The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Barrett,
John
(Edinburgh, West)
(LD)
Brown,
Mr. Russell
(Dumfries and Galloway)
(Lab)
Cairns,
David
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Scotland)
Clarke,
Mr. Tom
(Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill)
(Lab)
Foster,
Michael Jabez
(Hastings and Rye)
(Lab)
Goodwill,
Mr. Robert
(Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
Hollobone,
Mr. Philip
(Kettering)
(Con)
Jackson,
Mr. Stewart
(Peterborough)
(Con)
Kawczynski,
Daniel
(Shrewsbury and Atcham)
(Con)
Liddell-Grainger,
Mr. Ian
(Bridgwater)
(Con)
McKechin,
Ann
(Glasgow, North)
(Lab)
MacNeil,
Mr. Angus
(Na h-Eileanan an Iar)
(SNP)
McGovern,
Mr. Jim
(Dundee, West)
(Lab)
Main,
Anne
(St. Albans)
(Con)
Morgan,
Julie
(Cardiff, North)
(Lab)
Mudie,
Mr. George
(Leeds, East)
(Lab)
Roy,
Mr. Frank
(Lord Commissioner of Her
Majesty
s
Treasury)
Sheridan,
Jim
(Paisley and Renfrewshire, North)
(Lab)
Stewart,
Ian
(Eccles)
(Lab)
Swinson,
Jo
(East Dunbartonshire)
(LD)
Hannah
Weston, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Fourth
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 7
March
2007
[Mr.
Bill
Olner
in the
Chair]
Draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007
2.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David
Cairns):
I beg to move,
That the Committee has
considered the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order
2007.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be
convenient to consider the draft Representation of the People
(Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 and the draft Local Electoral
Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006
(Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order
2007.
David
Cairns:
I thank you, Mr. Olner, and the
Committee for agreeing to consider these connected statutory
instruments together. I welcome you to the Committee and look forward
to serving under your
chairmanship.
The
Committee is considering two draft orders made under the Scotland Act
1998 and one set of regulations made under the Representation of the
People Act 1983. I shall begin with the draft Scottish Parliament
(Elections etc.) Order 2007, which will hereafter be known as the big
one. I appreciate that it is a long order containing many measures, but
the vast majority of themabout 80 per cent.are
perfectly standard and reflect electoral law that has been in place for
decades. The order replicates and updates the rules that governed the
last Scottish Parliament elections, which have been updated to ensure
that they are in line with the primary legislation introduced since
those elections. The order consolidates into one document all the rules
and regulations governing the conduct of elections to the Scottish
Parliament.
Rather
than go into all the things that the order does not change, I shall
speak briefly about those that it does. There are two groups of
changes, the first of which concerns the changes introduced by the
Electoral Administration Act 2006. The second group concerns
innovations involving electronic counting and the single ballot paper
for regional and constituency
votes.
The
first group of changes mainly introduces fraud-prevention measures. One
of the main aims of the 2006 Act was to tackle the risk of electoral
fraud, especially through postal voting. The postal voting statement,
which replaces the declaration of identity, is a statement that people
must sign to confirm that they are the correct recipient of ballot
papers. The list of postal ballot papers must be marked to show when
the paper was issued and when it was received. A new provision allows
postal voters to confirm that their returned postal vote and voting
statement have been received. A
person requesting a postal vote to be sent to a different address from
that on the record of absent voters must explain
why.
The order also
addresses the need to ensure that documents that are to be displayed or
given to voters are available in a range of accessible formats
including Braille, languages other than English and in an audible
format. Hon. Members will be interested to know that the deadline for
registering to vote has been extended from about six weeks before
polling day to 11 days before the poll. People will therefore still be
able to get on to the electoral register after the election campaign
has begun until 11 days before the
poll.
The order also
contains various administrative improvements introduced by the 2006
Act. Ballot papers will no longer be attached to counterfoils that are
marked when the attached ballot paper is detached and issued. Instead,
a corresponding number list will be maintained by the constituency
returning officer, which will contain the numbers of all ballot papers
to be issued. Returning officers will also be able to correct simple
procedural errors on polling day to ensure that voters are not
unnecessarily
disfranchised.
The
following change applies to me and probably to you, Mr.
