. As his noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours mentioned earlier, we have had the European elections between Committee and Report. Therefore, while I appreciate that on 17 June it is relatively few days since those elections, it might be useful if the Minister were able to say a little about what the Government learnt from them. I do not mean from a political point of view, as I imagine that they have been feeling fairly sore about them ever since, with a mere 15 per cent of the vote. That is the lowest percentage of the vote that the Labour Party has had in modern history, if we take modern history back to 1919; I see my noble friend Lord Bates nodding. Even in those couple of weeks, the Government might have learnt something about the need for checking, so I wonder whether the Minister can say what level of checking there was in the different regions. He said that we required at least 20 per cent at the moment; I imagine therefore that 20 per cent were checked, and I look forward to confirmation of that. Can he say whether, in any of those areas, any of the returning officers felt it necessary to go beyond that 20 per cent because they began to think that there might be some fraud? That should be known at this relatively early stage. The same would be true of the local elections, which took place on the same day but were counted a couple of days earlier. Postal voting fraud seems more likely to happen in local elections; obviously, a smaller number of votes can make a big difference. In European elections it would be quite difficult, particularly with the d’Hondt system of counting the votes, for it to make much of a difference in the long run. As I understand it, county council votes would have been counted on a ward-by-ward basis, which might have indicated to individual returning officers that it might have been better to have checked more than 20 per cent in certain wards. I think that the European votes were counted on a local government basis—roughly in constituencies, sometimes a bit bigger, sometimes a bit smaller. Again, I would be interested to know whether there were any areas where the returning officers felt it necessary to make such checks. I hope that that is sufficient and that the Minister can give us some idea of what happened, and whether that indicates that there is a need to pursue these amendments at a later stage. I beg to move.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Quote
- My Lords, the introduction of personal identifiers for postal voters under the Electoral Administration Act 2006 has been a key measure in strengthening the integrity of postal voting. Under amendments made to the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 following the introduction of the 2006 Act, we specified that at elections returning officers were required to check at least 20 per cent of returned postal votes. That is the minimum requirement, but they have a discretion to check 100 per cent if they wish to do so. If the returning officer considers that there is a real risk of fraud, he may specify from the outset that all postal voting statements will be checked. The current statutory provisions also provide the returning officer with the flexibility to begin with 20 per cent checking but to increase that level at later postal vote-opening sessions if any evidence of fraud emerges. I repeat what I said in Grand Committee: we agree in principle with the desire for 100 per cent of postal votes to be checked and we will make that a statutory requirement once it is safe and appropriate to do so. The regulations for the recent European parliamentary elections followed the provisions for parliamentary and local elections, and therefore required that at least 20 per cent of returned postal votes were checked. However, at the request of the regional returning officers, we made funding available to local returning officers to cover the costs for administrators in checking all returned postal votes. While we have been supportive of the 100 per cent checking of all returned postal votes, we continue to believe that it would be premature to mandate 100 per cent checking in law at this stage given, as I said in Grand Committee, that we cannot be certain that the necessary software systems are in place to deliver 100 per cent checking across all regions in Great Britain. In order to establish when it will be appropriate to move to mandatory checking of postal votes, it is imperative that we work with the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators and software suppliers to carefully review how the 100 per cent checking of postal votes worked in practice at the European parliamentary elections. For that reason, we do not consider it appropriate today to accept the amendment. It is possible to make the change to mandatory 100 per cent checking of postal votes through amendments to the existing secondary legislation. I want to reassure the noble Lord and other noble Lords that there will be no need to rely on there being a suitable Bill before Parliament for this change to be made. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord has confirmed that this matter can be dealt with by secondary legislation in due course, when the appropriate software systems are in place. However, he did not deal with my principal question, which was whether the Government have learnt any lessons, other than the obvious political lessons, from those elections. Were there any areas where a returning officer at a local or a wider level felt it necessary to make a 100 per cent check? The noble Lord must know the answer, because it obviously happened either on 5 June, when the local election votes were counted, or on Sunday 7 June, when the national votes were counted. The noble Lord’s colleague has returned with some advice; perhaps the Minister can intervene with an answer.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BachLabour- Quote
- My Lords, I shall respond quickly. The elections happened only a few days ago and we await the Electoral Commission’s report on how the system worked for the European elections. The noble Lord must give us a little longer to come up with the answers. The votes were counted on the Sunday night; I remember it well. That was 10 days ago, which is not very long in the Electoral Commission’s life.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I appreciate that it is possibly too early. I, too, remember watching the results on Sunday night; the noble Lord will probably remember them for longer than I will. For the moment, I must accept what he has said and take that as an answer. I shall not come back to these amendments, but I certainly hope that the noble Lord will make sure that, when the Electoral Commission reports, he notifies me and other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this of its findings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord BatesConservative- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Henley. It deals with service registration and would add a new clause to strengthen provision for members of the armed services to be on the electoral register. It might be helpful for the House and for Members who were not present when this matter was discussed in Grand Committee if I offered a few sentences of background before coming to the point that we are concerned about. Before 2001, service personnel were registered on the electoral register through the Ministry of Defence. This was changed to relieve the administrative burden on the Ministry of Defence and apply a greater focus to local authorities, which were then enabled to remove from the register those who were no longer resident. This period was marked by poor administration, but all service personnel were registered during that time. The 2001 changes resulted in a number of service personnel not being included in the electoral register and, given the rolling register’s four-week qualification period