Examination of Witnesses (Questions 320
- 339)
TUESDAY 16 JUNE 1998
MR JOHN
TURNER, MR
COLIN MARSHALL
AND MR
JOHN BAMBROOK
MR DAVID
MONKS AND
MR ROGER
MORRIS
320. We have received evidence that the utilisation
of that facility has been poor. Is that your experience?
(Mr Turner) There is a physical problem here. Often
the temporary ramps for which grants are available can be dangerous
when used by able-bodied people. One must look at this in the
round. Therefore, grants for permanent ramps to improve access
to the building for all sections of society must be seen as the
right way forward.
321. Let us next consider assistance at the
polling station. Do the present rules governing assistance at
the polling station to disabled people and those suffering from
a mental disability work satisfactorily in practice?
(Mr Marshall) They work satisfactorily if the presiding
officers are given the correct training and instructions from
the returning officer. There is an increasing awareness of the
needs of the disabled when they go to vote, even to the extent
of the layout of the polling station so that natural light comes
in to assist voters with visual impairment. Presiding officers
are better trained as to how to look after disabled electors and
what they require. There is a great variation up and down the
country.
322. Do you want to see any changes made to
the existing rules?
(Mr Monks) I do not think that the problem lies in
the rules but the way in which returning officers talk to presiding
officers. I always brief them before every election. If someone
who is physically impaired has made a real effort to get to the
polling station the last thing that I want the presiding officer
to do is send him away. I become very grumpy and cross with people
who do that. It is possible to make some ad hoc arrangements.
For example, if the voter can get to the entrance door the ballot
box can be taken to him or her. People must be grown up and sensible
about it.
323. But are they?
(Mr Monks) Some are and some are not. We are trying
to tell you about best practice in local government. I have to
tell you that some of our colleagues do not pursue this line and
perhaps do not show enough interest in it. It is up to us in local
government to redress that.
324. Are the existing rules an obstacle to what
you feel you can do to enable a person to cast a vote? If so,
what changes would you like to see?
(Mr Monks) I would like to have greater discretion.
We return to the carrot and stick, people copying good practice,
greater education of presiding officers and the encouragement
of people to be sensible about these matters.
(Mr Morris) There are some theoretical limitations
on the right of the returning officer to control directly what
the presiding officer does. The law gives the presiding officer
very much the formal lead role. In my authority recently we have
experienced a resurgence of the practice of appointing polling
agents as opposed to counting agents, that is, people who may
lawfully be inside polling stations, whereas the normal practice
has been to have tellers checking the cards outside. That has
led to some presiding officers becoming somewhat apprehensive
or perhaps rather over-correct about the procedures. We need a
bit of commonsense and flexibility. Providing the law allows the
returning officer to exercise more flexibility and give directions
where they are needed there ought not to be a problem.
325. But the law does not allow that at the
moment?
(Mr Morris) There is some limitation on that which
most people get over by good sense and such authority as they
can muster on the day.
326. From what you say, obviously some electoral
administrators are making big efforts to help the partially sighted
to complete ballot papers. Should a consistent practical approach
be adopted across the country?
(Mr Monks) Northampton adopts the extremely clever
method of folding ballot papers and also Braille templates. It
would be misleading to say that that practice was widespread;
it is not.
(Mr Morris) I think that the question of folded ballot
papers is an experimental possibility rather than a practical
day-to-day necessity. Obviously, there is an issue as to the extent
to which the rules can be modified, if what we are endeavouring
to do is totake the current structure of the rules to its logical
conclusion. That must be set against the background that the whole
basket of rules must be reviewed. If one removes some of the Victorian
background one automatically removes some of the restrictions
which at the moment cause particular difficulty for the blind
and partially sighted.
327. One may have a blind or partially-sighted
person who goes to a polling station and tells the presiding officer
for whom he wishes to vote and asks that officer to fill in the
form. Can that be one?
(Mr Monks) Yes, that can be done.
328. To that extent, the law is on the side
of commonsense?
(Mr Turner) Yes. However, RNIB argues that that immediately
destroys the secrecy of the ballot. Therefore, the blind voter
does not have the same human rights as other sighted voters. The
mechanisms that have been put in place to try to help are designed
to achieve a level playing field for people who are blind or visually
impaired.
329. A good number of blind or partially-sighted
people are not able to use Braille?
(Mr Monks) I agree.
