The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:Chairman:
Mr.
Peter Atkinson †
Brown,
Mr. Nicholas (Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend)
(Lab) †
Brown,
Mr. Russell (Dumfries and Galloway)
(Lab) †
Buck,
Ms Karen (Regent's Park and Kensington, North)
(Lab) †
Curtis-Thomas,
Mrs. Claire (Crosby)
(Lab) †
Devine,
Mr. Jim (Livingston)
(Lab) †
Hoyle,
Mr. Lindsay (Chorley)
(Lab) Hughes,
Simon (North Southwark and Bermondsey)
(LD) †
Linton,
Martin (Battersea)
(Lab) Mundell,
David (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)
(Con) †
Prentice,
Bridget (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional
Affairs)†
Roy,
Mr. Frank (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)†
Swinson,
Jo (East Dunbartonshire)
(LD) †
Taylor,
Mr. Ian (Esher and Walton)
(Con) Vaizey,
Mr. Edward (Wantage)
(Con) †
Vara,
Mr. Shailesh (North-West Cambridgeshire)
(Con) Watkinson,
Angela (Upminster)
(Con) †
Wright,
Mr. Anthony (Great Yarmouth)
(Lab) Nerys Welfoot, Committee
Clerk † attended the
Committee Eighth
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationWednesday
21 June
2006[Mr.
Peter Atkinson in the
Chair]Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006
2.30
pm The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs
(Bridget Prentice): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Form
of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations
2006. The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider the
draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland)
Regulations
2006. Bridget
Prentice: May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Atkinson? I
do not think that I have served under your chairmanship before and I
look forward to doing so today.
As an introduction to these
regulations it is important that we establish that an accurate
electoral register is fundamental to our electoral system. Inaccuracies
in the register can prevent individuals from voting, can create
opportunities for malpractice and can skew the map of representation.
The primary source of information for the electoral register is the
annual canvass, which is conducted at a local level by electoral
registration officers. The annual canvass form is prescribed in law and
these two sets of regulations provide a new form for use in England and
Wales, and a separate, though broadly similar, new form for
Scotland. Before the
development of these regulations, the Government’s approach to
the design of the canvass form had been to prescribe the basic
requirements in law and to allow local authorities to create amended
versions for their local area. That was intended to allow forms to be
altered to meet individual local needs, and it has been
successful in doing so. However, this flexibility has also led to
significant variations in the quality of the forms in use. Many are
clear and well designed, but others are not, with very small text and
cramped layouts. As it is the results of the canvass that provide the
bulk of the information on the electoral register, this situation is
not good enough.
These regulations provide a
different approach. Local authorities will still be able to make
alterations to the form, provided it remains to the same effect, but
for the first time the prescribed form will be clear, well designed and
usable. The new form will make registering to vote more straightforward
and less confusing. In turn, that should help make electoral registers
more accurate and more comprehensive.
The key changes to the form set
out in previous regulations are a complete change to the layout to
make it more user-focused and easier to complete; a large “Voter
Registration Form” logo, making the form’s purpose
clearer; and the collection of information about 16 and 17-year-olds
separately from those over 18. Evidence shows that this increases the
registration rate among those reaching 18. Simpler text will make the
form easier to read and will allow a larger font size to be
used. There will be a
clearer definition of the “full” and
“edited” registers, helping people to make an informed
choice about opting out. There will be clearer information about who
can register to vote, including a more accurate definition of which
Commonwealth citizens are eligible to register. Finally, there will be
contact information and details about alternative formats in a
prominent position and in large print. I hope that copies of the new
form are available to the Committee and I also have a copy of the old
form so that Members can see the difference.
The new form is a result of a
collaborative process involving the Electoral Commission, the
Association of Electoral Administrators and other key stakeholders.
Their input has been vital and the Government are grateful to them. An
independent “usability” expert has also reviewed the
form. Her comments have been extremely valuable in ensuring that the
form is focused on the needs of those who will be asked to complete it.
Feedback has been positive. Electoral administrators have told us that
they are keen on many of the new features, and the Electoral Commission
said that “the new form
represents a considerable improvement in terms of clarity and
accessibility.”
