Examination of Witness (Question Numbers
340-359)
MR MARK
HARPER
16 SEPTEMBER 2010
Q340 Catherine McKinnell: I have
a question following on from the commitment to amend the legislation
to allow the joint balloting on the day of the referendum. There
was also a recommendation from the Electoral Commission after
the general election to make amendments to legislation to prevent
the kind of situation we had this year. In my constituency, people
were not allowed to vote because they were queuing up outside
the polling station. There are two issues. One is that in my constituency,
there was certainly perceived to be a lack of resources put into
the polls. There was also an issue with legislation that does
not allow people to vote after 10 pm. Are there any proposals
in the pipeline to deal with those two issues?
Mr Harper: In terms of the issues that
arose this year, it is worth putting them in context. They affected
several thousand people out of the 45 million or so entitled to
vote. I think that they accounted for around 40 polling stations
out of the 80,000 in the United Kingdom. There was clearly a problem
and when people are not able to cast their vote, that is serious,
but I do not think that we want to draw the conclusion that there
is a systemic problem. The conclusion from the Electoral Commission's
report was that it was largely down to poor organisation and poor
planning. From the resourcing point of view for the general election,
those funds do not come from local authority budgets. They are
reimbursed from central Government. Local authority registration
officers act as Returning Officers. We can't really say that their
local authority didn't provide them with resources. The Government
provide the resources that are necessary to fund the general election
campaign. This general election process was significantly more
expensive than previous ones, so I think Government have made
the resources available. On the issue of what happens at 10 o'clock,
the Electoral Commission has made some recommendations and the
Government are considering them. Something we need to think about
is the practicality of making those changes and whether there
are knock-on impacts. For example, if you adopt the process of
effectively allowing people once they are in the queue to get
the ballot paper and vote, you have all sorts of important issues.
What is the queue? How do you police it? How do you stop people
joining it? Those all have resource implications as well. What
we don't want to do is, in solving one problem—which was
relatively limited and largely caused by poor planning and organisation—create
further problems. The Government are considering the recommendations
of the Electoral Commission and will announce our decisions in
due course to Parliament.
Q341 Mrs Laing: If I can go back
to the points that Simon was making about the timing of the Bill,
we all accept that the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies
Bill is being rushed through Parliament. There are circumstances
in which that is necessary. I suggest it is essential to do that
with this Bill, as far as the boundaries and the equalisation
of constituencies are concerned. Clearly, there is a time lag
in getting all the administration involved thereafter in place
before the next general election. Given that the Fixed-term Parliaments
Bill has now had its Second Reading and, therefore, the general
election is not going to be until 2015, why is it necessary to
rush through the referendum on the voting system? Why is it necessary
to have a referendum in 2011—never mind the date in 2011—at
all? If it were held in 2012 there would still be three years
before the next general election.
Mr Harper: I wouldn't characterise
the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill as being
rushed through Parliament. It is fair to say that it is moving
at a fair pace, but I wouldn't say it was being rushed. We have
made available five days on the Floor of the House of Commons
for Committee, and a further two days for Report. We will see
how generous that turns out to be in fact. We are working closely
with the Opposition to make sure that we have a sensible breakdown
of time, so that all the important issues that Members wish to
raise are both debated and voted on, as I committed to do to the
House in my winding-up speech on Second Reading. The Government
felt that with the referendum on the voting system we had made
that commitment in the coalition agreement and we wanted to get
on with it and ask voters for their decision. The reason for having
it next year on that particular day is to combine it with the
other elections, for the reasons that I outlined to Mr Hart.
Q342 Mrs Laing: Do you accept
that there are problems? Even if I agree with you, for the sake
of argument, that the Bill is not being rushed through Parliament,
that it is perfectly reasonable and we have plenty of time, nevertheless,
the Electoral Commission raised with us on Tuesday the problem
of the six-month issue. The Electoral Commission says, "The
rules on how the referendum will be conducted must be clear from
at least six months in advance." That means they have to
be clear from 5 November this year or thereabouts, which in parliamentary
terms is only a couple of weeks from now. Does that not mean that
the House of Lords, which will not consider the Bill until after
5 November, cannot make any significant alterations to the Bill,
if the referendum is to go ahead with the rules clear six months
in advance?