and a three-week election campaign, many service personnel were disfranchised in the 2005 general election. The number of service voters in Great Britain on 16 February 2001 was 175,475; the figure for 4 December 2006 was 21,000—a reduction of 150,000. That is clearly a cause for concern, particularly given that our Armed Forces are involved in at least two military engagements. They are putting their lives at risk for this country and we certainly feel that they ought to have a say about the policy and the Government who are responsible for dispatching them into those engagements. Under the terms of the Representation of the People Act 2000, the time limit on the validity of the service declaration for service registration was changed by the Secretary of State from every year to every three years, designed to coincide with the three-year postings which have diminished currency in the current period. Service personnel—and their husbands, wives or civil partners—are currently able to register as an ordinary voter or a service voter. Those based overseas can also register as overseas voters. Service voters are registered at a fixed address in the United Kingdom, even if they move around. Therefore, if used for those who are moving more frequently, or for those who are likely to be deployed overseas frequently or at short notice, this has a significant impact. That is not to suggest that the Electoral Commission or, indeed, the Government have not been alert to the problems or not taken steps. The Electoral Commission launched an initiative last October specifically aimed at trying to get Armed Forces members to register. There was an attempt to have all 4,000 units hold an electoral registration day in November where attention would be drawn to the issue.
- Time
- 20:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will not mind giving way. We were very impressed by what he had to say about this in Grand Committee, and he is making the same points tonight. As he says, the Ministry of Defence is making real efforts to ensure that more service personnel are registered. I should point out that the figures, which have come down so much, do not take account of the number of people in the services who have put their own names on the register at their home addresses, as they are entitled to do. The noble Lord is right to say that there has been a decline, but not by that amount. I will listen very carefully to what the noble Lord said both last time and tonight. He knows that the existing regime allows the period to be varied by up to five years by order, instead of the three years at which it stands at the moment. In respect of members of the Armed Forces and their spouses or civil partners, if the view is reached on consideration of the evidence that a longer or shorter period would be beneficial, we think that it would be important to retain that flexibility. We think that to allow it for ever, as the amendment provides, would automatically make the register inaccurate. Therefore, in response to his comments and his concerns about lower registration rates, we intend to extend the service declaration period from three years to five years. An increase to five years offers the additional benefit of being the same period as the one in which postal voters must provide new identifiers. Indeed, the service voters’ registration form, as issued by the Electoral Commission, includes a postal vote application. I am sorry to interrupt him. I do so in order to tell him that we are prepared to make that concession because of his advocacy this evening. I hope that may assist him in continuing with his arguments.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BatesConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am happy to take such interventions at any time. It is a very welcome intervention and I thank the Minister. He is always extremely courteous and thoughtful and he pays attention to the debates. It is very encouraging that he is making that proposal. The proposal to have no time limit is essentially an attempt to return to the state that existed before 2001. I recognise that changes have come into place and I recognise the importance of having an up-to-date and accurate electoral register. The Minister’s offer of an increase from three years to five will therefore be widely welcomed not only by service personnel but by their families. It is one way of ensuring that their voices are heard in future elections. I am very grateful for that reassurance. Perhaps I may push my luck just a fraction further by mentioning that 70 per cent of units have still not held a service electoral registration day informing personnel how to register to vote. I am sure that service personnel will appreciate that they have to go through this exercise only once every five years as a result of the Minister’s welcome concession. However, perhaps I may press him a little further and ask whether he can encourage his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make representations—indeed, it would seem appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to issue an order—regarding an electoral registration day so that people know about the changes that have been made and know also that their engagement in the democratic process is of the highest concern to Members on all sides of this House. I am happy to give way at this point or, if other people want to contribute to the debate, perhaps I should sit down and allow that to happen.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TylerLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, the Minister will recall that in Grand Committee we, too, were concerned about this issue, and we very much welcome the concession that he has made this evening. I cannot remember whether it was him or his colleague but in Grand Committee the Minister who spoke was pretty adamant that he wanted to stick with the three-year period. Therefore, I am glad that on this issue at least the opposition parties seem to have moved the Minister a little. I want to make a couple of additional points. First, I understand that since 2005, which is after all four years ago, the Electoral Commission has been working with the Ministry of Defence on this issue because it, too, has been very concerned about the underregistration of members of the Armed Forces. Can the Minister say how that initiative is progressing, and can he give us an undertaking that, if further recommendations come forward as a result of that exercise, there will be a method by which he can, if necessary, move further without the need for legislation? Secondly, if the discrepancy is anything like the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred, then is the Minister serious? After all, in recent years we have been asking young men and women to fight on behalf of the nation in the most appallingly difficult circumstances. Following deployment, the very least that they should expect is every possible assistance to enable them to use their civic right to vote. I cannot think of any situation more frustrating than for a young service man or woman coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan not being able to vote on the big issues affecting the nation today. I am sure that the Minister accepts and supports that view. Therefore, if the Electoral Commission and the MoD feel that further improvements can be made, I hope that there will be ways in which that can be achieved outwith this legislation.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Craig of RadleyCrossbench- Quote
