8 Polling progress information
85. In conventional elections 'marked' copies of
the electoral register have been made available, after voting
has finished, so that candidates and political parties can check
for personation, or other fraud, and focus future canvassing efforts.
A marked copy merely shows that an elector has attended the polling
station; it does not record who they voted for. Returned postal
votes have never been included on this register. In two of the
all-postal pilots last year, marked copies of the electoral register
were made available to candidates during the polling period.
86. Marked registers will also be made available
during the polling period for the June combined elections as a
result of an amendment to the European Parliamentary and Local
Elections (Pilots) Bill. Chris Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State at the Department for Constitutional Affairs told us:
"In the passage of the bill at the committee
stage in the Commons we did introduce an amendment to allow for
what is known as polling progress information to be made available
to candidates and agents and, of course, also to the electoral
administrators themselves so that they can tell effectively who
has returned an envelope containing a ballot paper. This is effectively
mirroring the arrangements in conventional elections where parties
and their agents can sit outside polling stations and see who
turns up to vote and that enables campaigning so that candidates
in the normal way can then see if they need to chase up persons
who they feel need to be aware that there is an election. This
is effectively a mirroring of the marked register arrangement
into all postal arrangements and this was something that was requested
during debate by opposition parties. The Conservative Party suggested
that it was necessary, and the Liberal Democrats, even the Scottish
National Party, were urging it on the government and in response
to the debate that came through in committee stage at report we
made that amendment to enable polling progress information to
be made available."[132]
He added:
"[…] it will be for candidates and agents
and electoral administrators only to have the data of those people
who have had envelopes returned to the returning officer with
no more frequency than one list per day of polling numbers and
names and no less frequency than twice a week, and we hope that
parties and the returning officers will negotiate between them
what is the most efficient […]."[133]
87. However Sam Younger, Chairman of the Electoral
Commission, has concerns about potential contravention of human
rights and is urging Returning Officers to be cautious in the
provision of polling information this year:
"[… ] we have taken some legal advice on
the human rights aspects of this. Though we have not had full
time to evaluate it, we wanted to make sure we made that available
at the time the debate was going on about the availability of
the marked register for the elections in June. There is, I think,
in human rights' terms, a clear danger. One can quite see why
and quite sympathise with the reasons that for political parties
and candidates there is a real advantage in having access to the
electoral register on an on-going basis through a campaign, but
I do think there are human rights' implications, and we have actually
counselled for this year caution in that, pending the conclusion
which we should reach later this year in terms of where we should
go in the long term. As I say, we have not fully evaluated the
legal advice we have had but I do think there is a real question
mark. […] There are two issues, it seems to me. There is
the issue, which I think we would all recognise - which I do not
think is evidence-based at the moment - that it is possible, obviously,
if you have campaigners who have narrowed down the number of people
they want to have a go at in terms of saying, "We want you
to return your vote," that the pressure on those individuals
could be great. That is the theoretical bit of it. The general
proposition is that it does open the opportunity for an interference
in the privacy of the individual for somebody to go to their house.
We have not reached a final conclusion on this but there are clearly
dangers that have been pointed to by the legal advice we have
been given."[134]
He added:
"[…] the Information Commissioner has made
a view very clear that this should not be information made available,
certainly contemporaneously, and, indeed, many people would argue
it should not be made available even after the election. There
is a balance here. And of course we are also looking at something,
in terms of the use of the electoral register and so on, that
has been a practice for many years in terms of the use of the
electoral register and the marked register after an election."[135]
Returning Officers, who will have to provide the
polling progress information, are consequently left in an uncertain
position. They are entitled to clear guidelines:
Christine Mason, Electoral Services Manager, Wakefield
Council: "I think as long as the regulations are drafted
properly, and that we are covered and not left in a vulnerable
position in terms of electors not having that choice any more,
then I do not see a problem with that."[136]
Roger Morris, East Midlands Returning Officer for
the European Parliamentary elections: "[…] I think from
our point of view, it either is required or it is not. As has
just been said by Ms Mason, we simply need some clear instructions.
I am sure we can do it effectively in accordance with whatever
rules are determined. The issue about whether it should be done,
I think, is a matter of policy, and you can take a view on that,
but that is not really the approach that we will have when we
manage the process that we are given."[137]
88. Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chairman of the
Local Government Association, does not foresee any problem with
the provision of polling information;
"Most people's experience, obviously the experience
of Members of this Committee, is that people are very happy at
their polling station to give you their number, very few decline
to give you their number, fewer do that than refuse to identify
their political preference when you canvas them. I do not think
in principle there would be a vast objection […]."[138]
Sam Younger believes the public would object, and
noted that some electors living in areas which released polling
information in previous pilots have indeed complained:
"We did have a small number of complaints that
came to the Commission on the provision of the marked register
to candidates before the close of poll. In focus groups conducted
for the Commission - and this always has the health warning of
how it is suggested - MORI asked participants for their views
on whether political parties should have access to the marked
electoral register before the close of poll, and MORI report that
most people are instinctively against giving marked registers
to political parties. Even if people do not mind personally, opposition
remains. That is as far as it goes at the moment and that is what
I think we need to investigate further before coming to a conclusion."[139]
Sunderland City Council were one of the areas that
released polling information during the polling period in a previous
pilot. Bill Crawford, Elections Officer for the Council told the
Committee he had not received one complaint.[140]
89. Gavin Barwell, of the Conservative Party believes
that marked registers will benefit the public because those who
are listed as having voted will be crossed off canvassers lists:
"[…] if you look at it from a voter point
of view those people who have cast their ballot papers the effect
will be that they will not be bothered by political parties so
I would have thought they are very unlikely to complain about
that."[141]
However there will be a time gap between the voter
posting their ballot paper, and the Returning Officer adding their
name to the list. The Association of Electoral Administrators
are concerned that this time gap may result in voters worrying
that their ballot form has not reached the Returning Officer because
canvassers' lists show them as not having voted. They argue that
polling progress information will have limited value because it
will be out of date as soon as produced.