Mr Harper: I read the exchange
in the evidence that the Electoral Commission gave and I was also
in the Chamber yesterday for the points of order. The Member who
raised one point of order rather exaggerated what the Electoral
Commission had said. Fortunately, Mrs Laing, you were in the Chamber
to put him straight, which the Chair found very helpful. It was
over-egging it to say that the Electoral Commission was saying
that the House of Lords wasn't able to amend the Bill. In answer
to questions about whether having a referendum on 5 May is far
enough in advance for it to be conducted well, the Electoral Commission
has been quite open and said that there are, of course, risks
but it believes that they are being well managed. We have set
out in the Bill the rules for how the referendum will be conducted,
and we are working on the amendment for how the combination will
work. We have been doing that with electoral administrators, the
territorial departments and the Electoral Commission. We will
be laying that out in the Bill. If the House of Lords, as it is
entitled to do, makes significant amendments to the rules for
the referendum, the Electoral Commission—its chair is the
Chief Counting Officer, as you well know—will have to go
away and consider whether it thinks the changes have a material
impact on the way in which the referendum will be conducted. I
do not think that either that body or I will be able to answer
on that hypothetically. The rules in the Bill are clear at the
moment and the Commission is watching proceedings in Parliament
very carefully and will take a judgment in due course.
Q343 Mrs Laing: But you have just
agreed with the Electoral Commission in saying that there are
risks. We all accept that there are risks in doing things on this
time scale, so why bother? Why not have the referendum on AV in
2012, instead of 2011? Even if the Government are desperate to
hold it on the same day as local elections and one concedes on
that point—which we will come to in a moment—why not
have it in 2012, when the risks would have diminished considerably
because of the much longer time scale?
Mr Harper: The Government have
made it quite clear that we have made a commitment to do it, and
we want to get on and do it. We have been very open. Indeed, the
Prime Minister was very open with you when he gave evidence earlier
in the Session. There are risks in doing it, so the Government
are working very closely with the Electoral Commission, which
will run the referendum, and with the electoral administrators
who are running the other elections on those days to ensure that
we manage the risks very carefully. The Commission is looking
closely at proceedings in Parliament and at the views of Members.
If the Bill is amended either in this House or in the other place,
the Commission will take a view on the impact that that will have
on the running of the referendum.
Q344 Mrs Laing: Would the Government
consider holding the referendum in 2012 instead of in 2011?
Mr Harper: The Government have
set out their position. We want to hold the referendum on 5 May.
That is our plan and what we are working towards.
Q345 Sir Peter Soulsby: You have
acknowledged that the Electoral Commission's assessment is right
that were the House of Lords to make significant amendments to
the Bill, it would put at risk the safe delivery of a referendum
at the beginning of May. Is that not in effect holding a gun to
the heads of their lordships, particularly those who support the
Government, and saying, "If you amend this, it won't be delivered."?
Mr Harper: No, I wouldn't agree
with your characterisation at all. The Electoral Commission didn't
put it quite like that. All I said was that if there were amendments
to the rules for how the referendum is conducted, the Commission
would have to make a judgment as to how that affected its ability
to deliver it. That would depend on the nature and significance
of the amendments. That is not the sort of question that can be
asked in a hypothetical way. I do not agree with the way in which
this was characterised yesterday in the House. I do not think
that the Electoral Commission is in any way trying to tell Members
of this House or the other place how to go about their work. Members
will scrutinise the Bill and make whatever changes the House sees
fit, as will the other place. The Electoral Commission and the
Government will then make a judgment accordingly.
Q346 Sir Peter Soulsby: I don't
think that the Electoral Commission was in any way trying to tell
this House or the other House how to do their job. I think that
it was pointing out to us that significant amendments would bring
significant risks and would probably jeopardise the safe delivery
of the referendum at the beginning of May. If that is the case—you
seem to accept that there are significant risks—it is in
effect saying to the House of Lords, "Back it, or it may
not happen." That would obviously have serious implications
for the Government.
Mr Harper: That's your characterisation;
I wouldn't put it quite like that.
Q347 Sir Peter Soulsby: I suspect
that's how their lordships will see it.
Mr Harper: Their lordships will
be able to scrutinise the Bill. If they think that changes need
to be made to the procedure and put them forward, they will be
considered by the upper House and by the Government. If peers
propose changes to the rules that are improvements because they
spot things that we haven't spotted, they may actually improve
the delivery of the referendum. The Electoral Commission will
consider any changes and comment on them. Obviously, we will listen
carefully to what it says and work very closely with it. I would
not characterise this in the same way as you.
