Examination of Witnesses (Questions 580
- 603)
TUESDAY 7 JULY 1998
MR GEORGE
HOWARTH, MRS
GAY CATTO
AND MR
STEVE LIMPKIN
Mr Winnick
580. As regards the deposit, would you say,
Minister, that it has played some role at least in preventing
racist organisations that would stand no chance of election but
would use the election, as indeed is being done, but on a small
scale, to promote race hatred, and therefore the deposit is some
sort of deterrent, knowing that they almost certainly will lose
the money when the election is over?
(Mr Howarth) I guess. It depends; ultimately, it depends
on how well funded they are. If they had got plenty of money then
clearly it would not be a deterrent; if they had not then it would.
I do not think I have got any basis on which I could realistically
answer that question. I have not got any evidence as to what effect
it may have had, for example, on the British National Party, or
any other potential racist party, and so I would be speculating,
and I do not think you, Chairman, probably want me to speculate.
Chairman: No; thank you.
Mr Winnick
581. On the other aspect, argued by some people,
leaving aside racist and gangster organisations, that the deposit,
which in my view is much too low at the moment, prevents genuine
points of view being aired, is there any evidence whatsoever in
this century that any political organisation has been stopped
as a result of the deposit? The Labour Party was not, from its
earliest days, was it; as you say, £150 is now worth well
over £4,000?
(Mr Howarth) There is not a great deal of evidence;
it is one of those things that you have got to be very careful
about. As I said earlier, I do not want to discourage, I do not
think it would be right to discourage, in principle, any legitimate
political strain of thought that wanted to be represented, whether
it is in local government or in Parliament or in the European
Parliament, I do not think we want to set a limit that may deter
people from taking part.
Chairman: Impersonation, ballot secrecy, franking
and fraud: Mr Cranston.
Mr Cranston
582. I am told I have to be very quick with
these questions. Impersonation: is it a more serious problem than
we think, and, if so, should there be more security checks on
identity?
(Mr Howarth) Clearly, there is a problem, or has been
in the past, in Northern Ireland, and there are concerns there
about that. There are some reports, although I would not like
to be alarmist about this, but there are reports that in some
towns and cities there have been problems over the recent past.
I do not want to get drawn too much into that, because it has
been difficult to verify whether or not these reports can be made
to stand up.
583. And what to do about it?
(Mr Howarth) It is certainly something that needs
more thought, I think, a more intelligent approach which we are
proposing, for example, through the registration process. Although,
on the one hand, we want to make it easier for people to register,
we do not want to make it so easy that people, through the proxy
voting system, for example, that is normally where impersonation
can be used.
584. We all hear allegations about `proxy farming',
old people's homes being the best example; is there much evidence
of this, is it a problem?
(Mr Howarth) No. There is some evidence; again I am
anxious not to be alarmist. Our election systems and procedures
are good, and the fact is, and the officials will correct me if
I am wrong on this, but I think there are often more allegations
than there are actually proven cases.
585. Mrs Catto might want to answer, since she
has not said anything yet?
(Mrs Catto) I am not sure if I am the expert on this.
But, yes, there are allegations; they are difficult, of course,
to prove and to establish. Whether that means that they were actually
not valid is difficult to say.
(Mr Howarth) Can I just make one final point on that.
I think, one of the great protections we have, in all of this,
is that political parties themselves tend to be very vigilant
about those sorts of perceived abuses that do take place, and,
I suspect, if any one candidate was responsible for that kind
of abuse, it is likely, or certainly possible, that they would
be picked up by their opponents, and I think that often is where
intelligence about these problems comes up. But because they do
that they are also in a very strong position to be the ones who
complain about it.
586. It is sometimes said, of course, that there
is a type of `knock for knock' agreement, in that irregularities
are not always brought to the surface?
(Mr Howarth) I have to be honest, I have been standing
for election at various levels since 1971 and I have never been
aware of any `knock for knock' policy between political parties
in any elections I have involved in.
587. I think the more serious point is that
irregularities are not often raised and pursued, there might be
more irregularities than we actually think?
(Mr Howarth) There may be, but we can only work on
the basis of what we know.
588. Polling cards. Even some of my party members
are confused about whether they need to take a polling card off
to vote; do you think this is a problem, and, if so, is there
anything that can be done?
