Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340
- 353)
TUESDAY 16 JUNE 1998
MR JOHN
TURNER, MR
COLIN MARSHALL
AND MR
JOHN BAMBROOK
MR DAVID
MONKS AND
MR ROGER
MORRIS
Mr Linton
340. If it became the law that people could
use only the names in which they registered and could use party
names only if those names were registered, would that not help
returning officers? Would it not avoid the kinds of situations
that you have experienced in the past?
(Mr Monks) In the obvious cases, yes. I would cross
out the Literal Democrats, the Conversatives and the Unofficial
and Independent Conservative and Labour candidates. A colleague
told me the other day that there had been a split in a well-known
national political party and he was unsure which was the official
part. He intended to apply the somewhat unscientific test that
the first one to get to him would be the official party. They
both had claims on the official party name. What is one to do
in those situations? It is immensely unscientific. I can see us
walking down the Strand and straight into the High Court.
(Mr Turner) I had a telephone call from a journalist
who said, "If under this new law I put in the nomination
paper `Independent Unofficial Conservative candidate' what would
you do?" I said, "I won't tell you." He said that
the candidate had made absolutely clear to the electorate that
he was independent and had nothing to do with any party. He was
unofficial and no one had adopted him. He just happened to believe
in Conservative principles and so used the word "Conservative".
Any number of people will want to argue that before the courts.
One then builds that very unsatisfactory delay into the election
process which existed at the time of the last general election.
There were about 10 or 12 cases in which one could not get on
with the job of running the election because the matter was before
the court. I think that that is where we will end up as the law
is currently framed.
(Mr Morris) There are matters of principle here which
perhaps are not for us. When one looks at this draft legislation
one wonders what Parliament wishes to achieve by registering parties
in the local election context. It is clear what it wants to achieve
in the European context and perhaps in the context of the referendums
in Scotland and Wales. In that respect perhaps there is a different
reason for promoting this Bill. But it is difficult to see what
gain will flow from some of these measures. There are considerable
doubts about the interpretation of some of the provisions. If
it was obvious that a greater good would be achieved that price
would be worth paying. It is not clear what the benefit is in
the local context. We do not have proportional representation
in local government although we are about to have it in the European
elections. That is the kind of issue to which a good deal of further
thought has to be given.
Ms Hughes
341. The evidence to date is that in general
in England, Wales and Scotland there is little anxiety about widespread
fraud, although we understand that presiding officers have very
little power to check the identity of those who come to vote.
Do you believe that there is a need to improve the powers of presiding
officers to check the identity of a person who claims to be on
the register?
(Mr Morris) For the most part, this is not a practical
problem. Most of us can think back to one or two cases but we
have not experienced widespread difficulty. Therefore, it must
be kept in proportion. There is a statutory requirement—in
theory it must be put to every elector—to ask standard questions
and if you get the right replies the elector can vote. Nevertheless,
there are one or two celebrated cases where it is clear to the
presiding officer that the person before him is not whoever he
or she claims to be. One knows of cases where obviously children
have gone on the register by mistake. They can answer the questions
correctly but self-evidently they are only 10 or whatever. There
are one or two absurdities that can be corrected by a greater
power of discretion. But one must be careful about it. When one
is dealing with an 80 per cent turnout on a very busy general
election day and dozens of people wish to vote between six and
seven in the evening one cannot make the process of cross-examination
too elaborate, granted that the great majority of people come
with their poll cards and there is no practical difficulty in
identifying who they are and no expectation of fraud in the overwhelming
majority of cases. We must ensure that we do not make the procedures
so secure that it is impossible to run the election on the day.
One is not talking about bank cards and getting money out of slot
machines but a process that must be quick and effective.
342. Another point that has been put to us is
that the provision for the counterfoil to the ballot paper being
marked with the voter's electoral number to allow votes to be
traced compromises the principle of ballot secrecy. How often
has that mechanism been adopted?
(Mr Marshall) Winchester was the last case. That is
the only way that it will ever come out.
343. Obviously, because it was used beneficially
in that instance you see it as an argument for retaining the ability
to trace where necessary, albeit in principle it compromises ballot
secrecy?
(Mr Monks) There is something in the guidance given
to all presiding officers which states that the principle of secrecy
is not compromised because that check can be made only by order
of the court. It is not being done by people in a back room. Once
one gets to that stage one is well down the line to trouble.
(Mr Morris) The Winchester case was almost unique.
The returning officer said that there had not been a similar case
of its kind for about three-quarters of a century. One must keep
a sense of proportion. I believe that there is a high degree of
public confidence in the integrity and secrecy of the voting system.
While the point about theoretical capability of matching people
to names is literally true, I do not think that most of the public
have any doubt about the secrecy of the ballot, nor would it be
helpful to encourage them to have any.
344. Let us turn to the significant issue of
the continued practice of franking and the fact that a result
could be affected by the number of votes discounted, largely because
of human error. There is a view, which I share, that with modern
printing techniques it should be possible to devise a ballot paper
which cannot easily be reproduced so that forgery takes place.
Do you agree that perhaps franking should be abandoned and something
else should be introduced?
(Mr Monks) Yes. It is a very archaic idea. One can
easily have a ballot paper with a watermark or agreements under
which certain printers are approved and a certain number of ballot
papers are delivered under seal. If the seal is broken they are
not accepted. Having said that, we are at the end of the 20th
century and we still use bits of paper. Why can we not go to a
touchpad on which to register the vote? The ballot box at the
other end is represented by a little chip. Fifty or sixty of them
are then taken to the town hall and 20 minutes later the result
is declared.
345. Perhaps there is a need to explore the
potential for error in those systems and the ability to check
it if there is a claim about the result?