Q348 Sir Peter Soulsby: The fundamental
point is that if the Government were to put back the referendum,
even by only a few months to October 2011, all of this could be
avoided. We could get the legislation through safely, both Houses
could consider it properly, the Electoral Commission could make
the proper preparations, and none of these issues would arise.
Is that not the case?
Mr Harper: No. We have made it
quite clear that we wanted to get on and have the referendum,
and we've chosen the date. If you're having it next year, there
is a very strong argument for having it on the same day as the
other elections, for the reasons I gave in response to the question
from Mr Hart. There are significant savings to the public purse
from combining elections and the Commission recognises that. That
is why it holds the position it holds. I also think that there
are some advantages to encouraging turnout. Next year on 5 May,
about 81% of voters in England are already going to the polls
for local elections, as well as voters in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. Therefore, 84% of the UK electorate are already
having elections. If we want a good referendum campaign and a
result that, whichever way it goes, both sides feel is fair and
something they can live with, having a good turnout is very important.
The campaign must engage and make sure that that happens, and
that is best done on a day when others are voting.
Q349 Sir Peter Soulsby: I wonder
whether the issue of turnout is not actually rather fundamental
to the Government's thinking on this. If the referendum were separated
from other elections, people might not bother to turn out, because
for most people it is not a significant issue.
Mr Harper: I think there are some
risks if we keep asking people to go to the polls. That is the
case the Electoral Commission set out in its thinking when it
was questioned on whether or not elections should be combined.
It highlighted the fact that there are risks in delivering a referendum
on the same day as other polls, but it also highlighted the benefits.
There are benefits of cost, and there are also benefits to encouraging
turnout and participation. For the Government and the Commission,
it is about balancing those factors and reaching a sensible judgment.
That is what I think we have done.
Q350 Mr Turner: You suggested
that if the legislation goes before the House of Lords, their
Lordships may produce something that is better—I think those
were your words. The fact is that it may still be significantly
different, so the Bill will then fall.
Mr Harper: No, that is not what
I said. It is of course possible; it would be very arrogant for
Ministers to assume that every Bill introduced by the Government
is perfect. Bills can always be improved by scrutiny, and the
Government will listen carefully to the debate in the Commons
and likewise to Ministers in the Lords. It may be that there are
amendments to the Bill. I have already acknowledged that there
will be some Government amendments; there will be some minor,
technical ones and we will introduce a combination amendment as
well. If their Lordships make amendments to the Bill, the Electoral
Commission, which is responsible for delivering the referendum,
will have to judge those on a case-by-case basis. If their Lordships
improve the rules, the Commission might judge that that makes
their job easier. You have to judge these things on a case-by-case
basis; you certainly can't judge them on a hypothetical basis
in advance. I don't agree with your suggestion that if the House
of Lords makes any amendments at all, whether they are improvements
or not, that will bring the process to a screeching halt. The
Commission will make a judgment, as will the Government, on a
case-by-case basis. It will make sure it is satisfied that it
can safely deliver the referendum in a proper fashion.
Q351 Chair: Thank you. By way
of half-time oranges, I will give you a break from these technical
questions. A couple of Bills have been introduced speedily—to
use a neutral term—with the Lords legislation on the way
shortly. Do you think that there is a risk of repeating the problems
of the Labour Government in 1997, where the big blockbuster democratic
legislation all came very early on? Some people feel that that
Government rather ran out of steam on the democratic agenda. Have
you got up your sleeve stuff that will sustain the radical edge
of this Government on the democratic agenda, to last you through
possibly to a fixed five-year term general election in 2015?
Mr Harper: Chairman, there is
still quite a lot in the coalition agreement that we haven't discussed
so far. Just picking up a couple of examples, we have obviously
committed—not a small undertaking—to reforming the
House of Lords and dealing with how it wholly or mainly elects
a second Chamber under proportional representation. You will know
that we are going to introduce a draft Bill around the turn of
the year that will then be scrutinised pre-legislatively by, hopefully,
a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament—although
that is, of course, a decision for Parliament, not for the Government.
We will then introduce a Bill in due course. We have also committed
to setting up a commission on the West Lothian question. Decisions
on that will be announced to Parliament this autumn. I have mentioned
the third Bill that we will introduce, and it will implement individual
electoral registration. There are also a number of things we have
set out that are already in the coalition agreement.
Q352 Chair: A Bill of Rights review?
Mr Harper: Yes, we have also set
out some further privilege matters for the Commons, which again
will involve a draft Bill. There is a quite a lot in the coalition
agreement that we have not talked about so far to keep us busy.
