Examination of Witnesses (Questions 74
- 79)
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2005
MALCOLM DUMPER
AND DAVID
MONKS
Q74 Chairman: Mr Dumper, Mr Monks,
I think is welcome back for both of you?
David Monks: It is.
Q75 Chairman: You came to the inquiry
that this Committee and the ODPM Committee did on natural registration,
which is a somewhat topical report in current circumstances. Normally
I ask members to declare interests, but I do not think we have
any interests other than the interest we all have in seeing that
elections are properly and fairly conducted; so that is not a
problem. You have provided us with written evidence and so, if
you are happy, we will launch straight into the issues that we
want to explore today. It is our hope that by getting our evidence
published quite quickly those members of the Committee who are
sitting on the Bill, and particularly those who look at this Bill
at report stage, will have the benefit of the comments you have
made, and, whereas you cannot give evidence to a standing committee
I think the evidence you give to us will be very helpful as we
come to consider the Bill itself at a later stage. Even though
some of our evidence goes wider than the Bill, a lot of it is
very relevant to the Bill itself. On a more general question to
start with, how satisfactory is your relationship with the Electoral
Commission? How far do you feel you are able to feed into its
deliberations and see an outcome from that effort?
Malcolm Dumper: The Association
of Electoral Administrators meets very regularly with the Commission
now. I think we have a very healthy relationship with the Electoral
Commission. We feed in a fair amount of information from grass
roots level. You will be aware that the association is split into
13 branches across the country. We have a situation where the
Electoral Commission staff attend all of those meetings four or
five times, each branch, every year and facilitate discussions
on things such as the Electoral Administration Bill. Clearly administrators
would not always be totally in support of some of the Electoral
Commission's recommendations, but I think it is fair to say that
the way that the Commission now work and the fact that they are
taking information from people who are delivering electoral services
has been very healthy, and I think the greater awareness that
there has been in practical issues on elections and registration
since they were formed can only be better for all of us.
David Monks: SOLACE has a good
relationship with the Commission. It is helped by a number of
factors, not least the fact that there are two former chief executives
who are commissioners; so there is a link there and knowledge
of local government. However, like all things, the relationship
could be improved. I would say we have a robust relationship with
them. Remember we come from a different point of view. We are
practitioners, we are working in local government, we as chief
executives are working with elected members every day and we have
a slightly different take on some of the issues they put forward.
Remember, elections are a very important part of our work, and
I am sure to the gathering I am addressing today an equally important
part of your work on certain days and certain nights of the year,
but there is a lot else goes on in local government, as many of
you know, so we have to fit that in as well. I have a good personal
relationship with Sam Younger, whom I like and talk to very much.
We need, I think, with the Commission to perhaps get them to understand
the culture of local government a little more, the fact that resources
are precious, the fact that we are under pressure to deliver a
whole range of objectives, and some of those are issues like electoral
registration, turn-out at elections, getting the staff out. Those
are on our radar, but there are a lot of other issues on our radar,
and, of course, the Electoral Commission is primarily interested
in elections. I think we have probably got a bit of work to do
to explain to the Commission exactly what goes on, but at this
stage I am encouraged and I think we have got a good basis to
work from.
Q76 Chairman: What about the Department
(the DCA), because in many cases they are making policy somewhat
independently of the Electoral Commission and need the same kind
of input from you?
David Monks: Indeed. I will comment
generally on the relationship between local government officers
and civil servants in which, I think, you have to see that relationship.
The context there, let us be frank, is often strained, and I think
there is a communication issue there and I think there is an understanding
issue there. I think there is a great improvement that we now
have one government department dealing with elections. If I may
be bold enough, I think it is a particularly stupid idea to have
more than one government department dealing with that, whether
they are local elections, national elections, European. We need
concentrated areas of expertise in Whitehall understanding elections
and so I think it is a step forward, the DCA doing it. If I may
give one example, and I hope I am not breaching too many confidences
here, Chairman. In the run up to elections this year there was
obviously quite a lot of controversy about postal voting, fraud
and irregular activity. This was well documented by the media,
and I have to say, and I have been a returning officer for over
20 odd years now, it was the first time ever I was asked by a
permanent under secretary to come to a meeting, which I think
was meant to be confidential so do not press me on it too much,
in the run up to an election to discuss issues like that. Whatever
the content of the meeting and whatever was said, I think the
fact that a permanent under secretary chaired that meeting, took
the issue seriously, sought to speak to people like me and representatives
of the AEA is a healthy sign. I commend them for that. I have
criticised government departments in the past, but I commend them
for that and I felt that was a bit of a break through. For example,
it led to the insertion of advertisements in our national newspapers
giving advice on how to deal with postal votes. You may think
that was a good idea, you may think that was a stupid idea, but
at least we did it, at least we got together talk about it and
at least I felt we were doing something together. That is a good
sign. Long may it continue.
