|
Mr. Heath: I am not trying to legislate on the hoof. I honestly think that we might have a more relaxed view on posters with no editorial content, which simply say the name of a candidate and a party, than on literature that clearly has editorial content, with which there is strict legal liability for what is written.
David Cairns: I am sorry; I do not agree. Suppose that someone plasters posters all over a shop window or somewhere that they should not be, and the name on the bottom of them is the election agent. Clearly, the police are going to knock on the door of the person whose name is on the bottom. If they were not the person, they would be upset by that. Therefore, I am not convinced that we should exempt posters.
Mr. Bellingham: The Minister must recognise that paper posters cost next to nothing, and that in rural constituencies—I do not know if he has any rural stretches in his constituency—there is a tendency to put up Correx posters, which are extremely expensive. A standard 4x4 Correx poster is about £100, so one can easily burn up one's election expenses if one has more than a few of them. Of course, some get stolen, defaced, eaten by cows or run over by tractors. After the last election, we recovered a number of them, which we intend to use again; putting in a second-hand amount for them, obviously. What is the Minister's view about changing the imprint—cutting out the old imprint and replacing it—and reusing them? Many candidates in rural constituencies are likely to ask the Electoral Commission about that closer to the next election.
David Cairns: I have both an urban part and a large rural part of my constituency. For reasons that may or may not appeal to the hon. Gentleman, I do more of my campaigning in the urban part of my constituency. We do not tend to plaster the rural parts with quite the amount of Correx with which he will plaster his rural parts. That might say something about where we anticipate attracting support.
When the new law was implemented, allowing breathing space for people to use up old stocks was the right thing to do, but a number of years have passed since then. I am told that that Electoral Commission is looking into that—the busy bunch of happy elves that they are there—and that it will issue guidance and guidelines on that. We do not need to be too prohibitive on this issue in the Bill, but I foresee some problems prima facie; on the hoof, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says, which is no reference to the hungry cows. At this stage, I am not minded to entertain hon. Members suggestions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 134
Clause 61
Performance of local authorities
in relation to elections etc.
Mr. Betts: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 61, page 63, line 24, at end add—
'(4A) The standards for registration officers determined by the Commission shall include a requirement to notify all registered electors of their status as soon as the final register has been compiled.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 61, page 64, line 5, leave out
and insert 'must'.
No. 33, in clause 61, page 64, line 6, leave out 'such reports' and insert 'an annual report'.
No. 12, in clause 70, page 69, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).
Mr. Betts: With these amendments, I seek ministerial clarification on two issues. The first issue, which is dealt with in amendment No. 31, is the content of the guidance on standards of performance that the commission is to lay down. I have chosen as an example an area in which guidance might be given, because I have seen a good practice adopted by at least one local council that might usefully be followed by others. It might surprise hon. Members to know that it is Westminster borough council that has adopted that good practice. I know that it has a certain history in electoral matters; we all know of that council's strange record of attempting to manipulate electoral practice through its housing policy, but the matter I raise has nothing to do with that. Indeed, I am sure that if I discussed that matter any further, you would accuse me of straying from the amendment in question, Mr. Conway.
What Westminster does as a matter of good practice is this; each February, when the final register is drawn up, it sends to everyone on the register what is in effect a mock poll card to confirm that they are registered on the electoral list. Well before any local, regional, European or national elections—obviously, it was before the national election recently—everyone on the list in Westminster receives a poll card similar to the one that they will receive at the time of the election. The advantage of that system is that everyone can see whether they are on the list when they still have time to do something about it if they are not, if their registration is wrong or if someone is registered at their address who should not be. In February or March, the individual can go along and correct the registration if it is wrong, ensure that they are registered or get themselves registered in good time for the forthcoming elections. It would be helpful if other local authorities followed that good practice.
I ask Ministers to consider whether they would like the Electoral Commission to include that practice in its standards of performance. I well recollect that when we had the Second Reading debate, the ministerial response to a number of issues was, ''That could be in the standards of performance.'' There is general
Column Number: 135
agreement that a national standard of performance is needed for electoral registration officers. Practice varies so much on so many matters throughout the country. It is important that the register for national elections is drawn up on a common basis, so performance standards are clearly important.
As well as suggesting that one example of good practice, I intended to ask Ministers how far they intend to direct or indicate to the Electoral Commission what should be in the standards of performance. Will Parliament have an opportunity at any time to discuss, consider, reflect on and make suggestions about what should be in those standards, or will the Electoral Commission produce the standards by itself, independently, exclusively and almost secretively, with no elected Members having a chance to comment? The amendment gives us a chance to tease out from Ministers how the standards of good performance will be drawn up, whether that will be done openly, whether there will be consultation and whether Members of Parliament as well as Ministers could have an input.