Olner. Candidates nominations will now be allowed to state
their commonly used name. My name appears on the ballot paper as John
Cairns, but it can now appear as David Cairns, because that rule also
applies in UK Parliament elections. [Interruption.]
I am
not going to change my name; I am delighted with my name, and it will
proudly be on the ballot paper in Inverclyde, where I routinely get at
least 50 per cent. of the
vote.
The second
category of changes involves what we call innovative changes. The order
allows ballot papers in Scotland to be counted electronically for the
first time. Also, as recommended in the Arbuthnott commission report,
the two ballot papers for the Scottish Parliament will be combined in a
single sheet. Rather than attempting to explain all that, I thought
that it might be easier to produce some dummy ballot papers for hon.
Members to look at. I realise that for people reading the Official
Report, it will not mean anything, but hon. Members in Committee
have an example of the ballot
paper.
As hon.
Members can see, the regional list will be on the left-hand side of the
sheet, and the constituency on the right. Candidates and parties are
ordered alphabetically; the two parts of the sheet are printed in
different colours to help voters to distinguish them; and it has been
designed after full public consultation, in which comments were
received from an extensive range of bodies, including local
authorities, political parties, election organisations and, perhaps
most importantly in that context, representatives of disabled
people.
The
explanatory memorandum makes it clear that a few provisions in the
order, in so far as they relate to the application of provisions to
convicted prisoners, are incompatible with the European convention on
human rights. However, I want to make it clear that that does not in
any way threaten the forthcoming election or question its legality. The
Government are engaged in a public debate about the most appropriate
way of implementing the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber
judgment in Hirst
v. The United Kingdom,
which required a review of the blanket ban on prisoners right to
vote. Consultation closes today, and I urge those people who have not
taken part to do so.
I turn to
the second of the three instruments before us, the Representation of
the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, which is much
shorter than the instrument that we have just discussed. This House
debated the Representation of the People (England and Wales)
(Amendment) (No.2) Regulations 2006 last November, and they are
mirrored almost identically in the regulations before us. Separate
regulations are necessary for Scotland because of its different
electoral arrangements. For example, sheriff clerks are involved in the
retention of electoral documents in Scotland. The regulations amend the
Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. The
amendments flow from provisions in the Electoral Administration Act
2006, which introduce anonymous registration, alter certain aspects of
absent voting and improve certain administrative
procedures.
You will
realise, Mr. Olner, that I have already gone into the
amendments in detail, in so far as they apply to the Scottish
Parliament elections, so I shall not repeat myself. Suffice to say that
the regulations directly apply the same amendments to UK parliamentary
elections in Scotland, and electoral practice will thereby be
consistent throughout UK and Scottish parliamentary
elections.
I
turn finally to the Local Electoral Administration and Registration
Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and
Modifications) Order 2007. The Committee will be relieved to hear that
it is by far the simplest and most straightforward of the three
instruments. The order is made as a consequence of the Local Electoral
Administration and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006, which is
an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The 2006 Act introduced an offence
in Scotland relating to fraudulent applications for postal or proxy
votes. The penalty includes being disqualified from standing in
Scottish local government elections for five years, and it mirrors the
provisions made in England and Wales under the Electoral Administration
Act 2006. The Scottish Parliaments Act, however, could not
extend the disqualification to elections to Westminster, to the
European or Scottish Parliaments or to local government elections
outwith Scotland, because such matters were outwith the Scottish
Parliaments legislative
competence.
The
order will ensure that when a person has been convicted of the new
offence and disqualified from standing in a local government election
in Scotland, the disqualification will apply also to candidature in
elections to Westminster. Owing to the terms of the Representation of
the People Act 1983, the disqualification will automatically apply to
standing in elections to the European and Scottish Parliaments, the
Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, and in local government
elections elsewhere in Great Britain. The Scottish Parliaments
2006 Act provided for the recognition in Scotland of similar
disqualifications made at local and parliamentary elections elsewhere
in the United Kingdom, and the order therefore completes that
circle.
We have
fully consulted the Electoral Commission on the Scottish Parliament
(Elections etc.) Order 2007 and on the Representation of the People
(Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, as we are obliged to, and the
commission is content with the versions before
the Committee. We have also worked closely with a legislation sub-group
comprising representatives of key stakeholders, and, again, it is
content. That collaborative approach means that although the
instruments are detailed and lengthy, they will help to ensure that
elections to the Scottish Parliament are fair and democratic. I commend
the instruments to the
Committee.
