The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Buck,
Ms Karen
(Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab)
Crabb,
Mr. Stephen
(Preseli Pembrokeshire)
(Con)
Cryer,
Mrs. Ann
(Keighley)
(Lab)
Flello,
Mr. Robert
(Stoke-on-Trent, South)
(Lab)
Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)
(Lab)
Foster,
Michael Jabez
(Hastings and Rye)
(Lab)
Hughes,
Simon
(North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD)
Hunter,
Mark
(Cheadle)
(LD)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Moran,
Margaret
(Luton, South)
(Lab)
Morgan,
Julie
(Cardiff, North)
(Lab)
Prentice,
Bridget
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs)
Pritchard,
Mark
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
Thornberry,
Emily
(Islington, South and Finsbury)
(Lab)
Turner,
Mr. Andrew
(Isle of Wight)
(Con)
Ussher,
Kitty
(Burnley)
(Lab)
Watkinson,
Angela
(Upminster)
(Con)
Glenn
McKee, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
First
Standing Committeeon Delegated
Legislation
Monday 6
November
2006
[Hugh
Bayley in the
Chair]
Draft
Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary
Elections) Regulations
2006
Draft
Service Voters Registration Period Order
2006
Draft
Representation of the People (England and Wales)
(Amendment)(No. 2) Regulations
2006
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
(Bridget Prentice): I beg to
move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Review of Polling Districts and
Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations
2006.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the
draft Service Voters Registration Period Order 2006 and the
draft Representation of thePeople (England and Wales)
(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations
2006.
Bridget
Prentice: Thank you, Mr. Bayley. This
isthe first time that I have appeared under your chairmanship,
and I am delighted to have the opportunity to do so. I hope that we
will remain entirely in order as we go through the regulations, but I
am sure that you will rapidly bring us back into order if we step away
from what is
proper.
Let me begin
with the representation of the people regulations. One aim of the
Electoral Administration Act 2006 was to improve access to and
engagementin the democratic process. Research suggests
that3.5 million people are entitled to vote but are not
registered, and part 2 of the regulations aims tohelp increase
registration by allowing anonymous registration for people who believe
that they or others in their household would be put at risk by having
their name and address on the register.
The Government consulted a
variety of stakeholders, such as Victim Support, the Home Office,
Scottish Womens Aid and the Network for Surviving
Stalking.
4.32
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the House.
4.47
pm
On
resuming
Bridget
Prentice: We consulted stakeholders on anonymous
registrations so that we could hear views on such matters as the
evidence required with an application and who will require access to
the record of anonymous entries. The results of that consultation are
why we drafted the regulations as they stand. There will be strict
criteria for anonymous registration. For example, the Family Law Act
1996 or the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 might give someone a
reason to ask for anonymous registration, if they felt that it would
help to protect them from harassment or molestation. If a person did
not have a relevant order, they could apply using an attestation signed
by a senior officer, such as a chief constable in the police or the
equivalent in another organisation. We did not want registration
officers to undertake a qualitative investigation of why someone should
have an anonymous entry, so we have prescribed the evidence and forms
of attestation that will be
acceptable.
Anonymous
registration will last for 12 months only and then, as set out in the
regulations, a person will be sent a reminder that a fresh application
must be made, if they wish to remain on the register
anonymously.
Simon
Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): When an
election of whatever sort is called, will it be possible for political
parties or whoever to be given not the names of people, who are, by
definition, anonymous, but the total number of such people at that
date? Will there be a process whereby material from parties or
candidates can be sent to those people, so that they receive everything
that everybody else
receives?
Bridget
Prentice: Yes is the answer to both those
questions.
Part 2 of
the regulations extends the current system of registration objections
to empower the registration officer to remove an electors name,
if it becomes apparent that they should not have been registered. The
regulations allow for an individual to object to another
persons registration at any time, and that change will ensure
that registration is more open to scrutiny. The register should
therefore be more
accurate.
Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): Regulation 9 appears
to prevent any objection to an anonymous registration. Although I
understand that it would be difficult to do so, does the Minister think
that those who register anonymously are any less likely to register
improperly?
Bridget
Prentice: This morning, I asked exactly the same question
as the hon. Gentleman. I have told civil servants that they should
never underestimate the ability of Members of Parliament to find
questions to ask, especially when the subject is elections, because we,
above all others, believe ourselves to be experts on
elections.
First, it
would be more difficult for a person who wants to register anonymously
to do so without having the right to do so because of the other
restrictionsfor example, registration requires the agreement of
a senior police officer, and it must be done under legislation
such as the Family Law Act 1996 or the Protection from Harassment Act
1997. There are specific reasons why a person is allowed to register
anonymously.
Secondly,
the nature of anonymous registrations makes it impossible for someone
to challenge such a registration, because they would not know who was
registered anonymously. No one that I asked was able to come up with a
situation in which such a challenge would be possible. The proposal
should provide a fail safe on those two
counts.
Simon
Hughes: The Minister is right that we all know exactly how
these things work. Another practical matter is that when an election is
called, we go out on to the doorsteps and before long invariably find
out that someone has died or that they have left to go, orgo
back, to Australia, Jamaica or Bangladesh, for example. As the Minister
knows, I welcome the regulations, but will the new system ensure that
we can feed such information back to the electoral registration officer
by the time of the election, so that those names are not on the
register and cannot be abused? Will it, for example, prevent someone
from turning up and claiming to be Bridget Prentice, if the evidence
shows that Bridget Prentice has left a month
ago?