I hope that Ministers will take up my second amendment in some form, even if it does not use the right form of words. As I understand it, the form of words in the Bill allows the Electoral Commission to require relevant officers—including, most importantly for this purpose, electoral registration officers—to produce reports. My amendment says yes, there should be reports, but there should be a report every year; not that there may be a report, but that there must be an annual report. That is crucial. If we are giving electoral registration officers new powers and responsibilities to ensure that registers are accurate, in that people who are entitled to register are registered and those who are not entitled are not registered, it is crucial that officers be required to produce every year a report indicating the extent to which they believe that they are fulfilling their duties and the extent to which the people who are entitled to register in their areas are registered; the extent to which their register is accurate.
I hope that, as well as providing the basis for a report to the Electoral Commission, that report would form the basis for a report to the local council, which could be referred to the council's scrutiny committee, so that every electoral registration officer was scrutinised every year on their annual report. I also hope that Ministers might consider the Electoral Commission making an annual report to Parliament based on the annual reports from electoral registration officers, so that we have a chance to scrutinise in the House the performance of EROs throughout the country and to consider how they perform one against another. I am sure that there will be big differences and it would be interesting to start asking questions and to get local councils to act and to answer questions, particularly about registration officers whose performance appears to be somewhat worse than that of their colleagues in other authorities.
I have two aims, the first of which is to tease out how we will go about producing national standards. Secondly, can we have an assurance that there will be an annual report from each electoral registration
Column Number: 136
officer and other relevant officers at local councils? That report would form the basis of a report to be referred to the scrutiny committee, with the possibility of an investigation at local level. It would also form the basis of a report to the Electoral Commission, which would report to Parliament. We could then scrutinise the performance of one registration officer against another to see how accurate different local authorities' electoral registers are.
Mr. Heath: May I open by saying that I entirely support the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe? His local government background permits him to speak with authority on these matters. I come from a local government background in another part of the country.
I agree with his point that the procedure should enable the local authority to make an assessment of performance in the first instance. We should then be told whether that assessment is in the affirmative. There is an enormous disparity in performance across the country, and there should not be. Electoral registration is a function that is organised locally, and all elections are controlled locally. The integrity of the voting system is, however, a national function. We, as a country, are entitled to ensure that every part of the country performs to adequate standards.
For that reason, I welcome clause 61. It is right to have some form of performance audit of the various officers who are involved with electoral registration and administration. My only plea is that a checklist or tick boxes to say that we have met so many targets is not included. That is not the way in which we should measure performance. We should share the type of good practice that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe mentioned. His is an extremely good suggestion. He said that we must ensure that, after a registration process, people know that they are registered or, more importantly, that they are not.
The issue shall no doubt be discussed again. We must be more obvious in our efforts to encourage people to be on the electoral register. That point was raised time and again on Second Reading, particularly by hon. Members on the Minister's side of the House. Registration should be done much better. To do that, we must have effective processes, but we must also make more noise.
We must use methods such as those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on Second Reading. He suggested a registration week in which there would be a maximum flow of information to the electorate to ensure that they knew that they should be registering to vote. We should not only put letters through letterboxes or knock on doors but stop people on the buses or in tube stations to ask whether they have registered. If they have not, we can tell them how to. We must make people aware that they should be registering.
Some local authorities are good at ensuring that those who are eligible have registered; others are very poor indeed. The Government are absolutely right to stress consistency of performance across the country. I hope that will emerge from the Bill.
Column Number: 137
We should be able to audit performance satisfactorily, without resorting to bean counting. We must share examples of good practice. Those authorities that are identified as falling short of expectations must use the local government structures in order to do better. The scrutiny committees that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe mentioned were not around when I was involved in local government. However, they are most definitely part of local government practice now. The scrutiny committees should be used to ensure that performance is monitored adequately.
3 pm
I have one amendment that does not really sit with the others. Amendment No. 12 would amend clause 70, because that is the extent clause. One fact that has been clearly drawn to our attention is that the provisions do not extend to Northern Ireland. There is no obvious reason why they should not. The Electoral Commission would like a degree of oversight of arrangements in Northern Ireland. Those who represent Northern Irish seats in this House would like the commission to have some oversight of the arrangements.
Perhaps there has not yet been sufficient communication between the Minister's Department and the Northern Ireland Office to achieve a happy conjunction of objectives. If so, I urge the Minister to get in touch with a degree of alacrity, because it seems that if we can sensibly send the provisions to Northern Ireland there is no reason not to do so. If everyone wants that to happen and the only problem is the fact that it is not in the Bill, I hope that by the completion of its parliamentary passage it will extend to as many parts of the country as possible.
| 