2.39
pm
Mr.
Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con):
I am pleased to join the Minister in serving under
you, Mr. Olner. I am sure that you will keep a weather eye
on us all. I notice with some interest that the Oake Doke
Party on the ballot paper seems to be doing well. If it should
win in Scotland, it might be of interest to us all. I see that the
Ministers staff have been incredibly busy producing names such
as MacGregor, Angus Donald, but the orders are all
fairly straightforward. One area that I am concerned aboutI do
not share the Ministers confidence, because I have not been
briefedis human rights, which I shall come to in a
minute.
The
first provision will replace the counterfoils and a corresponding
number of lists of all polls, which will mean that no verification will
be required. As the Minister knowswe have all stood for
elections, some of us more than othersone of the problems that
we remember with counterfoils and the American experience of hanging
chads is that if something happens to the counterfoil, problems can
arise. Will copies of the counterfoils be kept, so that they can be
checked if a person loses them or someone is unsure of the
persons
identity?
The
electoral documents will be published in Braille and other
languagesI presume that that means Gaelic and so on. Will the
same happen for the counterfoils? I know that that sounds pernickety,
but if somebody has a problem, the last thing that we want is to take
away a counterfoil, realise that there is a problem and not be able to
deal with
it.
On
corrections to procedural matters, the Minister and the report both say
that returning officers will be able to make small adjustments. I
accept that as far as it goes, but will he define the word
small? I know that it sounds bizarre, but would it
involve Christian name changes or changes from Mr. to
Mrs., or would it be slightly more fundamental, for
instance, where someone has crossed two boxes inadvertently? I should
be interested to know not whether we have a clear definition, but
whether we can tie down what changes will be
allowed.
On name
changes, is the Minister happy? I am lucky to have a name such as
Liddell-Grainger, as there is no chance that it could be changed, but
in the case of SmithsI use an English name so as not to offend
anybodythere could be a problem with Christian names. Indeed,
he has pointed out that he has had to change a name because of that.
There have been cases of fraudI do not think that there have
been any in Scotland; they have mainly been in Englandwhere
people have used names, mainly from overseas, that are very close to
each other. Is he happy that that cannot
happen?
Anonymous
registration will come into force in May 2007. Again, is the Minister
happy that that can be checked properly to such a level that the
Electoral Commission will be satisfied that it can enforce the measure,
as ultimately it will have to? We have recourse
to law, but as Ministers and hon. Members know, the last thing that we
want, having fought an election and hopefully been successful, is to
end up having to fight a court case because of something outside our
control.
On enabling
the combined ballot paper, I went recently to see the Dutch elections,
where 48 parties were standing. The common complaint is about
confusion. The Minister has given us a draft ballot sheet where the
colours are different, so that hopefully people will not be confused.
It is all right for me, as my name takes up the whole space, but that
is not always the case. One of the problems in Holland was that people
were confused not about the parties but about the names. Are we sure as
a nation that that will be understood clearly enough to prevent the
challenges that I have mentioned or to prevent returning officers from
being put under pressure to make decisions because the situation is in
a grey area? If that system has a historynot in this country,
of coursehas it been considered? What is the methodology? Has
evidence been taken from overseas countries that it has worked
successfully to put names or political parties in different
coloursyellow, red, blue or whatever? Maybe the names should be
in those colours as wellI do not
know.
I shall turn to
the European convention on human rights, on which I suspect that my
party will differ from the Government. The Government have indicated
that the order might not be compatible with the convention, but they
say that that will not matter. I can accept that at face value, but
there is a continuing problem. The Minister has rightly alluded to the
case of Hirst v. United Kingdom, in which the Representation of
the People Act 1983 was deemed incompatible with convention rights. The
Government are trying to resolve the position, but doubt remains. Is
the Minister absolutely sure that the measure will not cause a backlash
in the courts, during or after elections? Is he sure that the voting
rights of prisoners in Scotland are safeguardedor otherwise as
the case may be? And is he sure that there will not be a challenge from
the European Union itself on the basis that the legislation is less
than helpful to certain groups that may or may not have the right to
vote?