- My Lords, I am obviously very interested in this subject. I should like to be quite clear that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence to bring to the attention of all service personnel the current situation, whatever it may be, in relation to voting. At the moment, it seems that one talks about the Ministry of Defence doing this or that, but I should like it to be clearly laid out that it is an MoD responsibility.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords. I should have praised, or at least mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and his colleagues, who also pushed for a change in our line on this. We were always persuaded that there was a problem, even though the numbers have gone up recently, and we always knew that more had to be done. However, as I said, their joint advocacy moved us to believe that we could alter the rules by statutory instrument as soon as practicable in order to change the time limit from three to five years. As I understand it, getting members of the Armed Forces on to the register is a joint obligation on the Ministry of Defence and my department, the Ministry of Justice, which has responsibility for elections in general terms. That is the answer to the noble and gallant Lord. The question of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, links with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, asking what more we can do. On the information gained from the survey last year, we have redoubled efforts through the annual information campaign to encourage members of the Armed Forces and their families to register to vote and to update their registration details when they move. The campaign will continue to highlight the options for service personnel and their families to register as an ordinary elector or as a service voter; a choice that they can exercise depending on their circumstance. Officials at my department will support that work and place particular focus on establishing how the MoD’s joint personnel administration system can help to promote service registration. As noble Lords will be aware, the Electoral Administration Act 2006 placed a duty on the MoD to maintain a record of a service person’s electoral registration record on a voluntary basis. The use of the system is still in its infancy, but responses from service personnel themselves in the 2008 survey suggest that they could be better employed to aid registration. It is clear that more work needs to be done to identify new ways of encouraging service personnel to register. My officials will meet MoD officials to discuss the matters in more detail, and I am happy to write to noble Lords on the outcome of that meeting so that they will be kept informed about progress. I hope that in the light of the offer that I have made to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, he will consider withdrawing his amendment.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BatesConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s comments, as I am for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in these matters, and the intervention of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who sought clarification of exactly where responsibility resides. The Minister’s response was clearly that responsibility is shared between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence, in which case responsibility clearly needs to lead to action. It is not acceptable that there is such a large fall-off involved. More needs to happen to realise the aspiration put forward by the Electoral Commission about electoral registration awareness days. There is a special electoral registration form for armed services personnel which is readily available on the internet. However, there is no substitute for having those in hard-copy form. When armed services personnel are deployed overseas, that should be part of the checks made under the standard operating procedures. That would seem a sensible way forward. The Minister has undertaken to make representations to the Ministry of Defence. We are encouraged by that and I am grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. We obviously have some sympathy with the amendment in that it is designed to help deal with postal voting fraud, which I stress was an important issue in an earlier amendment. We have just three caveats that I shall point out before the Minister responds. First, I worry that the amendment could place an excessive burden on the returning officer, and I am interested to know whether the noble Lord has carried out any assessment of the resource implications of the returning officer writing what might be a rather large number of letters, particularly in an area such as Pendle in which, as the noble Lord told us, some 400 or 500 postal votes were held not to be valid. Secondly, if the returning officer had to write to each elector setting out why their vote has not been counted, as set out in proposed new sub-paragraph (3) in proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, and if there was the possibility of a criminal prosecution of this matter later, I worry that anything that the returning officer might say might prejudice the chances of a fair trial. I would need legal advice as to whether that is the case, but no doubt the Minister will respond to that point in due course. My third point relates to privacy. Proposed new sub-paragraph (2) in proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment tells us that: “The list of postal votes returned but not counted”, would be kept and would count as “a relevant election document”. As a relevant election document under Section 42 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, it would be available for inspection by the public. The noble Lord set out his reasons for that, but presumably—again, I welcome comments on this—it could have a detrimental impact on privacy of the ballot. People should not be able to see a list of those who have spoilt their ballot paper, intentionally or otherwise, so there are dangers in going down this route. Although I have expressed a degree of sympathy for the noble Lord’s amendment, I think that there are one or two problems with it.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord TunnicliffeLabour- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment would require a returning officer to keep information on postal votes that have been rejected because the postal-vote identifiers have not been completed, are incomplete, or do not match the records held on the postal-vote application form. The second part of the amendment would require a returning officer to write to all electors whose postal vote was rejected notifying them of the circumstances in which it was rejected. I think Members on all sides of the House are concerned to secure every possible improvement that we can to the postal voting system, and the amendment clearly has very good intentions, seeking as it does to ensure that votes cast may be counted and that the integrity of the system is strengthened. These are aims that the Government of course support, but while we may agree on the general intention, I have some concern about the policy prescription set out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am not convinced that compelling a returning officer to write to all electors who have had their postal vote ballot rejected due to a mismatch of identifiers is the correct course of action. In some cases, this may well have the effect simply of alerting would-be fraudsters to the failure of their attempt. My inclination would be to grant the returning officer discretion so that, when there has clearly been a simple error such as entering the wrong date on the postal vote application or statement, the returning officer might write; but where the returning officer suspects fraud, he or she might consider that notifying the police to investigate is the correct course of action. This judgment should be made in conjunction with administrators and the Association of Chief Police Officers, rather than leaping to a decision that may hinder rather than help attempts to tackle fraud. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill, I do not consider there to be the time available for us to work through the issues so that we can be confident about making a change of this nature.