If Parliament accepts these
draft regulations and approves the new form we will evaluate its impact
at the coming annual canvass. This evaluation will inform any further
changes which may need to be made in future
years.
Mr.
Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): I was a little bit lost at
the end when the Minister suggested that this was a trial. Is it a
permanent form that will be used by different local authorities? If it
is a trial, is it across the country or will local authorities
volunteer for the new
form? Bridget
Prentice: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is not a
trial. It is the form that all local authorities will use, but as it is
a new form we will obviously look carefully at what happens after the
canvass in October and if any little changes need to be made we will
make them. On that basis, I recommend the regulations to the
Committee. 2.35
pm Mr.
Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): First, Mr.
Atkinson, I am grateful that my brief airing on the Front Bench for my
party is under your chairmanship. I am honoured by that. I should tell
the Committee that we are unlikely to detain it for long on this
instrument. I was
grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr.
Hoyle) because it was an issue that needed to be clarified. Perhaps
when the Minister winds up she could explain whether there are any
further considerations about the Welsh situation
and the Scottish regulations. I know that there have been questions
about it being bilingual, although the reality in this country is that
there are not just bilingual problems, but multilingual problems,
certainly in some communities. I am also grateful to her for clarifying
that she took into account the Electoral Commission’s ideas on
font size, simplicity and so on. I will not go over that
ground. Although
it is not directly related to the regulations, which concern something
that is being introduced and will hopefully be continued, could I
nevertheless ask the Minister to address the concerns, which I know are
also being raised in proceedings on the Electoral Administration Bill
currently going through Parliament, about personal identifiers in
relation not only to the canvass in the autumn but ultimately to voting
in person or by post? These are important matters that need to be
clarified at this stage. A signature is required on this form, but I am
not clear about how it would be used to ensure that the person who then
elected to vote by post or by turning up at the polling station could
prove their identity.
We know that there is a great
question about electoral fraud. This is not a party political issue.
There are issues in Coventry at the moment which might affect my party.
There were issues in Birmingham and there are issues in Tower Hamlets.
But there is widespread concern that because we do not register
individually—sometimes it is done as a household—there
can be a perpetuation of fraud. It is important for the Minister to
reassure us. We share a desire to get as many people registered as
possible but I do not see that that objective conflicts with the need
to try to reduce electoral fraud. Other than that, I am content with
the
measure. 2.38
pm Jo
Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I am delighted to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Atkinson. The hon. Member for Esher
and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said that he did not intend to detain the
Committee long. As we came into the room he asked me whether I was very
animated about this, and I replied that I always try to be animated,
but perhaps not for very long today.
I appreciate the
Minister’s setting out the motivation behind the changes in the
form. I am sure that we all agree that it is important to have as many
people on the electoral register as possible to have a healthy
democracy. One of the things that saddens us all is that a turnout at
the general election of around 60 per cent. is becoming the norm in the
UK. Anything that makes it easier for people to register and therefore
more likely to vote is a positive
thing. I have just a
few questions for the Minister about the layout and text of the form of
canvass before us today. It has already been discussed in the other
place and I understand that the Government are prepared to look at some
of the changes that their lordships have suggested. I would like to
press the Government on a form of words in the opening sentence on the
page 4 of both of the forms which would make sense to the reader.
Currently the opening sentence
reads: “You are
entitled to register to vote if you are a British, Irish, European or
qualifying Commonwealth
citizen.” However,
my noble Friend Lord Mar and Kellie suggested that it should be changed
to “People are
entitled to register to vote if they are a British, Irish, European or
qualifying Commonwealth citizen.” The form is unfortunately not
sent to an individual but to a household and so the use of the word
“you” could be confusing and slightly clumsy. The amended
sentence however, makes it much more applicable to a multi-occupancy
household. Until we have individual voter registration, we should make
the form as inclusive as possible. The sentence
indicates a further change that might be worth flagging up. The word
“qualifying” is used in respect of Commonwealth citizens.
What is the Minister’s view on that? Obviously, there are a
large number of Commonwealth countries, and now 25 European Union
member states as well. Not everybody will necessarily know whether they
are entitled to vote.