The Court of
Session in Edinburgh has said that elections as proposed are
incompatible with human rights. The three judges of Scotlands
supreme court issued a declaration that the blanket ban on voting by
convicted prisoners was incompatible with those rights. Technically,
three legal systems are at issuethe collective British system,
the Scottish system and the European system. I challenge the Minister
to ensure absolutely that we shall not fall foul of any one of them,
or, God forbid, of two of them or even, disastrously, of three of
them.
I worry that
the Ministers assurances will not be sufficient. Anybody who
feels strongly enough to take an appeal as far as the appellant has
pursued his appeal in the case that I have mentioned obviously feels
deeply about it. I am sure that members of other political parties and
other hon. Members would feel the same if they were in that position.
There must be no leeway for manoeuvre, because the last thing we want
is a problem at the end of the election.
Electronic
counting was used in elections in 2000. The Electoral Commission has
released a report dated August 2006 about recent pilot schemes using
electronics. In general, the use of e-counting technology has had very
little effect, a point confirmed by talking to Oracle and others. A
problem, however, is the bottleneck caused by the manual adjustment of
doubtful papers. If there is a paper about which someone is not sure,
it must be checked. We would do the same as MPswe would take
the papers that we were not sure about and check whether they were
right or wrong. That has to be done manually, and a bottleneck was
created when electronic counting was tried previously. Would that
continue, or are the systems
better?
There
is a need for independent quality assurance. A returning officer might
say that things are fine, and if there is no problem that is okay. But
what check exists by way of quality assurance that the returning
officer will get things right? What training do returning officers get
so that they can understand the procedures? Candidates and agents need
sufficient information about the count and its progress. The system is
complicated, so will agents and candidates be counselled on how to
handle it? People in local authorities need the necessary
skillscounters, returning officers and the people in the
polling stations. Will they have that
ability?
There
is no doubt that there are potentially problems with the single
transferable vote system. The best electoral system is the simplest
onethat probably goes without saying. Are people savvy enough
to understand the STV system? I cannot speak for Scotland because I am
not a Scottish MPdespite my name, I am a Scot. When we had
proportional representation for the first time in the west country, it
was a nightmare, because people did not understand it. Is the Minister
happy that the system will work and that people will understand it?
What educationI use the word in its loosest sensewill
people be given to understand the system? I hark back to Holland: if
the system fails because people do not understand it, it will not be
credible, and I ask the Minister to reflect on
that.
One
of the problems after the Electoral Administration Act 2006 relates to
the security of postal ballots and the integrity of the electoral
register, with which all of us have had problems. We now have rolling
registers, mainly for local government. Are the Government and the
Minister happy that we have safeguarded our democracy from fraud? Fraud
is the bane of all our lives. We cannot say that it does not happen,
because it does. Using personal identifiers as part of voter
registration in Northern Ireland has been successful. Should we be
considering it? Given the way in which we are moving in Scotland, that
might be an area in which to trial it. I do not know, but that is a
suggestion.
If
we get voter registration wrong, we will get anonymous voter names
wrong, and we could get the ballot papers wrong. I ask the Government
to consider that point. Safeguarding democracy is the responsibility of
all of us. We have been democratically selected and elected to sit in
this place, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or wherever. If
we do not get the process right, we will have a
problem.
The
orders are fairly straightforward. I hope that we have not given too
many problems. Colours work, but I ask the Minister to consider human
rights, security and understanding of the system before the local
elections to ensure integrity all the way
through.
2.52
pm
Jo
Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair, Mr. Olner. I look forward to serving, albeit briefly,
under your chairmanship.
The orders, as has been said,
are not particularly controversial and mainly constitute a tidying up
of election law and regulations, following partly in the path of the
Electoral Administration Act 2006. Liberal Democrats welcomed the 2006
Act, although we thought that it did not go far enough. There are lots
of issues on which we still want to press the Governmentone
that springs to mind is the continued disfranchisement of 16 and
17-year-oldsbut the Act was broadly
welcome.
I turn first
to the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007, about
which I have three main points to make. The first concerns the ballot
paper design. Unlike the hon. Member for Bridgwater, I welcome the new
design. The dual colour scheme will make it clear that separate votes
are to go on one paper. I also welcome having a single ballot paper for
the Scottish Parliament and a separate paper for local government,
because it will help to remove confusion among voters, who in previous
elections might not have been helped by some parties
propaganda. They might have been led to believe that their regional
list vote was some kind of second preference vote, when as we know,
that is not the way that the alternative vote plus system is intended
to work. Having only one ballot paper will certainly help to tidy up
that
confusion.