- Time
- 20:45
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord GreavesLiberal Democrat- Quote
- My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply. I agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said, particularly about the potential tension between, on the one hand, when a returning officer or an electoral registration officer writes to people to say, “Sorry you have made a mistake. You ought to know this because you are losing your vote”—accidentally, presumably—and, on other hand, when they think that it might be evidence of fraud. I thought about that issue before writing this amendment, but I came to the view that it would be best to put down a simple amendment in order to raise the issue and in the hope of getting the response that the Minister has given. I am very grateful for that and for his promise. I was getting quite excited until he used the word “stakeholder”, then I lost interest. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I do not think that there will be a huge administrative burden. There will be a little extra administrative burden because when someone applies for a postal vote—at general elections a lot come in at the last minute—the returning officers write to people to check that they want it and that it is okay. Election offices are full of computers which are for ever churning out letters and envelopes. They do that all the time—perhaps they do it too much. Nevertheless, it is not a huge question. On the privacy and secrecy of documents, it is important that lists of everyone who has voted and everyone who has returned a postal vote envelope are produced, just like those that are produced at the moment. The noble Lord referred to spoiled ballots. We are not talking about spoiled ballot papers, but those that have not even been looked at. I agree that a spoiled ballot paper should never be divulged because that is the way someone has voted, but here we are talking about ballot papers that have not been looked at or counted, so no one knows if they have been spoiled because they are still in their envelopes, having never been opened. The Government said that they would work through these issues. Instead of waiting for the next election before introducing legislation, I wonder whether it might be possible to deal with this through secondary legislation by introducing statutory instruments to amend the election rules. I would ask the Government to look at that once they have carried out the consultation. However, I am very encouraged by what the Government have said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Lord Pearson of RannochNon-affiliated- Quote
- My Lords, as I mentioned at col. 893 during our last proceedings, this amendment is inspired by the very unsatisfactory events of 4 June during voting for the European Parliament. The name of my party, UKIP, which came last alphabetically on ballot papers, was folded over at the back of a large number of them. The result was that many hundreds of voters blocked our call centre saying that they could not find UKIP on the ballot paper and either asking what to do or telling us that they had voted for another party. I appreciate that a number of noble Lords may feel that this could not have happened to a nicer party, but it is worth recording that Mr Nick Griffin of the BNP won his seat from us in the north-west by only 1,300 votes. The problem appears to have been at its worst in the south-east, where I understand that we may have been denied another seat. It is certainly true that we received a great many complaints from voters in East Sussex, especially Bexhill; from West Sussex, especially around Worthing; from Hampshire, especially in Farnborough; and from Surrey, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, especially in Aylesbury. Such inquiries as we have been able to make indicate two main causes: machine folding, perhaps before the ink was dry, by printers supplying local returning officers, and the manual folding of ballot papers by polling clerks. This latter practice is encouraged by the Electoral Commission in its guide to polling station staff. Machine folding by printers appears to have been a major problem in Yorkshire, while manually folded papers caused serious problems in the eastern region and the West Midlands. Following a complaint from our party leader, Mr Nigel Farage, the commission did issue guidance on 4 June that all ballot papers should be handed out unfolded, but this followed only very late in the day, sometimes as late as 9 pm, and does not appear to have been generally followed at all in the north-west. As things stand at the moment, the onus appears to be on UKIP to discover exactly what happened and where, and if it can muster sufficient evidence, to mount a petition to the commission for a re-run. This is a prohibitively expensive task and one, I submit, that should not fall to the affected party but to the commission. I would have hoped that, at the very least, the commission would find out how many ballot papers with UKIP over the back were machine folded and where they were distributed, and how many were folded at polling stations. I would have thought that the commission should also employ a good independent psephologist, if it does not have one in-house, and publish an objective report drawing on all these inputs. If anything like this happens in the future, surely the commission should sort it out, not the damaged party. I look forward to the Minister’s view on these questions. I also wonder whether the commission should be empowered to oversee and direct regional and local returning officers on the printing, distribution and handling of ballot papers, especially when the list of candidates is as long as it was in many areas on 4 June. I understand that the commission does not think that this amendment is necessary, so may I assume that it will be doing all the things I have suggested above under the present Act? If not, how will we get redress? What happens next? I look forward to the Minister’s reply and I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BatesConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and, in doing so, I recognise that it is of the utmost importance that people get the opportunity to vote for the party they wish to vote for. One of the consequences of the ever expanding list of parties seeking election under our proportional representation system for European elections is that the ballot paper is ever lengthening. An interesting point has been raised as to whether someone needs to think—forgive the pun—outside the box on this and consider whether the shape of the current ballot paper is the right one. The noble Lord’s amendment, which I assume is a probing amendment, might not be able to answer the point. If a burden is placed on people to ensure that papers are not folded, it might lead to disputes in polling stations. If a paper were folded there could be a discussion about whether it was done by one of the polling clerks or by the elector. I can foresee many such disputes. The noble Lord raises a valid point. If he cannot find satisfaction on this issue, he might consider changing his party’s name so that it appears further up the ballot paper. However, I do not wish to be guilty of giving too much assistance to him.