90. Despite this argument, political parties remain
keen to receive polling information during the polling period
arguing that it will help them to detect fraud and delivery problems:
Grant Thoms, Scottish National Party: "If you
do not know who has a postal vote until they have gone out because
they refuse to release the postal vote list ahead of the start
of an election, and if there is no marked register for postal
votes for parties to assist in terms of security and detection
fraud, how can we prove anything or get evidence? […] It
should be available in the same way as the register for people
attending polling stations should be available. My understanding
is that the Electoral Commission has not come to any formal position
as yet, but the principle seems to be against the idea."[142]
Peter Watt, Labour Party: "[…] it also
useful for the political parties in terms of issues of fraud,
and that sort of thing. It will be political parties who will
notice if there is widespread fraud. It will also be political
parties who will notice by using that information if there are
delivery problems. If the Royal Mail or another deliverer has
a particular problem in delivering postal votes in a particular
area it will be political parties doing their normal activity
who will notice that first. We think it is a very welcome move."[143]
91. The Local Government Association argue that electors
should also be able to view polling information during the polling
period because they would be best placed to identify electoral
fraud:
"We believe that a publicly available marked
register could also be available in an electronic format on a
daily basis for individuals to check that their ballot has arrived.
We also believe that it is important to ensure the effective delivery
of all postal ballots to whom they are intended. This is particularly
important for houses of multiple occupation and in residences
with no facilities for direct delivery to each individual property.
Enabling individuals to check that their ballot has arrived is
an important step in combating potential fraud and ensuring public
confidence in postal ballots."[144]
Mike Lloyd of the Royal Mail Group shares this view,
as does the Metropolitan Police Special Branch:
"I certainly think it would be very useful to
have some method of alerting a bona fide voter that his or her
identity has been taken or that their address has been misrepresented
on another form somewhere else […]."[145]
Although they do not believe provision of a register
would help in circumstances where there has been fraud or undue
influence within a family:
"[…] the problem is that the recent postal
vote offences that we have investigated tend to be mostly in the
Asian communities, where the head of the household has persuaded
the rest of the family to apply for postal votes and therefore
vote for a particular candidate. The family structure is very
patriarchal anyway and therefore it is very difficult, and even
if we had a register it probably would not make any difference
to that."[146]
Mark Croucher of the UK Independence Party does not
believe that provision of a marked register to voters would help
detect fraud:
"[…] people who make a conscious decision
to abstain and not to vote presumably take sufficient interest
in a political process to make those checks, but in terms of finding
out on a wider basis you do not remove the element of fraud from
it. If people cannot be bothered to vote then they are unlikely
to check to see whether they have or not."[147]
The Minister does not currently favour provision
of polling information to voters:
"[…] electoral officers themselves will
have access to this polling progress information and that is part
of the reason why we wanted to put it in, because they will be
able to use it as a tool to check against any malpractice. For
example, if an elector comes with an inquiry, as you are suggesting,
"Has my vote been returned improperly?" they can report
to the electoral administrator and the electoral administrator
will then be able to tell whether an envelope has been returned
purporting to contain their ballot paper, so it is an extra safeguard
in that respect as well."[148]
92. We are concerned that the Electoral Commission
are advising caution to those Returning Officers who will be responsible
for the provision of polling progress information in the all-postal
voting pilot areas in June. The Government and the Electoral Commission
must provide consistent advice; we urge immediate clarification
of the legal position and human rights implications of the provision
of polling progress information. Political parties are unanimous
in their support for this information, arguing that it will reduce
unnecessary canvassing, increase turnout, highlight delivery problems
and reveal electoral fraud. Provided that provision of polling
progress information does not contravene data protection legislation
or human rights, we recommend the Government reconsider whether
provision of polling information to voters would lead to increased
detection of electoral fraud.
132 Q409, HC 400-III [Chris Leslie MP, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs] Back
133
Q410, HC 400-III [Chris Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary,
Department for Constitutional Affairs] Back
134
Q7-8, HC 400-III [Sam Younger, Chairman, Electoral Commission] Back
135
Q10, HC 400-III [Sam Younger, Chairman, Electoral Commission] Back
136
Q95, HC 400-III [Christine Mason, Electoral Services Manager,
Wakefield Council] Back
137
Q96, HC 400-III [Roger Morris, East Midlands Regional Returning
Officer, European Parliamentary elections] Back
138
Q137, HC 400-III [Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chairman, Local
Government Association] Back
139
Q18, HC 400-III [Sam Younger, Chairman, Electoral Commission] Back
140
Q91-92, HC 400-III [Bill Crawford, Elections Officer, Sunderland
City Council] Back
141
Q366, HC 400-III [Gavin Barwell, Operations Director, The Conservative
Party] Back
142
Q327-8, HC 400-III [Grant Thoms, Head of Campaign Unit, Scottish
National Party] Back
143
Q336, HC 400-III [Peter Watt, Head of Constitutional and Legal
Unit, the Labour Party] Back
144
Ev 68, HC 400-III [Local Government Association] Back
145
Q193, HC 400-III [Representative A, Metropolitan Police Special
Branch] Back
146
Q195, HC 400-III [Representative A, Metropolitan Police Special
Branch] Back
147
Q330, HC 400-III [Mark Croucher, Policy Research Team and Press
Officer, UK Independence Party] Back
148
Q413, HC 400-III [Chris Leslie MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary,
Department for Constitutional Affairs] Back
| 