Electronic
ballot counting will be essential with the use of the STV electoral
system for local government elections. Any constitutional nerd will be
able to recite all the formulae for calculating the transfer of
fractions of votes, but to do so manually be an absolute
nightmare.
The hon.
Member for Bridgwater asked whether people will understand the system.
I appreciate that the Minister will respond to that point, but as a
strident advocate of the single transferable vote system, I point out
that people are used to ranking things in order of preference. They go
to the supermarket and choose one brand of washing powder over another,
and if their favourite is not in stock they choose their second
favourite, and they also assess the music in the charts. There are 101
different ways in popular culture for people to rank their favourite,
second favourite, third favourite and so on, which is all that we need
to ask them to do under the system. Although counting the votes might
be technical and mathematical, voting under the STV system involves
simple ranking, which we all do in our everyday lives. I do not think
that that will be a problem, although ensuring that people understand
the new system is obviously
important.
I
want to address the issue of electronic counting. The Arbuthnott
commission recommended that e-counting and e-voting should be in place
as soon as possible, and certainly before 2011. E-counting is now
available for Scottish parliamentary and local government elections;
will there be further moves to extend that to Westminster elections? Is
the e-voting proposal being considered? And what would be the
Ministers response to that in respect of Scottish parliamentary
and local elections and Westminster
elections?
The
Minister will not be surprised that the third issue that I want to
raise relates to the European convention
on human rights. It is a sad day when he is unable to state that, in his
view, the provisions of the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.)
Order 2007 are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
We have corresponded on the issue fairly recently. The situation could
have been avoided, given that there was a 14-month delay between the
initial European Court of Human Rights decision and the launch of the
Governments
consultation.
One
might say better late than never, and that certainly
applies. I am glad that the situation will hopefully be resolved.
However, it has led to a great deal of uncertainty. Given the timing of
the Scottish electionsunlike those for this House, we know in
advance when they will bethe Government could have seen the
issue coming and been a bit quicker off the starting blocks by not
allowing a 14-month delay before starting the consultation. If they had
not done so, we would not be having this debate. I reiterate that it is
unacceptable that the Government should have let that drag
on.
Many of the
proposals in the second order, the draft Representation of the People
(Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007, are incredibly
welcomeparticularly anonymous voter registration. The electoral
roll is now more widely available for marketing purposes, although
people can obviously opt out of it. A wide range of political parties
has access to the electoral roll, and anybody can stand for election
and therefore gain access to it. We have all seen vulnerable people in
our constituency surgeries who, for example, are being stalked by
violent partners. As a protective measure, there should be provision
for people to be anonymous but still have their right to
vote.
Like the hon.
Member for Bridgwater, I have a few questions about how anonymous voter
registration will work in practicein particular, what
safeguards are in place to prevent the abuse of the provision. Somebody
might try to duplicate anonymous entries, so will there be safeguards
to stop that happening? On the other side of the coin, if the
registration authorities get it wrong and inadvertently publish the
name of somebody who was supposed to remain anonymous, what liabilities
and penalties would they face? And what under the provisions would
sanction them?
Will
consistent criteria be set down for anonymous voter registration, or
will all that be up to the discretion of the electoral registration
officer? There could be a concern if the issue was interpreted in
different ways in different parts of the country and if different
standards were to apply. I would welcome clearer criteria on the
eligible types of people. We should consider how they can be publicised
to maximise voter registration among people who might otherwise have
been afraid to register for whatever
reason.
The
regulations change or place additional duties on registration and
returning officers. What steps are being taken to ensure that those
officers can fully enact the new rules that they are having to take on,
and that they get the practical application right, particularly given
that elections are
looming?
Finally, I
turn to the order on local election administration and registration. We
all share a concern about fraud in postal voting, particularly as there
has been an increase in such voting recently, which, I argue, is a good
thing as it makes it easier for people to have
the democratic right to vote. However, given that increase, we need to
have confidence that the system is robust, that fraud will be rooted
out and that people who are convicted will suffer the appropriate
penalties. I applaud the evening-up of the situation, so that such
people will be banned from standing in all elections.
I hope that the Minister will be
able to respond to some of my queries. Broadly, however, I welcome the
orders.