(Mr Howarth) The answer is, of course, that you do
not need to take a polling card in order to vote; again, I stand
to be corrected on this, but I think it is a fairly recent innovation,
I think in the 1970s, the issue of polling cards, certainly for
local elections. Often, I think, political parties themselves
used to produce a polling card and send it out. There probably
is, and one of the things we intend to look at is the whole documentation
surrounding elections, there probably is scope to put more information
on a polling card.
589. But maybe it does not have to be used,
it does not have to be produced?
(Mr Limpkin) Just on that point, the card actually
does say that "You do not need to bring this card",
but, I think, to pick up Mr Howarth's point, the Forms Design
Group, which the Working Party has authorised to set up, will
want to look to see whether or not those sorts of messages are
being presented, not just on the poll card but on other documents,
in a way which actually makes them accessible to the public, so
that they are seen and read and noted. But it does already say
at the moment that "You do not need to bring this card".
(Mr Howarth) But this Working Group will then, hopefully,
give us some ideas about how we can improve on that, and that
will form part of our consideration.
590. What about the marking of the counterfoil
and the threat that some people say this poses to the secrecy
of the ballot; is there a need to mark the counterfoil?
(Mr Howarth) It is certainly an issue, and earlier
Select Committees have indeed looked at this whole issue. There
are arguments for and against the retention of the official mark,
and, for example, the Winchester constituency by-election, following
the general, sorry, the general election results hinged, to some
extent, about the lack of a mark with some of the papers. So,
yes, there has been an issue. It is one we want to consider in
the Working Party and I would like to look at what the arguments
are, including, I might say, any views, Chairman, your own Select
Committee might have on that subject. I have got a fairly open
mind, I think the Working Party have got a fairly open mind, about
whether we need to do more or less work in that area.[1]
591. What about franking; one of the arguments
is that franking is not the security protection it once was, because
as soon as you get the frank you can very quickly reproduce ballot
papers with the frank?
(Mr Howarth) It is the same point, in a sense. I am
quite happy, if there are any practical suggestions on that, to
consider them.
Chairman
592. Before we move off franking, is there some
essential reason why ballot papers need to be franked?
(Mr Limpkin) I think the traditional answer to that
is the official mark is there to prevent people importing their
own copy, or copies, of the ballot paper and stuffing the ballot
boxes. I think it is fair to say that there is no recent history
of any proven cases of that happening, and, indeed, as far as
I am aware, in every case where the courts have looked at results
because of the lack of the official mark, the assumption on the
part of the court has been that it was clerical error, leaving
off the mark, rather than actual abuse.
(Mr Howarth) I think it is important to say, since
I cited Winchester, in the earlier answer, that that was the case
there, that there was no allegation of impropriety, it was simply
a matter of clerical error.
Mr Cranston
593. I am sorry, it was not the final question,
it was the penultimate question, about party representatives at
the polling station itself. Now you are not going to consider
circular ballot papers, but why not allow me or my representatives
to be outside the polling station, handing out a "how to
vote" card, to say that Mr Corbett, who claims to be Socialist
Labour, is not really true Labour, and that they ought to vote
for me?
(Mr Howarth) I am not entirely sure that Mr Corbett
would ever do that.
594. But the general point is about the role
of the party representatives, that we are restricted in this country?
(Mr Howarth) It is also, I think, speaking from experience
here, sometimes one Presiding Officer will deal differently with
how that happens from another, then that can cause conflict. So
I accept that the whole question of polling station issues is
something that we will look at as part of the Working Party review.
I think you have got to get the balance right between the legitimate
functions of political parties and their representatives, on the
one hand, and the kind of dignity of the polling station, on the
other, and I think it probably is an issue that you do not want
electors to have to run some sort of gauntlet of activists and
candidates as they enter the polling stations, there has to be
a proper, orderly way of dealing with this. But if we can make
sensible improvements in that direction, we would be happy to
do so.
595. Just finally, about Election Courts, it
has always struck me as rather strange that we have one judge
deciding these things. Around the turn of the century, the Conservative
Party, Lord Chancellor Halsbury, appointed a judge who on a number
of occasions sat on disputed returns and constantly shooed in
the Conservative Party candidate. Now I am not suggesting that
that occurs today, but are there any thoughts about changing the
system of Election Courts?