It is important to make
something as significant as voter registration as clear and obvious as
possible. My hon. Friend the Member for North
Southwarkand Bermondsey (Simon Hughes)—unfortunately,
he cannot be present—has proposed adding an asterisk next to the
word “qualifying” and, somewhere else on the form, next
to another asterisk, a list of the relevant countries and the
entitlement of their nationals to vote in elections in the UK. That
would make it crystal clear who is eligible to
vote. My other point
is about the separate section for 16 and 17-year-olds, which
is a welcome addition. The new form has a space for the names and
nationalities of those in the house who are not eligible to vote.
Before, somebody had to write only that no one else in the house was
eligible to vote and the reason. However, now people have to list who
in the house is not eligible.
Will the Government
give an assurance that any information provided in that section of the
form will be used only to check the eligibility of that resident to
vote, and that it will not be passed on to any other
Department—the Home Office, for example? Are any safeguards in
place to prevent the Government from passing that information to
another Department? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my
questions, apart from which I welcome the regulations and their
changes. 2.41
pm Bridget
Prentice: I hope that I shall be able to respond to the
many constructive points raised by both Opposition
spokespeople. In
response to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, I should say that we
have not intended to prescribe a Welsh form as such, but we shall
provide Welsh and bilingual versions for guidance. As I said, there is
scope for local areas to tweak the form if that is
appropriate. There is
an ongoing debate about personal identifiers, and it is not surprising
that it has raised its head in this context; it will again during our
discussions on the Electoral Administration Bill. Our position is that
personal identifiers should be used for postal vote applications and
return votes, not for collection at the
canvass. Mr.
Taylor: I appreciate that that is the Minister’s
position, although I hoped that I could seduce her into changing her
position on the issue. There is still the
question of proof of identity in the polling booth. The Government still
need to think about that, and this would have been a good moment to do
so. The Electoral Administration Bill is making progress through the
House, and I urge the Minister to rethink the
situation. Bridget
Prentice: The issue will not go away, so I shall certainly
be thinking about it on many an
occasion. In response
to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), I should say
that the form is written as it is in response to guidance from the
Plain English Campaign, which suggests that forms written in personal,
everyday language are easier to understand than those written in a more
bureaucratic or passive voice. I assume that all Committee members
understand the phrase “passive voice”, and that grammar
has not entirely gone for a Burton.
The hon. Lady
also asked about including a list of Commonwealth and European
countries. I am sympathetic to that suggestion, but there was a balance
to be struck between providing fuller information and creating a usable
form. There are more than 50 Commonwealth countries, plus the European
Union countries. If they were all listed, the form could become a bit
cumbersome, complex and cluttered. Experience generally shows that the
longer the explanatory note, the less likely people are to read
it.
Jo
Swinson: I appreciate the Minister’s point, and it
is true that that is a lot of information. Does she feel that there is
any other way to clarify the situation, for example by directing people
to other resources to find out whether there is any confusion about
whether their eligibility to vote?
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. One of the
most obvious resources would be the registration officer—we
could make it clear on the
form that people can contact the officer to clarify any aspect of the
form, including which Commonwealth and European Union countries mean
people are
eligible. Finally, the
hon. Lady was concerned about a privacy aspect on the section about
whether residents are not entitled to vote due to their nationality.
The form has always had that in place. In this case it just suggests
some reasons as a kind of prompt for people as to why they might not be
eligible to vote. I assure her, for example, that if a reply comes back
saying that all residents are French, the electoral registration
officer would return the form clarifying that French citizens can
register. That is another way to respond to her earlier question:
people will be assured that they can be registered. I also assure her
that anything included in that box will not be passed on to any other
agencies.
The Electoral
Commission reckons that about 3.5 million people who should be on the
register are not, and I am sure that all Committee members share the
view that an accurate register is vital to our democratic system. On
that basis, I hope that the regulations and this design of the form
will make things easier and clearer, and will therefore help to ensure
that everyone who is entitled to vote is registered to do so. I commend
the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to. Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass)
(England and Wales) Regulations
2006.
Resolved,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass)
(Scotland) Regulations 2006—[Bridget
Prentice.] Committee
rose at thirteen minutes to Three
o’clock.
| 