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment seeks to ensure that all ballot papers are handed out in polling stations with the paper flat in order to prevent the problem of folded papers potentially hiding the names of candidates from the sight of electors. The amendment would require the Electoral Commission to monitor whether that was done and to report on it, and to assess any adverse impacts if and when it was not done. Clarity for the elector and a level playing field for the parties are of course important factors, and I fully understand why the noble Lord has brought forward his amendment. It cannot be right that the nature of the production of a ballot paper, or any other element of the administration of an election, should adversely impact on how electors vote or on the results for a party or candidate. In this instance, I understand that the production of the ballot papers with machine folds had caused the bottom of the papers in some areas of two regions—Yorkshire and the Humber and the South-East—to be bent upwards. It is reported to have potentially obscured the names of one or a number of candidates so that they were not apparent to electors as they marked their votes. There are, however, large versions of the ballot paper posted up in all polling stations to assist voters in making their choice. As I understand it from officials, action was taken to address the issue on 4 June, once the concerns of the noble Lord and his party were raised in the morning. Indeed, I had the pleasure of speaking to the noble Lord that morning in the environs of this Chamber. This included the local returning officers in relevant areas being asked to ensure that ballot papers were handed out flat, and then a subsequent notice to that effect was sent out from the Electoral Commission to all returning officers in the UK. The ballot papers for the elections were very long due to a significant number of candidates standing. For ease of transport and handling, I am told, they were folded to fit into cardboard boxes. That in itself is not a problem; rather, as the Government understand it, it is the position and nature of the folds that may have caused an issue in this instance. In fact, the Electoral Commission’s guidance, as contained in the handbook that it produces for polling station staff, actively suggests that the practice of folding the completed ballot paper before it is put in the ballot box in the polling station is maintained to ensure the secrecy of the vote. So perhaps we should pause before moving to legislate in the manner proposed by the noble Lord. However, I suspect that this is a probing amendment and, if I may, I will treat it as such. I am therefore not going to criticise its wording because that would just be to waste time.
- Time
- 21:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord Pearson of RannochNon-affiliated
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the Minister. Of course there is nothing wrong with a folded ballot paper, provided that it does not cause the problems that were caused on 4 June. I accept that greater secrecy is achieved by folded ballot papers, and I am also aware that there were large versions of the ballot paper in the polling booths. That did not stop hundreds of people ringing in and saying that they did not understand how to vote for UKIP. It is true, as I think I mentioned in my remarks, that the Electoral Commission issued instructions, and I am most grateful to the Minister for his interest on the day in question. It is also true, though, that those instructions did not appear until very late in the day. I hope that before Third Reading I will be able to get a better idea of what the commission proposes to do in this case. In the mean time, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. On a slightly separate subject, I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for suggesting that I should rejoin his party. That, of course, depends on whether the Conservative Party joins me on another matter.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TunnicliffeLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am moving these amendments today as they are necessary to the successful implementation of the co-ordinated online record of electors, or CORE, scheme. The amendments are essential to ensure that there is authority to create a new non-departmental public body to fulfil the role of the CORE keeper. Until November 2008 it was intended that the Electoral Commission would fulfil this role, and the Electoral Administration Act 2006 makes provision for that. Following the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, however, the commission is seeking to refocus its functions and concentrate on enhancing its regulatory role. The Government agree with the commission that this is the right thing to do. Furthermore, the Government have now brought forward our proposals for the introduction of a scheme of individual registration. It is quite likely that we will require a central point through which electors’ personal identifiers, such as national insurance numbers, may be validated with the relevant authority, and CORE may provide that service. Such a role does not currently fit with the Electoral Commission’s redefined regulatory role, but it is important that the public body taking on this role is demonstrably independent from government. In bringing these amendments forward, therefore, we will ensure that the CORE scheme can be delivered without delay, and that the necessary infrastructure can be developed to facilitate the introduction of individual registration. The new clause that is brought in by Amendment 85 inserts new Section 3A into the 2006 Act to enable the Secretary of State, by order, to establish a new non-departmental public body in the form of a corporation sole with a view to its being designated by a CORE scheme as the CORE keeper. This type of body is considered appropriate for three reasons. First, it would comprise a single office-holder, meaning that there is an identifiable decision-maker for accountability purposes. This is regarded as important because the CORE keeper’s functions under the 2006 Act will include the receiving and processing of electoral registration information from EROs. Secondly, it would achieve the right balance between daily operational independence and accountability to Parliament via the Secretary of State, who would appoint the office-holder. Finally, a single identifiable decision-maker is similar in concept to an electoral registration officer, and is therefore a model that is established and well understood within the electoral administration field. Taking a power to create the corporation sole in secondary legislation is designed to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility so that the precise detail of the structure and operation of the body, and the timing of its creation, can be developed consistently with the CORE scheme order. The amendment provides for necessary matters of detail concerning the creation of the corporation sole to be addressed in the order, and makes provision for a number of matters that would be consequential on the establishment of the corporation sole. In particular, it amends Section 1(10) of the 2006 Act expressly to provide that a person designated as the CORE keeper under the CORE scheme must be a corporation sole established under