(Mr Howarth) Not at the moment, no. I have to be honest,
there have been occasional questions about it, but it is not something
that struck me as being a matter of significant concern. We have
got no particular plans to look at the petition arrangements,
but I think it is important to note, if we were to do so, it would
have to be something we would take forward with the Lord Chancellor's
Department, which, as you know, have the responsibility for High
Court practice. So it would be quite a major undertaking to have
two Departments looking at this process when there is not really
any evidence that it is causing any problems. My impression is,
I have not directly been involved in it but I know from my own
area there was an election petition from a local election and
it seemed to have been resolved quite amicably without anybody
having to stump up great amounts of money. So I think it is one
of those system that, frankly, when it is occasionally needed,
seems to work, and I am not anxious to get into protracted discussions
with the Lord Chancellor's Department, because the officials in
the Home Office have got quite a big agenda to work on in the
near future.
Mr Linton
596. The last series of questions is really
about the responsibility of the Home Office for electoral matters,
because, as I understand it, it is something of an historical
accident and, quite honestly, looking at the record of British
elections, it cannot be described as a stunning success. I am
excepting present company because I know you, Minister, have been
very active in the area of electoral law reform through your Working
Party, but if we look at the international league table Britain
is very nearly bottom in terms of participation in elections,
in general elections; and we look at local elections, we are not
only bottom but we are bottom by a mile. And it does seem to me
that the question needs to be asked why it is that the level of
participation has fallen so much and whether the Home Office if
really devoting sufficient resources; for instance, has the level
of staffing been increased, what is the current level of staffing
covering election law and administration, and has it been increased
recently to cope with the added elections and with the referendums?
(Mr Howarth) I will make a general point and Mrs Catto
will deal with the point about the resources and staffing. I think
it is probably a slight case of hyperbole to blame all of the
problems of our electoral systems on the Home Office.
597. Insofar as it has anything to do with Government
at all.
(Mr Howarth) My experience is that the co-operation
that the Home Office officials show me, and in some ways more
importantly those other professional bodies that deal with elections,
electoral registration officers, and so on, has been very good
indeed. There has been a tradition of having a review after every
election; we have taken that a step further, in setting up the
Working Party which I chair, and the servicing I have had from
the officials and the support I have had from them has been exemplary.
And I would like to place on record my gratitude for the very
hard work that they do to support me in this endeavour, not just
myself but every member of the Working Party. However, it is true
to say that sometimes the resources are stretched to the limit
to be able to meet the deadlines which we set for them, but they
have not missed any deadlines yet, so that seems to be an indication
that there is enough resources there, but, however.
(Mrs Catto) On the detail of the staffing, since last
May, Mr Limpkin's section, which deals specifically with electoral
procedures and existing electoral law and the Working Party, has
been increased by one, which does not sound much but it is actually
an increase.
598. From?
(Mrs Catto) From five to six, so it is an increase
of 20 per cent. We also have additional staff in my Unit who are
dealing with the new legislation on European Parliamentary elections
and on the registration of political parties. So there has been
an increase, although, of course, the people dealing with the
Bills are there temporarily and their work will be absorbed in
Mr Limpkin's section, whether or not expanded, once the legislation
is through.
599. You mentioned local authorities, Returning
Officers, of course, do play the leading role at the chalk face
on this, but we did hear earlier that the Audit Commission has
no plans even to compare differences in the levels of expenditure
and performance between different electoral registers, and we
have had a lot of evidence which suggests that there are wide
disparities in this. Do you not think that it would be useful
for the Audit Commission to conduct a survey like this?
(Mr Howarth) I am loathe to be drawn into that. My
feeling is certainly that they do perform a task, they do it well
and most of us have got direct experience of that process working
well; whether or not the approach of going from minimum standards,
improving standards, is probably the viable alternative to the
proposal to do that, whether or not the Audit Commission could
look at it from a value for money point of view, well, probably
there is a case in there.
(Mr Limpkin) Can I just come in there. I am currently
looking at a request which has come to me through Home Office
channels to look at the Audit Commission programme, and one of
the proposals there on which we have been asked for advice is,
in fact, the very question of whether or not there should be included
in the programme an examination of electoral issues. I am not
quite certain when your advice came through, but certainly my
understanding is that that programme has not yet been set and
we are looking to see whether or not it is viable or sensible
to include electoral matters into their programme.
600. So is this into an Audit Commission report?
(Mr Limpkin) Yes, indeed.