3
pm
Mr.
Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Gladly, most
of the points that I wanted to make have already been covered by the
other two Opposition parties. I want to reiterate the point on human
rights and votes for prisoners. If there is going to be a Government
information service prior to the election in the next few weeks, the
important issue is not only the vote itself but what the vote
means,.
As a
reminder, the regional list was designed to compensate for the
inequities of the first past the post system and is not actually a
choice. At first glance, the statement on the example ballot paper,
You have two votes, could be misleading. In fact, it
should say, You should vote for your preferred party in most,
but not all, situations to ensure that it gets your vote and your
voice. In the past, some parties have campaigned for one
particular vote, thereby denying voters the weight of their vote behind
their preferred
party.
I have to make
a point about STV, which would be easier and less ambiguous than this
system, which involves a ranking. At the moment, the example sheet
could be interpreted in many ways. Some political parties will
interpret it in another way from the way in which it was designed,
perhaps for their own political gain. I bring that loophole in the
compensatory mechanism for the first past the post system to the
Ministers
attention.
3.1
pm
David
Cairns:
I appreciate the broad welcome that has been given
to these orders. I will try and rattle through the points that have
been brought to my attention. The hon. Member for Bridgwater asked
about the counterfoil, which we are doing away with. There is going to
be a corresponding number list, so that as people get given the ballot
paper, we can mark down who has got which particular paper.
We are also doing away with
that contraptionI do not know what it is calledwhich
makes the mark. There will be barcodes, which can be used to verify
things in the event of a contest to the vote. Like other hon. Members,
I have attended counts, and it has always seemed iniquitous to me that
just because the machine was not used properly on a persons
ballot paper, that person lost that vote. That does not seem to be
right. We are trying to automate the system to remove the possibility
of human error by, for example, having things pre-printed with
barcodes. I think that that answers the hon. Gentlemans
question about whether there will be a counterfoil,
The ballot paper will not have
other languages or Braille on it, although I appreciate the hon.
Gentlemans point about the extension of Braille and
other languages. In Scotland, we have seen a 25 per cent. increase in
the number of eastern Europeans who are on the electoral register from
2005-06, and it is important that we can communicate with
them.
The
Electoral Commission has shown me the information that is going to be
up in and around polling stations on 3 May. Instead of the big long
lists of impenetrable legal text that we see at the moment, there are
going to be much clearer and simpler graphic cartoons of little men and
women collecting papers and voting. That sounds a bit infantile, but it
is much clearer than the legalese gobbledegook that is there at the
minute. I hope that that satisfies the hon.
Gentleman.
The hon.
Gentleman also asked about small adjustments. We are talking about
small adjustments where it is clearly the mistake of the system rather
than the individual, so it is not about somebody putting an X between
two boxes. The Electoral Commission issues what it calls placemats,
which contain photographs of everything that people can conceivably do
in the boxes, including drawing and writing things and putting crosses
between them. Those go out to the electoral administrator, so that they
can make an adjudication, very often in consultation with party agents,
as to whether or not something expresses a clear preference. We have
all seen examples where people have made mistakes or just been plain
rude on ballot papers. I am talking about where somebodys name
has been recorded wrongly on the system, which is a small
administrative error that can be corrected without someone having to
lose their vote. Guidance will be issued on that
point.
On changing
names, I am not aware that people have been deliberately changing their
name, if it is the name by which they are commonly known. I could not
stand in my constituency as Alex Salmond, should I be
minded to do sohe is standing in virtually every other
constituency in Scotland and what a huge vote loser he will be if his
name is on the ballot paper. The provision is to suit circumstances
such as my ownmy name is John David Cairns, but I am known as
David Cairns, but until now I had to go down as John Cairnsor
in which people are known as Chick and so on. People
cannot make up a completely different name to stand under, but they can
put down what they are commonly known as. Of course, if people go
through the legal processes of changing their name, they are entitled
to use that name, but that is not what this is about. If someone is
known as Ian, but their birth name is John, it seems entirely sensible
for them to be able to put Ian on the ballot paper.
We consulted extensively on
the design of the ballot papers. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether
the Arbuthnott commission considered examples from other countries, and
I understand that it looked at how the ballot paper works in New
Zealand. I do not know whether the commission considered the Dutch
example, but I know that it looked abroad.