the new power, or some other public authority. This preserves the ability for another public authority to take on the role of CORE keeper if that is considered appropriate in the future. It also provides for an order establishing the new corporation sole to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and provides that, before the order can be made, the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner must be consulted. These requirements are designed to ensure that the order will be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Moving on to the other amendments, Amendment 86 is intended to provide additional protections around access to the electoral register from the CORE keeper. The effect of current provisions in the 2006 Act is that the regulations governing the supply of the electoral register by EROs will also apply to the CORE keeper, subject to any modifications that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. This means that bodies entitled to receive copies of the electoral registers and related information from EROs will be entitled to receive the same information from the CORE keeper, subject to the same restrictions on access and use. This does not expand the range of bodies with access to the registers, but the creation of the CORE scheme would enable the registers to be accessed from a single source on a national scale. In light of this, specific arrangements may be required where information is supplied by the CORE keeper to ensure that the provision of data is appropriate. Accordingly, Amendment 86 supplements the Secretary of State’s existing power to modify the application of the regulations by enabling additional or different conditions to be imposed on the supply of material by the CORE keeper. Amendment 87 relates to Section 3 of the Juries Act 1974, which currently requires EROs to supply copies of the register for the purpose of jury summoning. Once the CORE system is operational, it may be more efficient and convenient for the registers to be supplied on a national scale by the CORE keeper, rather than by each individual ERO. Accordingly, this amendment takes a power to amend Section 3 of the Juries Act to provide for this, but it would not allow anyone who is not already entitled to access the register from EROs to do so from the CORE keeper. Finally, Amendment 88 extends the Secretary of State’s existing powers in relation to the CORE scheme order so that the order can authorise information sharing between the CORE keeper and the Electoral Commission. As I have already detailed, the original intention was for the Electoral Commission to be the CORE keeper. However, now that this is not to be the case, it is important that the CORE keeper is able to furnish the commission with information that is relevant to its functions. It is envisaged that the power may be exercised to enable the CORE keeper to provide the Electoral Commission with statistical reports, for example, regarding registration patterns or the number of notifications made by the CORE keeper to EROs about circumstances that may be indicative of absent voter fraud or other improprieties. The power may also be used to enable the CORE keeper to inform the commission where an ERO has failed to report back to the CORE keeper on steps taken to investigate potential instances of fraud or other improprieties, as may be required in the CORE scheme order. I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the Government have tabled a number of amendments to the individual registration clauses. Many of these, with the exception of Amendments 90, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 114 and 117, are minor technical changes that tidy up the way that these clauses are intended to work and I do not propose to say anything about them. There is also a small number of more significant changes that I will describe shortly. I do not think that I need to go into detail at this hour about the importance of the shift to individual registration, which as a principle I know has the support of all the main parties in the House. It marks a significant point in the evolution of our electoral registration processes in Great Britain. I wish to mention briefly five changes. The first concerns Amendment 90, which amends Clause 27(2)(d) to broaden the purposes for which EROs can check information provided from the national insurance number (NINO) database during the voluntary phase of individual registration. The purpose of this amendment is to give EROs more flexibility in using data from the NINO database, while also ensuring that data are used only for appropriate purposes relating to checking a person’s entitlement to vote. Amendment 91 provides for the disclosure of information by the CORE keeper to a registration officer for the purposes of registration. Amendment 101 introduces a requirement for registration officers to provide assistance to the Electoral Commission for the purpose of compiling its reports, and thus is very close to what the Official Opposition are looking for in their Amendment 96. In practice this is likely to cover the provision of information that the commission is likely to require. The Electoral Commission specifically asked if we might include this requirement in our legislation. Amendments 99 and 100 make a number of amendments to the steps the Secretary of State needs to take in the event that there is not a positive endorsement of the shift to individual registration in 2014 by either the Electoral Commission or Parliament. If noble Lords require more detail on those amendments, I shall be happy to give them that information. Those are the government amendments in short. I shall now sit down as I know that there are opposition amendments in this group. I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the government amendments. I wish to comment briefly on the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bates, and on Amendment 98, to which I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will want to speak, and which my noble friend and I also support. As regards Amendments 96 and 97, in light of what the noble Lord said about achieving most of what we were trying to do in those amendments, and in view of the lateness of the hour I assure noble Lords that I shall not move those amendments when we come to them. As regards Amendment 98, I make it clear again, as we did in Committee, that we still find it odd that the Government are trying to insist that nothing can go ahead before 2014, whatever happens. That is why we strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, myself and my noble friend Lord Bates. That amendment makes it clear that if the commission believes that an appropriate assessment has been made, as provided by subsection (4)(a), a recommendation can then be made that the process should go ahead. Most of us, being rather cynical, suspect that there are political motives behind this and that we are not allowed, if things are ready, to move ahead of the date 2014, if that is possible. It might be that the Government have been conservative, and it might not be possible to get things moving by 2014, but it might be that we are easily ready for that date. When the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, comes to move his Amendment 98, which we are supporting, we will certainly give it our backing. