Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
300-316)
ELECTORAL COMMISSION
14 SEPTEMBER 2010
Q300 Sir Peter Soulsby: To pick
up the detail of what you said there, I cannot understand the
reluctance to ask people to go to the polls repeatedly. Say it
was in October next year—that's hardly going to lead to
voter fatigue or any particular problem, is it?
Jenny Watson: We took the view
that combining was completely possible and that there were benefits
for voters in so doing. If you think about the number of elections
and the potential referendum in Wales, it may well be the case
that voters in Wales would have been asked to go to the polls
three times in six months. That is not something that we know
is welcome.
Sir Peter Soulsby: I am going to leave
it here, except to remark that you seem remarkably reluctant to
acknowledge the implications of the evidence that you have given
to us, which is that it would be better if this were later, if
we had more time to prepare and if the two sets of elections—the
referendum and the election—were separated.
Chair: I think everyone has now got their
view on the record several times.
Q301 Nick Boles: Unlike Sir Peter,
who seems to want to bludgeon you until you state his view rather
than your view, I should like to ask you a question on a completely
different matter, which is that we are also considering in this
House a Bill on fixed-term Parliaments with the proposal for the
next general election to be fixed on a Thursday in May. I cannot
remember the exact date.
Mrs Laing: I think it is 7 May.
Nick Boles: So, 7 May 2015. This may
be a subject for another day but I just wondered whether you had
a view, as the Electoral Commission, about the day of the week
on which elections should fall and whether it would not be better
for turnout and participation if we had elections on weekends.
Jenny Watson: One of the things
that we have said, and we said it in our report on the general
election that has just happened, is that we think there would
be merit to introducing advance voting, where you would give people
the ability to come to the poll perhaps up to a week in advance
of polling day itself within a local area. That would make voting
more accessible to people who may have busier lives than we perhaps
used to have in the past, longer commuting distances and that
sort of thing. That is something that we would certainly want
to push or suggest to Parliament that it might want to think about,
if not in relation to this Bill, then in relation to future Bills.
Does somebody want to pick up the point about weekend voting?
Andrew Scallan: There is no confirmed
evidence that weekend voting will increase turnout. The last Government
had a consultation paper on weekend voting, which we submitted
a response to. Our comment then was that it was about making the
system more accessible. The advance voting which Jenny referred
to is a system that will allow people who don't want to use a
postal vote, for example, and who can't get to a polling station
on a Thursday to have access to a polling arrangement in the traditional
method on a number of days before polling day itself, including
the weekend.
Q302 Nick Boles: Can I follow
up on the precise proposal? Presumably you would not have every
polling station open, in view of the cost of manning that. Would
you have a central access point?
Andrew Scallan: Or more than one
based in each constituency. There is any number of models that
might be looked at.
Q303 Nick Boles: But you studied
the evidence from other countries that hold elections on weekends
and found no significant effect just on that change.
Andrew Scallan: No, not on that
change. There are clearly other issues as well such as cost, disruption
and the acceptability of certain days of the weekend to the electorate.
Jenny Watson: That would give
people who wanted to vote at the weekend the opportunity to do
so, but it would give those for whom it's more convenient to vote
in the week the opportunity to do so, too. So that is the preferred
proposal.
Q304 Nick Boles: While I am sure
that you are not necessarily legislative experts, would the introduction
of that advance voting require an amendment specifically to legislation
which, if we think it is a good idea, we should suggest in the
process of taking the Bill for fixed-term Parliaments through
Parliament, or is it an administrative change?
Andrew Scallan: It is a legislative
change.
Q305 Chair: I will come to Andrew,
but I just wanted to open up a different area of questioning about
campaign expenditure rules, particularly in terms of the role
of the media. As the rules are currently written, media organisations
are not exempt from the campaign spending restrictions on the
referendum. Unless the rules are amended—I think you may
have made this point yourself in evidence—we will find ourselves
in a position where newspapers will have to register as participants
in order to take a position on the referendum. Some people may
think that that is a very good thing. Others may feel that it
will just hamstring the newspapers from stating points of view
editorially. Are you of the opinion that this is something that,
even though the Bill is now in the House, still requires amendment?
Jenny Watson: There does appear
to be an ambiguity, but I'll let Lisa pick that up.
