Examination of Witnesses (Questions 476
- 499)
TUESDAY 7 JULY 1998
MR GEORGE
HOWARTH, MRS
GAY CATTO
AND MR
STEVE LIMPKIN
Chairman
476. Good morning, Mr Howarth, Mrs Catto and
Mr Limpkin. This is the final public session of our short Inquiry
into Electoral Law and Administration, on which you have your
own Working Party. We have understood from the outset that we
overlap to a certain extent with what you are doing. Can you,
to start the ball rolling, help us with where the Working Party
is up to; you have kindly sent us a note, but even having read
it we are not absolutely clear of where you are up to? Are there
matters on which you have already come to a view?
(Mr Howarth) There are sets of matters,
one of which are matters that do not require any legislation,
and we have given a list of those issues, in the form of a report,
to the Home Secretary. And there is a second group of issues,
which we have come to some sort of conclusion on, that will require
legislation, and the Home Secretary currently is studying that
as well. There are further issues which we have not yet come to
a view on.
477. What areas have you not come to a view
on?
(Mr Howarth) The issues, for example, evaluating pilots,
which itself will require legislation, so one of the things that
has been discussed is whether or not we should have some pilots,
some of the new procedures, such as voting anywhere in the electoral
area, mobile polling, early voting, changes to hours and/or days,
all postal ballots and electronic voting. So, clearly, those issues,
if they were going to be piloted, would need to be evaluated and
then considered at some time in the future, not necessarily by
our Working Party. There are other things, like whether or not
there should be an Electoral Commission, we will want to consider,
and some of the other things that are on the original list that
we would have to revisit, I think, at some point, before we conclude
our arrangements. I wonder if it would be helpful if I went through
roughly what we have done to date and where we see things going
in the immediate future.
478. Yes. Just sticking with the pilots for
a second though, no pilots have yet taken place, have they?
(Mr Howarth) There was a pilot in Croydon, it was
not one that we had initiated, which was on the car park of a
supermarket, to try out that idea, but we have not had an evaluation
of that that would make any kind of sense at this stage; but,
other than that, no.
479. Any future pilots would obviously have
to wait for a future election, such as next May?
(Mr Howarth) For a future election, not necessarily
a general election, pilots could be carried out in local elections,
but most of the issues under consideration would require legislation
in order for that to happen.
480. So what I think you are saying is, apart
from those matters about the pilots which you have just mentioned,
that really the Working Party has come to a view on just about
everything but you are now waiting to see whether the Home Secretary
shares your view on the things that require legislation; is that
a fair summary?
(Mr Howarth) Yes. On the major issues, there are still
some issues that we have not really considered at all, like, in
which you might be interested, the sale of the register, anonymous
registration, draft guidance on registration and participation,
and issues about official poll cards, which I would not think
are major constitutional issues but, in practical terms, could
have some useful role, if we came to a view that there were any
changes needed on that. I know, from correspondence from Members
of Parliament, for example, that the issue of the sale of the
register is sometimes a thorny issue with the electorate.
481. On the Electoral Commission, that is obviously
something about which a decision cannot be taken until you hear
from the Neill Committee and perhaps even the Jenkins Commission;
is that so?
(Mr Howarth) I suppose we could take a view but I
think it would be unwise to do so, and at this stage we think
that there are, including the ones you mention, a number of views
that need to be known before it would be sensible for us to consider
that in any detail. Also, it is not only a question of whether
there should be one, but a question of what kind of scope an Electoral
Commission would have; there are models, for example, in different
parts of the world, where the Commission itself is all-embracing,
covers everything, including elections themselves.
482. When would you expect to come to a conclusion
about a Commission?
(Mr Howarth) I think we would certainly want to have
considered that by probably the spring of next year, by which
time we start to wind down, I think, the things that we are considering.
483. Just to recap. In that note that you sent
us, where you refer to a second package of proposals which the
Home Secretary is thinking about, you have actually made recommendations
and you are waiting to see whether the Home Secretary endorses
them; that is the position, is it not?
(Mr Howarth) Yes.