The hon. Gentleman asked me
about the position in relation to the ECHR, as did the hon. Member for
East Dunbartonshire. We accept that the blanket ban on all prisoners
has been ruled incompatible by the Grand Chamber of the European Court.
The ECHR has been incorporated into UK laweven if it had not
been, it would still apply. We accept that the position is
incompatible, which is stated in the consultation
document. We are not happy about the situation. We do not pretend to
believe anything other than that if someone is sent to prison, they
should lose their vote. There is a fundamental difference between the
Liberal Democrats and us on the issue, but there are ways in which one
can address the problem without enfranchising all prisoners. Some of
the headlines that we have seen in the Scottish press about all 7,000
prisoners in Scotland getting a vote or, if they do not get a vote,
getting a made-up number of thousands of pounds each are
ill-informed and border on scaremongering. We need to make it clear
that the Government remain convinced that if someone is sent to prison
they should not vote. None the less, we accept that that has been found
to be incompatible with the ECHR, and we are consulting on how we can
address that
incompatibility.
Jim
Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab): When
names are put on the ballot paper, will the full name and position of
the person be made knowna hypothetical example is Alex
Salmond,
MP?
David
Cairns:
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the
attempt at world domination by the leader of the Scottish National
party, who wants to be the MSP for Gordon, a regional MSP, First
Minister in the Scottish Parliament, MP for Banff and Buchan and the
leader of the SNP rump group here. The arrogance of such a position
beggars belief. The poor people of Banff and Buchan will be told that
their MP will represent them for half a day a
week.
The
Chairman:
Order. I did not notice the hon.
Gentlemans name on the orders that we are
considering.
David
Cairns:
It is about the only document that his name will
not be on in this coming
election
Mr.
MacNeil:
Such is the reach of the
SNP.
David
Cairns:
Such is the self-promotion of the hon. Member for
Banff and Buchan, but I shall take your ruling, Mr. Olner,
and move on.
Jo
Swinson:
Although the Minister is enjoying a spot of
nat-bashing, may I return him to the ECHR, which he was
discussing a moment ago? He has mentioned some of the headlines, and I
certainly agree that allowing all prisoners to vote is not what the
ECHR demands, and I would not suggest that that is desirable. However,
by not dealing with the issue and carrying out the consultation early
to work out which groups of prisoners ought to be enfranchised, the
Government have opened themselves up to compensation claims that could
cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, which is not acceptable to the
Scottish people.
David
Cairns:
No; I do not accept that. The judgment in the
Hirst case specifically said that no compensation was due as a result.
The people who are raising the prospect of compensation ought to do so
with caution. There are no grounds, in my view, for compensation. The
figure of £7 million was based on taking every prisoner in
Scotland, irrespective of whether they are entitled to vote on other
groundsfor example, foreign national prisoners from outside the
EU would not be entitled to vote in any caseand deeming that
they should all have the vote, which is not what the Hirst judgment
said, and that they should all receive compensation of £1,000,
which is equal to that given in recent Italian bankruptcy compensation
cases. I do not accept that there are any grounds for compensation,
although I appreciate that people are pursuing that point.
There is a fundamental
difference between our two parties. I do not believe that people in
prison should have the right to vote, but the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire does. It is incumbent upon her to say which categories
of prisoner she would enfranchise. Murderers? Rapists? What method
would she use to decide their enfranchisement? I take a different point
of view, as do the Government, but we will see what comes out of the
consultation.
I will
finish with the comments of the hon. Member for Bridgwater on
electronic counting. I accept that it is unlikely that we will get much
quicker results for the constituency vote through electronic counting.
However, it will be much quicker for the regional vote, because both
will be counted at exactly the same time, whereas in the past the
constituency counts had to be completed before the regional count
began. When the last constituency in a region declares its result, we
will instantly know the result of the regional vote. We will know the
final composition of Parliament much more quickly than we did when
using hand counting. [Interruption.] It will be possible for the
hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to be
defeated in two elections at the same time. I am sorry, Mr.
Olner, but the Whip led me
astray.