Lisa Klein: We did raise this
in our House of Lords evidence last year. Without wanting to engage
in the debate on the pros and cons of this applying to the media,
there is the whole concept of the media and the free coverage
and freedom of speech in terms of the presentation and the ability
to help communicate to voters on that. To the extent that there
is an ambiguity in the legislation, I should just mention that
the media are exempt from the expenditure limitation for elections.
It would seem appropriate to make it very clear in an amendment
that they are completely exempt in the context of a referendum.
Q306 Chair: So in order to bring
that into order or conformity, there has to be an amendment to
the Bill as currently drafted.
Lisa Klein: I think there is a
variation in a debate about whether they are absolutely excluded
or there is an ambiguity about it. All I would say, to the extent
that there is an ambiguity, is, let's get it cleared up, let's
make it quite clear that they are exempt.
Q307 Chair: Each side in the referendum
will be constituted and have a lead campaign group. First, how
are you going to identify that group? And, how are you going to
get round the likely prospect that individual political parties
will be taking different views on the referendum? If there are
splits within parties, how do you take that into account?
Lisa Klein: Two very good questions.
If I step back just for a moment, the legislation makes it very
clear that the Commission has a duty to consider the appointment
of a designated lead organisation—in our vernacular, a designated
organisation to lead in the campaign on each side. What the statute
also states very clearly is that if there is only one organisation
that presents itself, then, unless the Commission finds that it
would not adequately represent the views of that side of the campaign
for which it has put itself forward, it shall be appointed. In
the context of more than one entity coming forward, we have to
decide which would best represent—I paraphrase here—the
views for that particular side. We have developed a process for
how that will happen, which has been partly modified based on
the learning from the North East referendum. There is a three-stage
process. First, there is a fairly targeted application form, and
we will seek evidence to help us to be able to assess that. I
should also mention that, while the statute is very clear about
our obligation to consider and possibly appoint, it does not say
how we are to appoint. So, we have come up with criteria that
look at such things as the organisation's grass-roots campaigning
or anything, basically, that will let us see whether it can fulfil
that role effectively—whether it is an umbrella organisation,
and so on. There will be an application process. We will first
question whether we have adequate information to see if an applicant
will represent the views as required under the legislation. If
there is not sufficient evidence, we intend to have time to go
back to ask those questions, possibly through interview. We will
then consider each application on its own merits, without reference
to the other applications, just to ensure that they meet the first
threshold test. Finally, we will have to decide, if more than
one meets the "adequately representing" test, which
is the most effective.Two other points. If we appoint on one side,
we have to appoint on the other, or we don't appoint at all. Those
are the rules of the game. With regard to political parties, you
have to view that designation process alongside the point that
to be a designated organisation you have first to register with
us what is called a permitted participant. To be a participant,
you have to be able to declare which side of the referendum you
are campaigning for. Therefore, if a political party is unable
to make that representation, it would not qualify as a permitted
participant and, hence, would not be eligible to be a designated
organisation. The consequence of that is that the spending ceiling
would be set at £10,000.
Q308 Chair: Currently a newspaper
would fall into the category too.
Lisa Klein: If you take the ambiguity
in that way, yes.
Q309 Chair: How long will this
process take from start to finish?
Lisa Klein: The legislation provides
for designated organisations to apply to us over a 28-day period
and for us to make that decision within 14 days thereafter.
Q310 Chair: If we don't correct
the anomaly about the newspapers, presumably they will be prosecuted
for prejudicing the referendum by expressing a view.
Lisa Klein: That is a possibility.
If there were a breach of the rules, we could refer to the police
or the prosecuting authority, or they may choose to pick it up
on their own.
Q311 Chair: The process will start
when?
Lisa Klein: It starts on Royal
Assent.
Peter Wardle: Just to be clear,
the potential offence would be to do with how much money is spent.
The law does not seek to govern whether or not people express
a view. It seeks to govern how much money they spend in expressing
that view.
Q312 Mr Turner: I have been thinking
about the rules for what the date is. It seems that you are in
the worst possible position. What we like is decisions to be made
before things become controversial, and what you seem to be doing
is putting off making them until you almost have the referendum
rules in front of you. You are then suggesting what? Can you give
me—not today, but some day in the future—some examples
of which referendums it is okay to coincide with the elections,
and which are not.
Jenny Watson: I think that there
were two questions there. Your first point was that you like to
know things, but that you do not want us to put off making decisions.