484. Now you were going to tell us which issues
you had agreed on?
(Mr Howarth) The first package, which does not require
legislative proposals, is maximising electoral registration and
encouraging voter participation. It includes flexibility and good
practice in the use of official poll cards, co-ordination of publicity
activity, a consolidation of and improving advice on disability
issues, and a commitment to progressively review and simplify
electoral forms. That was the first package. We hope that if the
Home Secretary does approve them those papers will start to be
published progressively during the course of the autumn.
485. Does it make any difference to you whether
this Committee reports in July or whether it reports in the autumn?
(Mr Howarth) Probably, from the point of view of the
Working Party, the earlier notice we got of what your proposals
and thoughts were the better, in that it would give us more time
to reflect on any ideas you have got and see whether or not we
can incorporate them into any further proposals we might make.
486. When is your Working Party next meeting?
(Mr Howarth) I do not think they are due to meet again
until 14 October.
487. So, if you had our report by 14 October,
that would be okay, would it not?
(Mr Howarth) It would, in theory, but, in practice,
the more time officials can get to consider any proposals and
to present them in the context of the work of the Working Party,
obviously, the better. I think we could have a more qualitative
look at it if we had more notice of what they are likely to be,
even if it was not necessarily the formal report itself but an
early indication of the sorts of things it was likely to include,
I think would be very helpful.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr Howarth, that is very
helpful.
Mr Winnick
488. If you had it by the beginning of October,
two weeks before the Working Party meets, would that be too late?
(Mr Howarth) If I defer to the officials on that,
in that they are the people who have to produce the paperwork.
489. Take advice?
(Mr Howarth) But, I suspect, if we had an informal
indication earlier than that, that would probably be alright,
I think, but Mr Limpkin is the man who has to write all the briefing
papers.
Chairman
490. He seemed to be nodding rather vigorously?
(Mr Limpkin) I think, in terms of the timing, I agree
entirely with the Minister, the earlier that we can get inputs,
clearly, the better it is for us, in a relatively small section,
to be able to turn those into useful papers for the Working Party.
The practice has been to get papers out to the Working Party at
least a week in advance of the meeting; we have tried to do it
slightly earlier than that, but because of pressures of other
work it has not always been possible. And we could certainly make
arrangements for outputs from this Committee to be circulated
to the Working Party for consideration on 14 October, if we receive
them by the beginning of October. The earlier we have it then,
clearly, the more work we can do to tie that into our own programme.
Mr Winnick: Point taken.
Chairman
491. I think we have got the message; right,
okay. Has the increased use of referendums given rise to a need
for new legislation to govern the way in which they are administered?
(Mr Howarth) I would see that as possible, if the
proposal for an Electoral Commission were to go ahead, that might
well be the sort of task that a body of that kind might undertake.
At this stage, I do not think it has given us any difficulties,
but, of course, there are further referendums along the line,
and I know, from debate in the House of Commons, for example,
that there are concerns about that. I do not think, at this stage,
it is necessarily a problem but I think it is something that we
probably do need to keep an eye on. We certainly have not given
any consideration to it, in the Working Party, as yet, but that
does not mean to say it is not something we could not look at.
492. Some of our witnesses have suggested a
wholesale rewrite of electoral law, but that is not what you are
suggesting, is it, we are talking about clamping on a number of
changes, albeit some of them quite major, to the existing system,
are we not?
(Mr Howarth) I think so. Some of the changes we want,
and it might be appropriate, Chairman, if at this point I talked
about the second list that the Home Secretary is considering.
That includes the whole process of introducing rolling registration,
which has been an issue of debate for some time, and, indeed,
I think, Harry Barnes, in particular, has been a great proponent
of that argument. The introduction of polling aids for the disabled,
again, which is an issue that has been debated for some time,
and there is evidence that polling stations and other difficulties
sometimes do make it difficult for people with a disability to
exercise their vote. And then, of course, there is the whole issue
of pilot schemes, which I have mentioned, the sorts of things
that we would want to see piloted. Also, I think, those issues
need to be addressed in the context of the integrity of the system,
and the ability for us to be able to evaluate how successful those
pilot schemes are. Another factor we will have to take into account
as well is what model we use, for example, for rolling registration,
there are different ways that that can be looked at. So I think
all of those would require some sort of legislation. Whether or
not we go for legislation that basically amends the existing system,
which I think at this stage would be my preference, on the simple
basis that we are more likely to be able to achieve something
by those means, than to have a very large Bill which might have
major constitutional implications, which would then be more difficult
to argue for, in terms of the Government's overall programme.