Mr Winnick
330. Do you accept that the recent court decisions
on the situation in which people change their names deliberately
to mislead the electorate have now resolved the position?
(Mr Turner) No.
331. The Home Office takes the view that such
court decisions have resolved the problem?
(Mr Turner) Each case will have to be dealt with on
its merits as the law now stands. The returning officer will have
to make a judgment one way or the other and, based on that decision,
the aggrieved party, be it the other candidate or the person who
has been rejected, will still have the right of appeal to the
courts. One goes back to the court process and the timeliness
of the action. Clearly, in the Hammersmith case following the
last election the judge made it very clear that had the action
been brought earlier he would have made one decision but as the
statement of persons nominated had been published he reached the
opposite decision. One comes back to every case coming before
the court with all the expense and problem that that entails.
As returning officers and administrators we are caught in the
middle.
332. Let us take the Conservative and Labour
leaders. If someone changes his name to Blair or Hague will you
accept the nomination when you know that the change of name has
been done by deed poll purely for pretty obvious electoral reasons?
(Mr Monks) I am just conjuring up the page in the
book which gives me the answer to that. The book by Parker says
that one should not accept that because it is a sham. If you wish,
I can check the actual words and send them to the Clerk.[1]
333. Should there be any problem for returning
officers in implementing the provisions of the Registration of
Political Parties Bill which will shortly become law?
(Mr Monks) The society is concerned about the Bill.
I shall not go through it blow by blow. Perhaps I may draw attention
to just one part; namely, the rules in the schedule which state
that the returning officer has the power to reject nomination
papers which include a description likely to lead voters to associate
the candidate with a registered political party. If ever I have
seen words designed to lead to litigation I have not seen any
clearer than those. Those words are also likely to increase the
premium that returning officers pay for their insurance should
they be taken to task in a petition following the declaration
of an election result. Without wishing to be rude to party agents,
those words will be read as "If you do not strike out the
name that particular candidate is likely to take votes from the
other candidate". Further, if one does strike out that name
it will be said that the name does not mislead voters. What are
the tests? We have put this matter informally to the Home Office.
We are informed that the registrar is to bring out model precedents
and perhaps some sample papers for us to look at, but the courts
will not be bound by that. At the end of it, it is the returning
officer who according to a fairly tight timescale must make those
decisions. That is not tosuggest that we shy away from making
difficult decisions. Mr Morris and I as chief executives do that
every day. That is not the problem. All we say is that these proposed
rules do not give us much of a chance. I can well understand the
need to stop people standing as the "Literal Democrat"
or "Conversative" candidate. I agree that that is misleading
and can confuse the public, but these rules do not help us. A
number of my colleagues are already asking me what they do if,
say, someone stands as a New Labour, Old Labour, Independent Labour
or Unofficial Labour candidate. How does one deal with it? I can
foresee litigation and trouble ahead.
(Mr Morris) I believe that the "Blair-Hague"
point pales into insignificance in this context. Returning officers
generally have very little discretion to reject nomination papers.
The reasons for rejection open to returning officers are very
limited indeed. There may be lots of cases where we know as a
matter of fact that the circumstances are not what they seem but
we are not empowered to reject papers because the law is very
restricted. As Mr Monks has said, this opens up a whole new area
of potential litigation. This issue is not about a particular
decision but certainty. Some candidates who set off down the road
very often do so because they wish to attract the publicity and
be taken to court. They want to test the system to the limit and
therefore provoke difficulties out of all proportion to the academic
arguments about inadvertent confusion.
334. Do you accept that the cases that you have
quoted where candidates stand with the deliberate intention of
misleading the electorate about their political affiliations justify
the legislation that is now passing through the House of Commons?
(Mr Morris) That is really not a matter for me. It
is for Parliament to decide whether as a matter of broad public
principle it wishes to see politically parties as commonly understood
to be registered in some form. We are merely pointing out the
practical implications of the way in which that principle may
be applied to a given set of circumstances. We register some unease
about how that may be operable by officials who may be placed
in a great dilemma in the context that I have mentioned. I believe
that that is quite separate from the issue of general statutory
principles.
335. Given that you anticipate these problems
once registration is on the statute book and that the next general
election is at least three years away, what do you intend to do—continue
to consult the Home Office and have discussions amongst yourselves?