Malcolm Dumper: I agree. I think
David's last point is very pertinent, the relationship we have
with the Commission. I think that sort of relationship is also
developing with civil servants in the DCA now, where again we
meet very regularly with them. They were completely aware of the
chief concerns of practitioners in parts of the delivery of electoral
services, which I think have been reflected in the Bill that is
now before us, and I think that is extremely healthy. There is
a developing relationship and I think there is a greater understanding
now of grass-root issues and how electoral administrators, returning
officers in particular, have the problems they have in delivering
the services both at electoral registration time and in conducting
elections.
Q77 Chairman: How good do you think
communication is the other way in disseminating best practice
to a large number of local authorities?
David Monks: It could be improved.
This is from the DCA, you mean?
Q78 Chairman: From either the DCA
or the Electoral Commission. It is a three-legged stool we have
got here. We have got the DCA, we have got the Electoral Commission
and we have got local authorities, and you are trying to keep
up communication between these three elements. Does it work in
the other direction effectively?
David Monks: I think we could
do better. Again having one government department helps. They
dish out regular news letters. There is a working group which
probably benefits from not having me a member of it, which is
working on preparations for the local elections—that is
quite unusual—and getting people together in the same room
sharing problems, not necessarily coming up with solutions, is
a step forward. I think what you have to understand with the DCA
is that it is still early days. Give it a year or two. If you
know anything about local government, there have always been tensions
between local government officers, particularly at my level, and
the civil servants, and I do not want to talk about that in great
depth, but let us say we all bring a bit of baggage to that party
and we need to grow up and we need to talk each other a bit more
and work for a common goal. I think we can do better, but give
us some time please.
Malcolm Dumper: I would certainly
say over the last five years we have made strides in the right
direction and clearly since 2000 and the legislation that was
passed in 2000, there was a need to re-educate administrators
and the work of the then Electoral Commission, more latterly the
DCA, has seen the publication of many good practice papers on
particular issues related to the delivery of services. I think
this is the important element here, that our association and David's
SOLACE as well, is really looking to raise standards and ensure
that we deliver a consistent electoral process in every constituency
up and down the country. At the moment that does not happen. The
publication of good practice papers to a degree starts to address
that in as much as the staff who are delivering the service need
to know exactly what they should be doing, but we do not currently
have the expertise within local government to deliver those services
at the correct level, mainly because we do not have the resources
to apply to it to ensure that we get the correct staff at the
correct level to actually do the job.
Q79 Julie Morgan: We talked about
the relationship with Electoral Commission. How do you view it
as a body? Do you think it is effective? How effective do you
think it is?
Malcolm Dumper: I think it is
very effective, but, of course, my comments about the Electoral
Commission and my relationship with the Electoral Commission is
purely on electoral matters, nothing else to do with local government,
and to my mind that is exactly what their remit is. Going back
to the Chairman's first question, I think there is a greater understanding
of electoral matters within the Commission now. When they were
first established, in fairness to them, there were not many staff
who had experience in the delivery of electoral services. Now
a lot of them actually hold the qualification that the AEA has
put out to all the staff in 1998, which is a major step forward.
The very fact that they engage more closely, they come and work
in electoral offices to understand what happens at the coal face,
as it were, can only be good for the delivery of the service.
I think we are very much in the right direction. I think that
the fact there are now formal meetings at branch level and at
the level with our association and Sam and his commissioners—we
hold bilateral meetings with them on a three-monthly basis—is
very helpful.
|