Obviously, if people have another case to put we would have to
listen to it, but my instinct in this is that we are better going
for limited but useful reforms rather than a major Bill.
Mr Winnick
493. I get the impression, Minister, from the
Home Office paper which has been circulated to us, that basically
you do not, in the Home Office, at least, take the view that changes
about promoting voting, and the rest of it, will have much effect,
that at the end of it all, in the words of the Home Office Report,
I quote: "Where the public consider it important to vote,
they will do so". Some might say that is a rather complacent
attitude; you would deny that, presumably?
(Mr Howarth) I do not think it is complacent. I think,
for example, it is often difficult to assess what the impact of
any particular change might be. If you take, as an example, rolling
registration, I think it is right, in principle, and we have said
as much, in the second set of proposals we put to the Home Secretary,
and it is right that we make it as easy as possible for people,
for as long as possible, to make sure that they are in a position
to exercise their vote. When we say that most people will probably
find a way to get themselves onto the register and vote, that
is manifestly true, because most of them do. The most recent register,
it is something over 44 million people, has been an increase,
but, nevertheless, that does not mean to say it is not important
to reform the procedures and make it as easy as possible for people
to be on the register so that they can exercise their vote, providing
that we do not compromise the system too much so that the integrity
of the register itself, and indeed the ballot, is in some way
held open to abuse. We have got to strike the balance between
those two aspirations, and I think it is possible to do that.
494. You see, the Home Office quotes the figure
at the last election, the percentage voting, 71 per cent, but
even that low figure, and it is lower than in most other general
elections in the post-war years, if not the lowest, really underestimates
the problem, does it not, because, if you take the register as
being as effective as undoubtedly it is from what you have just
been saying, the number of people actually voting was well below
70 per cent. Do you accept that?
(Mr Howarth) Yes. The difficulty is that it is difficult
to estimate the actual level of under-registration, but, I accept,
it is higher than the table that we have given suggests; quite
what it would be is difficult. But the register is a register
of names, basically, not people, and so it does include, for example,
some people who are legitimately registered twice, and there are
no figures that are centrally available on that. There are about
800,000 individuals in the age range who will die during the six
months following any qualifying date; there are foreign residents
who are not eligible to register, around 800,000; and the Census
returns do not always square with the register. That may be to
do with the way in which statistics are collected. I do not know
whether you would find it helpful but I know officials have got
some quite technical points that could be made on that, if, through
you, Mr Chairman, you would want to pursue that point further.
Chairman
495. Yes. Mr Limpkin.
(Mr Limpkin) I think I would endorse everything that
the Minister said about the technical difficulties in assessing
the level of under-registration. Yes, we accept that the total
eligible population which is quoted in ONS statistics probably
underestimates that figure; it looks as if, on some of the ONS
surveys that have been done, the number of deaths balances the
number of foreign nationals who are not eligible to register because
of the criteria for registration. The most recent study remains
the one which was carried out in 1991 as a validation of the Census
itself, and that suggested that the true level of under-registration
was perhaps round about 7, 8 per cent, rather than the 5 per cent,
or so, which the figures currently show. But one of the major
difficulties in that is, in fact, the level of imputed households,
which come out of the Census, households which did not return
the Census form, and where ONS have made statistical analyses;
we recognise that there is a difficulty there. At the end of the
day, I do not think I would distance myself very far from the
evidence which David Gardner gave to this Committee some weeks
back, on the probable total level of under-registration, where
he was adding an extra couple of million onto those figures, I
think that is probably right, rather than the four million, or
so, which we normally quote. What I would say, I think, is that,
because of research which has been carried out, commissioned by
the Home Office, by ONS, over ten years, from 1987 to 1996, a
lot of work is actually done by registration officers, targeted
work, to improve registration levels, and I think there is evidence
of that through the returns which those ten years have shown with
the increases in the numbers. And where there continues to be
under-registration, to a very large extent, the evidence appears
to be, from the research, that that under-registration is an effect
of demographic features rather than the efforts which registration
officers make to get hold of their populations. The research shows
very clearly that there is heavy under-registration in inner-city
areas, in areas where there is a large proportion of rented accommodation,
in areas where there is multi-occupancy of buildings, and that,
in fact, under-registration is largest amongst groups of young
males between the ages of about 21 and 28, who are either out
of work or in peripatetic work, in casual employment, who have
a lifestyle that does not actually encourage them, for whatever
reason, to get onto the register. Those are, if you like, demographic
issues, which registration officers face every year with the canvass.