We have no wish to put off making decisions. That is why we have
started with a network of Regional Counting Officers, to start
to work through and make some of those decisions. As we do, we
will make them public. We have a seminar for parliamentarians
on the same day as the next stage of Bill, I think, when we will
be able to say more about the work that we have been doing up
until this point. It may be that we can then provide some more
examples of decisions that we are minded to make. As for your
point about the kind of referendums that it is appropriate to
combine and the kind that it is not, that would be very hard to
do, for the simple reason that our position is that we consider
each proposal that is put to us on its merits. There will undoubtedly
be times when we would say, "This is not a suitable combination",
but there will be other times, as with this, where we say, "It's
tight, but it can be done and there are benefits." Until
those circumstances arise, I would not want us to be giving views
when we do not have the full context.
Q313 Mr Turner: I understand that,
but the problem from most people's point of view is that once
we know a referendum is coming up, you are in a terrible situation
where you are pushed in one direction, we are pushing in the other—probably
the same position, sometimes different. It would be much easier
and straightforward if there were rules beforehand, which would
then apply. I understand why you don't wish to make the decision,
but I think that it would be very helpful if we could see the
decision before referendums.
Jenny Watson: The House of Lords
Constitution Committee recently considered the issue of referendums.
One of the things we said to it was that it is for Parliament
to decide when a referendum is used. There may be an area of the
debate that is similar to the line you would wish members of the
Committee to pursue. We would be happy to come and give evidence
to such a debate, but the reason why I said at the beginning that
we do not take a view on when referendums should be used in the
sense of on what subjects one should hold a referendum is that
we consider those questions to be for Parliament, not for the
Electoral Commission. You might want to take that view, and we
can probably help with some of the administrative implications
of that, but I would not want to stand in Parliament's shoes in
making that decision.
Q314 Mrs Laing: Turning more generally
to the lessons learned from the 2010 general election, colleagues
around the table might not know, but everyone from the Electoral
Commission knows, of the difficulties we had before the general
election about the counting of votes—the timing of the count,
at which point we discovered that returning officers are effectively
responsible to no one. It was most unfair on the night of the
election that the Electoral Commission—well, I would suggest,
Chair, that it was most unfair—appeared to take the blame
for mistakes that were made by individual returning officers.
Would you welcome a radical review of the way in which elections
are administered, looking at the powers of returning officers
and continuity throughout the country?
Jenny Watson: In our two reports
on the conduct of the election itself, we suggested that the time
has indeed come—we have said it before—for a review
on how elections are run, particularly in relation to the extent
of co-ordination that exists and the need for a power of direction
somewhere in the system in relation both to registration officers
and to returning officers. That report is with Government and
I understand they have committed to responding within six months
of receiving it. I look forward to their response.
Q315 Mr Chope: Can I ask: which
is worse, voter fatigue or voter confusion?
Jenny Watson: I don't think either
is desirable. I think voter confusion can be mitigated to a great
extent by public information and awareness. We will be working
extremely hard to make sure that there is not voter confusion
should Parliament decide that it wants this referendum to go ahead.
Q316 Mr Chope: Where is the evidence
about voter fatigue? We are familiar with what happens in France,
where in significant elections they have one round of balloting,
then have a run-off the following weekend. Is there any evidence
to suggest that that type of election process results in voter
fatigue?
Jenny Watson: I think we've already
said that the evidence that we looked at is public, so we will
perhaps make sure that you have that, then you can make your own
judgment on that.
Chair: Ms Watson, thank you very much.
I think you run an organisation which could have an excellent
long-term relationship with this Select Committee at a number
of levels. The most obvious one to me is that, where we are in
the middle of a parliamentary process and amendments are appropriate
to the process—on a technical basis, certainly—we
would like to know about those things. We would like to be able
to assist, if the Committee agrees on particular issues, to help
you ensure that people have greater access to our democracy. I
am sure there are also much more policy-orientated issues so that,
if it is indeed a fixed-term Parliament, we should hopefully enjoy
a very positive relationship over the next four or five years.
Thank you to you and your colleagues for a long and gruelling
session, which I think has been very productive—hopefully
from your point of view, too.
Jenny Watson: Thank you very much
for the opportunity to talk to you. We welcome future opportunities
to do so.
Chair: Excellent. Thank you very much.
| 