Bridget
Prentice: Again, I assure the hon. Gentleman that if the
information is fed back to the registration officers and they can
verify it, they will take the name off the register and it will be
checked at the polling station. Of course, someone could leave to go to
Australia a month before an election but still have the right to vote.
That is perhaps not the best example to use, but if someone had
died
Simon
Hughes: They would not vote in
person.
Bridget
Prentice: It is certainly true that they would not vote in
person.
Mr.
Turner: Proposed new paragraph 31C, which is in regulation
11, lists those who are entitled to give notice of a death to the
registration officer, but, again, there is no guarantee, and I question
whether that entitlement should extend to canvassers for political
parties. There is no guarantee that someone has died unless there is a
death certificate. Was the Minister saying in response to the hon.
Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that that
power extends to canvassers for political
parties?
Bridget
Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on what he means?
Is he suggesting that political parties have the power to register a
death?
Mr.
Turner: To notify the registration officer of a
death.
Bridget
Prentice: The registration officer will be able to
investigate any case where somebody suggests that someone is not able
to vote, so they would be able to go to the registrar of births,
marriages and deaths. Such an issue would be sensitive, and if it were
close to an election, the registration officer might have to take note
of the complaint and make a decision after the election. There is room
in the regulations for that to happen,
too.
Part 3 of the
regulations allows for a registration officer to make alterations to
the electoral register to correct an error or to give effect to a court
ruling until 9 pm on polling day. That is an important change, because
under the previous system a person could have been disfranchised if a
clerical error was discovered on the day of the poll or within the five
days preceding it. I think that all members of the Committee could give
examples of clerical errors that have resulted in someone being
disfranchised. Such errors are likely to come to light only when a
person physically goes to the polling station to cast their vote. I
hope that hon. Members will view this as a sensible amendment, which
focuses on the elector and their right to
vote.
Mr.
Turner: What arrangements are in place to ensure that
someone claiming to have been omitted from one register is not included
on
another?
Bridget
Prentice: Let me say two things. First, the registration
officer will have the power to investigate whether someone is on
another register because they live elsewhere. Secondly, the
co-ordinated online record of electors, when it is completely up and
running, will provide a simple way of checking registers across the
country to find out who should be registered where. We must remember
that peoplefor example, studentscan be registered in
two places in certain
circumstances.
On the
replacement of counterfoils, ballot papers will no longer need to be
attached to a counterfoil, which will allow more automated procedures
to be used in printing ballot papers. Hon. Members may have concerns
about the secrecy attached to that, and I shall explain the issue in a
moment. Returning officers will record ballot papers numbers to be used
at a parliamentary election on a corresponding number list, the form of
which is prescribed in the regulations. In future, electors will be
required to sign the CNL when they are issued with a ballot paper at
the polling
station.
The Electoral
Commission will issue guidance based on the experience of last
years pilot schemes about using a device to cover other
signatures. When the elector signs for their ballot paper, they will
see only their own signature, and not anyone elses. I hope that
reassures hon. Members that the secrecy of the ballot will be
preserved. My own authority, Lewisham, used that system for ballot
papers at polling stations last year. I used the system, which was safe
and secure, and there was no way in which I could see other
electors names or numbers, nor they mine.
On the issue of absent voting
and personal identifiers, improving confidence in the electoral system
lies at the heart of a healthy democracy, and the regulations include
further details about requiring people who apply to vote by post or by
proxy to provide their signature and date of birth. At elections,
postal voters will have to provide those identifiers on their postal
voting statement when they cast their vote. The regulations state that
the returning officer must set aside at least 20 per cent. of returned
covering envelopes for verification purposes. The personal
identifiers on the postal voting statements in the envelopes will be
compared with those supplied by the voters on their initial
application.
For
practical reasons, we have decided to phase in the new provisions,
which is why I have stated that there must be a minimum level of 20 per
cent. However, any returning officer who wants to check more than that
will be perfectly able to do so. We support the principle that checks
should be carried out on all returned postal votes, and we aim to
introduce 100 per cent. checking as quickly as possible, while taking
into account funding and the practical issues involved. Many
authorities hope to move beyond the 20 per cent. minimum in next
years elections. They will certainly move beyond it in the
following years
elections.
The
regulations extend the long-term proxy vote facility to electors with
any disability, including a non-physical disability. That is a result
of the abolition, under the 2006 Act, of the common law preventing
persons with mental impairment from voting. The Act also removed the
ban on voting in person at polling stations for mental health patients
detained under civil powers. The regulations will allow such people to
apply for an emergency proxy vote if, for example, they have been
refused permission to be absent from the hospital to vote.
If a postal voter states that
they have not received their postal voting pack, but the postal voters
list shows that the pack has been received and recorded, a returning
officer will be able to cancel the returned postal ballot paper. The
regulations set out the detailed procedure for that and for retrieving
a cancelled postal ballot paper from a ballot box. Candidates and
agents will be entitled to be present when a sealed ballot box is
opened for the purposes of retrieval, and when the ballot box is
resealed.