As a response to those problems, registration officers have increasingly,
the research shows, been adopting good practice, the good practice
that the research has identified through the models that have
been produced, and I can give some details of what that research
practice is, if that would be helpful. But, increasingly, ONS
tell us that their model is becoming less than helpful because
it depends on differences in electoral practice, in terms of registration,
and the registration officers are ironing out those differences,
they are using the good practice increasingly, which leaves ONS
little room to play with. Despite that, there are wide variations
in the level of register, which we think are due in large part
to these demographic issues.
Mr Winnick
496. If I can throw the question of the same
type back to you, Minister, because it has a political flavour,
I was referring to the general election percentage, but if you
take the people already on the register and look at the local
elections this year, where in quite a number of places the turnout,
including my own Borough, in some wards, at least, was less than
20 per cent; that must be very worrying?
(Mr Howarth) Obviously, it is very worrying. There
may be some element of the problem with the accuracy of the register
there, but, essentially, I think, it is a problem about participation
in the democratic process, and that is a matter that there is
a great deal of concern about, and there is a lot of thought going
on, in different Departments of the Government, about how to—
497. Sorry to interrupt you, but what about
public relations and advertising, have you considered that?
(Mr Howarth) We obviously have to consider that, and
we do have an annual publicity campaign about registration, and
so on. There is a role in that, I might say, for political parties
themselves, I do not think it should necessarily always be the
case that central government has to perform that role. And I think
there is a wider role, although you may consider this to be a
separate question, about the need for, if you like, some kind
of civics education, or the involvement through education in making
young people more aware of what the rights of citizenship are,
and indeed the responsibilities of citizenship. And these are
issues that we want to consider within the Working Party, although
the Secretary of State for Education, for example, has a Committee,
under Bernard Crick, which is looking at the whole issue, and
indeed has produced an interim report. I do not know whether you
have had any information on that. I think these are all important
matters, that certainly the Home Secretary is concerned about,
and I am, and we have to give a lot of thought to how we do that.
498. Are you opposed, as a Government, to what
is misleadingly described as compulsory voting, which would mean,
in effect, that one would have a responsibility to go along to
the polling station and not vote, as such, that is why it is a
misleading term, but abstain in person, or apply, as Jehovah Witnesses
or indeed on any grounds whatsoever, not religious but simply,
say, you do not want to vote and you apply beforehand? Would not
that quite likely increase the number of people voting?
(Mr Howarth) We have no plans, frankly, to consider
at this stage any system of compulsory voting, or whatever title
you prefer to give it.
499. Why not?
(Mr Howarth) Before I go on to say why not, perhaps
I should qualify that by saying, of course, you cannot always
rule out any suggestion for all time, and certainly if there was
an argument mounted we would have to consider it. But my preliminary
view, and I think that of the Home Secretary, is that compulsory
voting simply does not fit in with the sort of democratic and
social traditions of this country, whereby people have the right
absolutely to determine whether or not they choose to exercise
their vote. Although, as you say, you can go along and abstain
in person, nevertheless, I think, at this stage, the view would
be that they have also the right not to bother to go at all, if
they so wish.
|