The
big saving, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for East
Dunbartonshire, is in doing the STV count electronically. Today,
Northern Ireland is in the middle of an election using STV. The polls
will close at 10 oclock tonight, but we will not know the
result until Friday afternoon or evening at the earliest. That election
is for only 108 seats, and there are thousands of council seats across
Scotland. If we tried to count the votes manually, we would be in for a
very long count. Although the Government have no responsibility for the
conduct of local government elections, electronic counting will bring a
much quicker declaration of results for local
councils.
The hon.
Member for Bridgwater spoke about fraud in registration. We have been
up hill and down dale on individual registration and personal
identifiers. We went through it at the time of the Electoral
Administration Act 2006, and last week we had the same debate on an
Opposition motion. The House has made its views plain. We cannot be
sanguine about the possible impact of individual registration on
registration levels. Some 3.5 million people who are entitled to vote
are not on the electoral register. We are concerned about that and
about the impact that individual registration and personal identifiers
could have on registration levels. We accepted individual registration
in principle and wanted to pilot it, but unfortunately the Conservative
party and the Liberal
Democrats did not accept that particular proposal. We are concerned
about the impact on registration levels, which is why we are not moving
towards individual registration
now.
The
hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire welcomed the ballot paper design
and the extension of electronic counting. She also asked about
electronic voting, about which we must be a bit more cautious. With
electronic counting, there will still be ballot papers, so if something
were to go disastrously wrong, the papers could still be counted
manually. Under electronic voting, people need to be absolutely sure
that the system is robust. I was in the Republic of Ireland a few weeks
ago, where I was told that enormously expensive electronic voting
machines are gathering dust across the length and breadth of the
country, because the public are not confident that the machines cannot
be hacked into and that their vote will actually be recorded. We must
move cautiously on electronic voting, but as the technology becomes
more secure and as peoples confidence in carrying out
electronic transactions grows, it is an
inevitability.
Mr.
MacNeil:
Electronic voting was used in Venezuela at the
beginning of December, to the confidence of all
sides.
David
Cairns:
I would be interested to see the results. I am not
sure whether the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan was a candidate.
Almost inevitably, he will be giving people the opportunity to vote
against him in every country, which is a splendid policy. I think that
I have dealt with the ECHR issues.
I thought that the questions
on anonymous registration were entirely proper. The Electoral
Commission will issue guidance to registration officers on the kind of
documentation that will be required. People will not be able to turn up
and say, I want to be registered anonymously, because
they will have to produce some sort of supporting documentation. As an
incidental matter, the reason for having separate Scottish measures is
that the director of social work in Scotland will be able to provide
testimony in that regard, whereas social work directors do not exist as
such in England or Wales.
On fraud, anyone who provides
false information to a registration officer commits an offence. It is a
matter of applying common sense. The broad categories of people that we
have in mind are battered wives, or people who have given evidence and
who need anonymity. Specific guidance will be issued to registration
officers, as I have said.
The hon. Member for Na
h-Eileanan an Iar has raised some pointsI think that I have
pronounced the
name of his constituency correctly, which is what I get for having spent
the past two days in Stornaway. I am pleased to report that the Labour
campaign there is in very good heart, so we shall gain that seat in a
few weeks time, helped by the disappointing performance of the
MP in the past couple of years. He has explained his view that the
system is a halfway house to STV, which was also mentioned by the hon.
Member for Bridgwater. The system has been around for some time, and if
one considers the voting patterns, one can see that people understand
that they have different votes with different impacts. The Government
wanted to bring everything together on one piece of paper, however, so
that the connection is clearly brought home to people.
There is an additional level
of complexity in an election that involves STV, although, as the hon.
Member for East Dunbartonshire has said, that need not put people off.
We thought that having one ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament
elections was sensible and would remove a layer of complexity. We have
also taken out the names of the people standing in the regional lists,
so that the party names can be bigger, which we did after consultation
with the Royal National Institute of the
Blind.
I am grateful
for the broad welcome that the measures have received, and I commend
them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections
etc.) Order
2007.
DRAFT
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) (amendment) REGULATIONS
2007
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People
(Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2007.[David
Cairns.]
DRAFT
LOCAL ELECTORAL ADMINISTRATION AND REGISTRATION SERVICES (SCOTLAND) ACT
2006 (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS AND MODIFICATIONS) ORDER
2007
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Local Electoral Administration
and Registration Services (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions
and Modifications) Order 2007.[David
Cairns.]
Committee
rose at nineteen minutes past Three
oclock.