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, intends to do with it at this late hour on a Wednesday evening. If he feels it is inappropriate to divide what I imagine is a fairly empty House at this hour, he might consider coming back to it at Report stage. Certainly, as this is happening at a late hour, we would reserve the right to consider that if it was necessary.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TylerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, means the Third Reading for a further look at this. We are getting to the stage now when we are all a bit punch-drunk. The integrity of the register is incredibly important and we welcome the moves that the Government are making towards personal identifiers. I think I am right in saying that the Electoral Commission made its recommendations as long ago as 2003. It is a very long time ago; we ought to have made more progress by now. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, the purpose of Amendment 98, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Bates, is to try to build back into the Bill a little more flexibility. If we can make some progress, it surely would be right to do so. In Grand Committee, the argument that the Minister gave was that if we were to move more quickly it might conflict with the run-up to the general election. He is obviously greatly better informed that I am, because who knows when the election after next is likely to be? We might indeed find ourselves with a very short Parliament. I was the victim of the very short Parliament in 1974—in and out within eight months. Who knows? I therefore do not regard that argument as being conclusive, unless of course the Government are going to move towards fixed-term Parliaments as part of their package of reform proposals that are due any moment now. We simply thought that it was sensible to ask the Electoral Commission not to be boxed into a corner of automatically doing nothing until 2014 and that if there was a possibility of moving further and faster, we should do so. But we recognise also that there are important reasons why that may not be possible. We are not precluding the possibility of waiting until 2014; we are simply saying that if we can move further, faster and earlier we should so. I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says on this subject in a moment. I assume that he is going to address that particular point, and then we will have to think very carefully whether it is appropriate to pursue this any further at this late hour, or whether it is more sensible to look at it again, in the light of the Minister’s response, in time for Third Reading.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords. Amendment 98 is an important amendment. It provides the Electoral Commission with a discretion to make an assessment before 2014 of whether the registration objectives would be helped or hindered by a move towards the compulsory collection of personal identifiers. In tandem, it also provides the commission with the ability to make a recommendation before that date on whether the provision of identifiers should be made compulsory. Our proposal is well known. Of course, I am aware that some noble Lords believe that we should be moving more quickly towards a system of individual registration. As I argued in Grand Committee, a phased approach is the only way to ensure that this very radical change is made effectively. We should not rush it. The specific timetable we have set out delivers on this phased approach. It has been developed with great care, with due regard to the magnitude of the change and the risks involved. What this timetable allows is, first, sufficient time for the public to acclimatise itself to the change; secondly, time for each and every one of the 400-plus electoral registration officers to adapt to the new system and to ensure that all are working to the level of the best; thirdly, time to investigate and test which public sector databases will be of most assistance to registration officers in targeting people not included on the register; and, finally, time to design the infrastructure for the validation of national insurance numbers, which will underpin the new system. Importantly, the proposed timetable will also allow us to minimise disruption to elections by avoiding, so far as is possible, national and sub-national elections, such as the 2014 elections to the European Parliament. In developing that timetable, we have paid careful attention to the Northern Ireland experience when implementing individual registration. That is an important point in my argument. The registration rate fell significantly in Northern Ireland when individual registration was introduced. There is an ongoing debate about why that happened, and at least some of the decrease in the numbers registered in Northern Ireland in 2002 was due to the removal of the carry-forward, but the Electoral Commission’s analysis tells us that the impact of that change was keenly felt among particular groups. It states that individual registration, “tended to have an adverse impact on disadvantaged, marginalised and hard-to-reach groups. Young people and students, people with learning disabilities and other forms of disability, and those living in areas of high social deprivation were less likely to be registered and encountered specific problems with the new registration process”. It goes on: “While these findings relate directly to Northern Ireland, they are not unique and reflect the wider picture across the UK. They present a major challenge to all those concerned with widening participation in electoral and democratic processes”. That comment is important. We all agree that making the shift towards individual registration is right but, in doing so, we have to ensure that we do not disfranchise large numbers of people who may find the new system more onerous. That becomes especially important when you consider that already an estimated 3 million individuals are not registered to vote. We must do all we can to ensure that that figure does not increase. By taking time to prepare both the system and the public for the change, to analyse registration performance and to develop a better understanding of the issues impacting on registration rates, we mitigate the risk of that outcome. Now more than ever, we need to ensure that we do not take steps that risk discouraging individuals from engaging in our democracy. A more effective and secure registration system is more likely to be achieved by building in time, to ensure to that the factors that I have mentioned can be fully taken into account in a realistic timeframe. That is what our proposal is designed to achieve. The work that I have described would be vital to the success or otherwise of the shift to compulsory individual registration. The Electoral Commission’s reports will provide invaluable evidence about registration rates, the performance of EROs and the operation of the system, which will inform our understanding of its preparedness for the change. Without that information, we cannot have a full understanding of whether the system is ready for the shift. We must protect the space for the Electoral Commission to undertake proper and robust analysis during the voluntary phase. It is only on the basis of that evidence that we can be