(Mr Morris) We welcome guidance. We shall read our
insurance policies with greater care than ever and make the best
decision that we can on the day, as with the remainder of the
legal apparatus.
(Mr Turner) The next election may well be three years
away, but these rules will apply also to local government elections.
There one has a recipe for all sorts of strange things to happen.
As a matter of principle, what the Bill does not do is stop a
candidate from using a misleading description in anything other
than his nomination paper. It would be quite open to the Mr Huggetts
of this world to abide by the law in terms of his nomination paper
but publish material up to the expenditure limit within the constituency
describing himself as the Literal Democrat candidate.
Chairman
336. He will not be able to put his name on
the ballot paper, which is the key point?
(Mr Turner) Indeed he will not. That may be a key
point but it will not prevent him from campaigning in the constituency
on a false or misleading description.
Mr Winnick
337. I have not followed the Committee stage
on this particular Bill. Has any attempt been made to try to amend
it on the lines you have suggested?
(Mr Turner) SOLACE and ourselves have made comments
to the Home Office. Your Library has prepared a very useful briefing
paper which draws attention to some of these technical matters.
Mr Linton
338. I attended the first Standing Committee
on the Registration of Political Parties Bill which lasted 10
minutes. One had not got to the stage of considering possible
amendments. This Committee would find it helpful if you could
explain precisely what you meant by your earlier comments. As
I read the Bill, parties that have at least one MP will have a
chance to register. Therefore, the Labour, Liberal Democrat and
Conservative Parties will be registered and be subject to copyright,
as it were. No one else will be able to use those names. The purpose
of Schedule 2 is to capture the people who use similar sounding
names, such as "Literal Democrat", "Conversatives"
and so on. That would be set out clearly in the Bill. I do not
understand why you are so anxious that people will be able to
get through with names that are either the same as those of existing
parties or are deliberately misleading.
(Mr Monks) Those who seek to abuse the electoral system
are very ingenious. If one works in Huntingdon, which has a very
well known MP, there are 10 candidates who can be dealt with with
varying degrees of difficulty. They see this as a challenge. With
great respect, people like Lord Sutch are immensely knowledgeable
about electoral procedure and can give very helpful advice. I
must be very careful about what I say. Last time in Huntingdon
a candidate stood on the basis of no policies and no manifesto
and got votes in three figures. Such people are very interested
in this kind of Bill. Further, it places a burden on the returning
officer. As has been pointed out this morning, there are variations
in the practices of returning officers. We are not all clones
and proceed down the same route. There is a fair bet that something
that I may strike out will be allowed by someone else.
Mr Winnick
339. Since there appear to be differences of
opinion, is there any possibility of your writing to us as soon
as possible on this particular aspect? As I understand it, the
Bill has just started its Committee stage. It may be that the
Chairman will himself wish make contact in time for any possible
amendment, but I should like to do so.
(Mr Monks) Certainly.[2]
1 Note by witness:
I have consulted "Parker" and would respectfully refer
you to Section 12. Thus, there are cases demonstrating (though
not fully reported) that the law has always treated sham documents
and transactions as nullities. Accordingly, there would be sufficient
basis for holding a nomination paper with the name of "Mickey
Mouse of Disney Land" to be invalid on the grounds that the
particulars were not as required by law (see Paragraph 12.56).
Dependent upon the actual and precise circumstances, some Returning
Officers may not agree with this view. Again in another unreported
case (1983) a man submitted a nomination paper in which he gave
his name as "Margaret Thatcher" in the same constituency
as Mrs Thatcher, the then Prime Minister. He also gave an address
resembling Downing Street. The Returning Officer rejected the
nomination and was challenged in the courts. Parker records that
the Court of Appeal declined to decide whether or not the Returning
Officer was entitled to do this but did decline to grant remedies
to the applicant on the grounds that the law should not aid a
person seeking to confuse the electorate. These cases are not
particularly clear but are quoted as the current authorities in
the books. (Mr Turner) Section 115 makes it an offence
materially to mislead the electorate. That section was used by
the political parties in arguing the case last time. The difficulty
is that if Mr Monks makes that decision the aggrieved party then
has the right to take it back to court. That simply delays the
whole process. I suppose that the logical conclusion is that the
case goes on for ever until the House of Lords determines it.
Neither returning officers nor the electorate wants to find themselves
in such an unsatisfactory position. Back
2
Evidence not printed. Back
| 