(Mr Monks) I think that that is a matter on which
the Committee should take evidence from specialists. The companies
who manufacture this equipment which is in use on the Continent
would convince you that the margin for error for fraud was infinitesimal.
It is not my role to speak up for them, but the equipment that
I have seen is very good.
(Mr Morris) I am not an expert in this matter, but
in Northampton is the headquarters of Barclaycard. I visited its
new building recently. That has an area where they demonstrate
the state-of-the-art procedures that they are now using in the
banking industry where standards have to be of the highest. It
seems to me that technology has already reached a point where
these things are well within the capability of certain organisations.
Perhaps public confidence and motivation to use this equipment
lag behind. I believe that in a few years' time this will be beyond
dispute. Tomorrow's voters will expect to access the democratic
system through the Internet and touchpad, just as they expect
to do everything else in life.
Mr Linton
346. I want to ask some questions relating to
the count. As I understand it, the situation in Winchester related
to unfranked papers. There was no recourse to the counterfoils?
(Mr Turner) Yes, there was. There were two prosecutions
for personation. It was a side issue to do with the petition,
but it became clear from investigation that certain people had
voted in other people's names. There was certainly one prosecution,
if not two, in which a considerable fine was imposed for personation
arising from the Winchester by-election. It was a side issue but
one that came to light as a result of the investigation.
347. But a check was not made of the counterfoils
of all the unfranked ballot papers.
(Mr Turner) That occurred only where there were allegations
that personation had taken place.
348. Should there be legislation to regularise
the position of tellers at the count?
(Mr Marshall) Do you mean counting agents at the count?
Tellers are outside.
(Mr Bambrook) There is already legislative provision
for counting agents at the count which I would have thought was
quite adequate. Tellers are another matter; they stand outside
polling stations.
(Mr Monks) My experience is that generally this is
not a problem. Returning officers must make sure that they are
in charge of the count and that what they lay down is done. My
experience is that scrutineers and those who attend the count,
whether they be candidates or agents, are immensely co-operative.
349. Reference was made to this in the Hansard
Society report. Given the time, I shall not pursue it. You support
electronic counting. Do you mean the counting of ballot papers
by a scanning process or electronic voting?
(Mr Morris) We mean paperless voting, not trying to
count pieces of paper by another means. I suppose that in theory
that could be done, but the issue is electronic voting per
se rather than handling the current votes differently.
(Mr Bambrook) It is possible to do both. If you wish
to retain a paper ballot but nevertheless speed up the counting
process you have to consider some form of scanning or electronic
counting. My authority has pioneered a method of electronic vote
counting for multiple choice elections, for example in parish
council, town council-type elections.
Mr Winnick
351. It takes such a long time. Sunderland is
always quoted as an example. When I mentioned that to the returning
officer at the last count he said that in Sunderland there was
no difficulty about large majorities but in other places on occasions
the margin between the two main parties was very slight. Nevertheless,
in this day and age it is rather odd that the count should go
on for five or six hours.
(Mr Marshall) The last parliamentary election was
combined in many cases with county elections. That is the reason
for the time taken. Normally, in my area, which is a mixture of
urban and rural, I expect to finish the count at about 12 o'clock,
assuming that polling finishes at 10 o'clock. That election was
an exception in that one had to separate the ballot papers before
one could get on with the parliamentary election. Normally, people
would finish in two or three hours.
(Mr Monks) I have served in more rural districts and
my experience there is that it takes a while for the boxes to
come in. In a general election there is usually a good turnout.
When I was chief at North Warwickshire the count went on until
a quarter totwo in the morning, and in Huntingdonshire it was
well after three. As a general principle, I prefer to stay another
couple of hours and get an accurate result with which everyone
is happy rather than charge at it and end up in court.
(Mr Morris) The current rules require us to use a
stamping instrument, pieces of paper and counting agents. Those
counting agents at least have the right to stand there and have
the opportunity to oversee the counting operation that goes on
on the other side of the table. All Members will be familiar with
that kind of process and atmosphere. If one is to allow the counting
agents to operate properly it will take a minimum amount of time.
Hopefully, it will not take several hours other than in circumstances
where there is a very narrow result. In the majority of cases,
as one sees from national television, the result is declared probably
within two or three hours of the poll closing.
Mr Linton
351. Should it be possible to break down the
results by ward for European and parliamentary elections? It is
suggested that that is possible under the current legislation
simply by treating one count as a separate count. Would you welcome
legislation to clarify that?
(Mr Bambrook) There is no reason at all why it should
not be done. It is already done in most European Union countries.
Why should we not do the same? The only difficulty arises where
there are very, very small wards. It may be possible then to make
a determination as to how individual voters had voted. For instance,
one may wish to employ a device such as a satellite count where
one brings together a number of wards but one does not need to
bring every ballot box to one central location.
352. Presumably, that is something that can
be done in the European elections next year?
(Mr Bambrook) It would provide the opportunity to
try out those arrangements.
Chairman
353. Are there any examples of good practice
overseas to which you would like to draw our attention?
(Mr Marshall) Over the years we have observed many
overseas elections. There are areas where we can suggest various
good practices. Something that we would like to get rid of is
the official mark. However, we will still have an official mark
at the European parliamentary elections in 1999. In Lesotho a
couple of weeks ago where I was an observer, apart from the queues
of people waiting to vote, the ballot paper had a box at the top
on which the official mark was to be placed. It may well be that
if we are to have a revised ballot paper for the European election
it should have a box for the official mark. It would not necessarily
avoid the possibility of papers being left unstamped, but it would
be another reminder to presiding officers as to what they should
do.
(Mr Morris) The only suggestion I make is that sealing
wax should finally be abolished by law!
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much.
| 