confident that the system can withstand the change. If the idea is that a pre-2014 recommendation should be permissible and brought before Parliament if made in favour of individual registration, we would resist that. Furthermore, the existing proposed timetable is a fair balance between the role of the Electoral Commission and that of Parliament. It is right that Parliament should set the agenda for moving towards a compulsory phase, taking into account the recommendations of the commission. A decision as historic as this should be made only after a thorough and informed parliamentary debate. The purpose of a phased approach to implementation is to ensure that we take the necessary time to bolster, adapt and improve the current system for registration, in readiness for the major shift in process. Any attempts to introduce individual registration at a faster rate might risk damaging the integrity of the system and, worse still, the public’s confidence in it. If that were to happen in the run-up to a general election, the consequences could be dire. That is the Government’s argument as to why the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, should not be moved.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, this amendment brings in personal identifiers at the ballot box. I spoke on this issue in our long debate on IVR in Grand Committee. At that point, I said that I did not think that fraud at the ballot box in the form of personation was that serious a problem. I have since been advised that it is, in fact, a growing problem, mainly in local elections, because personation is quite difficult to do in large numbers. However, in houses of multiple occupancy and similar establishments it is often easy for people to pick up a number of different polling cards and use them to vote in the names of other people. When he responded in Committee, the Minister did not consider this to be a serious problem and did not seem to think that merely providing some proof of identity would necessarily deal with it, because one would have to decide what type of proof of identity would have to be produced. In the previous group of amendments, the noble Lord prayed in aid Northern Ireland legislation. We have taken our amendment from legislation in Northern Ireland whereby voters have to have personal identifiers, but we have left out the bit that specifies the document that would have to be produced by the individual when they turned up at the polling station. We have left it for the Secretary of State to designate that by order. Most of us normally carry some form of identification that would be enough to stamp out most fraud of this sort—a driving licence or even a credit card. If people were required to take credit cards, which obviously do not have photo ID on them, it would complicate the whole matter and would make it that much harder for them to commit fraud on a large scale, which must be our issue of concern. I feel quite strongly about this amendment, but I shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord has to say about it. At this hour, whether we press this to a vote will depend very much on the support I receive from other parts of the House and on the response I get from the Government as to whether they will consider bringing this measure forward at a future date. I beg to move.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord TylerLiberal Democrat
- Quote
- My Lords, all that I want to say at this stage is that I know from friends who have experience of Northern Ireland that they think that the requirement for personal identification is natural. They are so used to it that they do not think that this matter should be controversial. Frankly, at this time of night we are not going to have a substantial debate, but we may well wish to return to this issue at Third Reading. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to what could be done, because there is a genuine concern that if we are to move in this direction we need to ensure that it works as effectively as it does in Northern Ireland.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, the amendment would require electors to produce evidence of their identity in order to be issued with a ballot paper at a polling station in an election. The purpose is to strengthen the security of the voting process at polling stations. Of course, voting at polling stations has traditionally been conducted without the need for any personal identification to be produced. However, as we have been told, it is an offence to attempt to vote in place of another elector. That is personation. The Electoral Commission has provided guidance for returning officers on the actions that polling station staff should take if they suspect that a person requesting a ballot paper is not who they claim to be. It has encouraged returning officers to supply copies of this guidance to all presiding officers. The commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers have also worked together to produce guidance for police officers on how they should respond to any incidents of personation at polling stations.
- Time
- 21:30
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord HenleyConservative
- Quote
- My Lords, I do not think that that was satisfactory. I am minded to consider what to do about it in due course. At three minutes past 10, I will spare the noble Lord a Division on this matter, because I suspect that the response that we might get might not be representative of the feelings of the House. I think that there is a problem here. I have certainly been advised that there is one. I do not think that it would be a problem for people to bring some form of identification. Most people have some form of identification of one sort or another on them most of the time. We suspect the Government want ultimately to make that compulsory by bringing in ID cards. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, denies this and shakes his head. However, we know that ID cards are on the way. At least, the Government seem to think that they are on the way; I am not sure that they will ever happen. I will not go any further. The response was unsatisfactory. I will consider what we shall do with this matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen)Labour- Quote
- My Lords, as Amendment 111 has been agreed to, Amendment 112 should not refer to page 32, line 44. Amendment 112
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- The Deputy SpeakerLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, as Amendment 113 has been agreed to, Amendment 114 should not refer to page 32, line 46. Amendment 114
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Lord BachLabour
- Quote
- My Lords, as a result of amendments that have been made since its introduction, the Bill now deals in a more significant way than at the outset with loans and other transactions regulated by Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act. Therefore, this is a technical amendment to ensure that the Bill reflects that in the Long Title. Before moving the amendment, I take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for their kindness in ensuring that we finished the Report stage tonight. I also thank the usual channels for their help. I beg to move.
- Time
- 22:00
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