601. We are just quoting from your own evidence,
paragraph 1.36. Thank you for that. Can I just ask about the Electoral
Commission, which was mentioned earlier. It seems to me that there
are two main strands of the argument here. One is that the running
of elections should not be left to politicians, and in most other
countries they have accepted that principle and set up an Electoral
Commission. The other argument seems to be that elections are
not really the core business of the Home Office, and there may
be a danger of them being seen, probably not at the moment because
there is so much concentration at the moment on constitutional
issues, but in the long run, I am looking back over the years,
there is the danger that they are not seen as the core business
of the Home Office and they will be better looked after by a body
dedicated to that and nothing else. Do you accept either of these,
or both of these arguments?
(Mr Howarth) At the moment, we have not taken a view.
All I can say, we want to see the arguments put forward, it would
be not only a question about whether or not we establish an Electoral
Commission but, if we were to do that, how all-embracing the work
of that should be. And those are issues that, frankly, we need
to work through, whether or not it is all-embracing or whether
it focuses on particular aspects. As regards the point that is
made about the Home Office, well, as a Department, I do not know
whether we actually have a core business as such, but we do take
it seriously, and Mr Limpkin's section deals with that and related
issues in a very serious manner, report to me on a regular basis,
the Home Secretary takes a very great interest, as everybody knows,
in these issues, indeed, his knowledge of electoral systems is
unsurpassed possibly in this House, as somebody who understands
the d'Hondt divisor in all its potential variations, I do not
think there is anybody understands it better than himself. There
is a great interest and a great commitment to the work that we
do on this, and that is not to undermine any arguments about the
establishment, or otherwise, of an Electoral Commission, because
it is very much a live subject that we do want to examine all
of the arguments on very seriously indeed. I think Mr Kaufman
would have described my last little outburst as an example of
departmentalitis, so I will perhaps leave it at that.
602. The very last point. The number of MPs
in the Commons has been drifting upwards, I think it is the last
four elections it has gone up, 635, 650, 651, 659, I know historically
it has been over 700, if you go back a long way. But do you not
feel that the Boundary Commission's remit actually contains an
automatic inflation of the number of MPs and that you should take
the opportunity to change the way in which their formula works,
so that we do not end up with over 700 MPs again?
(Mr Howarth) Yes; but it is a difficult job, frankly.
I do not want to overly criticise the Boundary Commission, it
is a hugely difficult job that they have to do. I know that, is
it the Hazell Commission that is looking at the local government
boundaries, and there are a number of enquiries of one kind or
another going on, so I do not want to be overly prescriptive at
this point, but I just would make the point, having gone through
major boundary changes in my own constituency the last time, that
it is an horrendously difficult job they have to do to balance
the numbers out. And that, probably, the fact that you end up
with slight increases sometimes reflects the success of the political
parties in arguing for different configurations of constituencies.
Chairman
603. In any case, it is not on the agenda at
the moment, is it, sorting out that?
(Mr Howarth) No.
Chairman: Can we draw a line there. Thank you
very much. Thank you very much, Mr Howarth, for coming, and Mrs
Catto and Mr Limpkin. Thank you.
1 Note by witness: The requirement to record
an elector's registration number on the ballot paper counterfoil
is designed to allow the High Court to give effect to any decision
to disallow a vote when a case of personation is proved. It is
often said that this destroys the concept of a secret ballot,
because it is possible to trace the way in which a voter has voted
by linking the marked ballot paper and the counterfoil after the
election. In practice, there are stringent statutory controls
on the sealing and storage of ballot papers and counterfoils after
the election and I am not aware of any proven cases of unauthorised
search of the stored documents. I know of course of the claims
that have been made of systematic abuse on the part of the security
services, but no evidence has been produced to support those claims,
which have been made in various books produced by former security
officers and where it could be thought that there was a commercial
incentive to embroider the truth, or even to lie outright. Personation
is not a present serious risk at elections in Great Britain, although
the position may be different in Northern Ireland. That is not
to say that there are no cases of personation and in fact one
case was proven in 1997, at the general election in Winchester.
That did not involve the court asking for marked ballot papers
and counterfoils to be matched up, but of course in slightly different
circumstances how a single vote had been wrongly cast could have
been crucial in the decision whether or not to call a by-election
in that constituency. I recognise however that there are many
people who are concerned about the practice of marking counterfoils
and my Working Party will be looking at this question later this
year Back
|