Of course, there may be things that arise that are not in the
coalition agreement, which the Government may bring forward later.
As both the Deputy Prime Minister and I have set out, based on
what was in the coalition agreement, the Government have a full
programme for the Parliament. As I said when I mentioned House
of Lords reform, I do not think anybody is under any illusion
that that in itself will not be a fairly significant constitutional
undertaking, from both a constitutional and a parliamentary perspective.
Q353 Chair: We will look at how
the coalition was formed and how future such occasions might be
dealt with in a different way—perhaps a better way. Reading
around that subject, I see that one of the suggestions floating
around in academic circles is that a refresh of a coalition agreement
might be a standard item, as it were, halfway though a Parliament.
Clearly, the original coalition agreement was put together in
a hurry—necessarily. Does that strike you as a sensible
concept and, within that, do you see space for further democratic
renewal reform?
Mr Harper: As well as the coalition
agreement, the Government set out structural reform plans across
Government which effectively take the commitments in the agreement
and put some kind of time frame around them. As we move through
the Parliament, hopefully, we will tick off a number of items
that we will either have delivered or which will be very much
under way. So I am sure, as with all Governments that, as we go
through the term of office, we will have to react to events that
we weren't thinking about before and there will be new policy
challenges. There will be things that we did not want or were
not able to think about at the beginning, when we had a very full
agenda, that we can turn our minds to. Although it is somewhat
above my pay grade, at some point during the Parliament, the Government
will look at what their forward-looking programme is, both on
political and constitutional reform and on other things. I don't
think we have got as far as setting out exactly how that will
happen and the process for that. I am sure the Government will
look very closely at the conclusions of the Committee's report
to inform how that might happen.
Chair: Okay. Back to the match.
Q354 Sheila Gilmore: I wanted
to go back to the need to amend the Bill on constituencies and
the referendum. One thing the Electoral Commission said to us
when it gave evidence was that it felt that the design of the
form—it mentioned something to do with the wording, which
is separate issue that somebody might manage to raise—in
the Bill itself, needed serious attention. The Electoral Commission
felt, in effect, that its guidance had not been followed in drawing
this up. What proposals are there for dealing with that? Subsequently,
it looks as if substantial amendment will be necessary at this
stage, which arguably would have been better dealt with in advance.
Mr Harper: Colleagues who have
studied the Bill in detail will know that part of the reason for
it being quite weighty is that all the forms used in the elections
are set out in the legislation. Normally that would be in secondary
legislation, but they are all here in primary legislation. It
is perfectly true that the Electoral Commission has raised some
concerns and has requested changes to the forms. We are discussing
with it some of the good points that it has made about what the
mechanism for that would be. There are a number of options. You
could either amend the primary legislation or you could look at
powers to amend the form subsequently. We are thinking about the
most sensible way to do that. If we need to amend the legislation
we will obviously bring those amendments forward for discussion
in Committee. But yes, the Electoral Commission has raised those
concerns with us and we are thinking about them. They are about
the forms, not about the ballot paper, which has always been specified
in legislation. Just on the forms, we will adopt the same consistent
approach that we have used for previous elections, so we have
not undergone a radical redesign of everything. We have pretty
much copied across from existing elections and processes and used
those as our starting point in the legislation.
Q355 Sheila Gilmore: I think the
Electoral Commission's point was that the work it had already
had not been taken into account as it should have been.
Mr Harper: Its view is that that
has not been taken into account to the extent that it would have
hoped. That is how way I would characterise it.
Q356 Sheila Gilmore: I want to
ask about the Fixed-term Parliament Bill. To avoid all the difficulties
which arise out of the coincidence of the elections both in 2015
and in later years on that timetable, are you considering looking
again at the question of the period of the fixed term, not just
because of the coincidence, but because of the weight of evidence
that we have heard in this Committee? The majority of the evidence
was in favour of a four-year term. If that were adopted, some
of these difficulties about having two major general elections
in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland would be avoided.
Mr Harper: I should like to separate
those two questions. There is the combination question and the
interaction with other elections, and then there is the term.
If you went to a four-year term for Parliament there is the possibility
in the Bill of an extraordinary election. If you were on a four-year
cycle for Parliament and a four-year cycle for the devolved Administrations,
it is entirely possible that they could be on the same cycle in
which case, rather than a clash and a combination once every 20
years, you could end up having a clash every single time, so it
is worth looking at them separately. To take the term issue and
why the Government have gone for five and not four first, other
west European countries and similar democracies use a five-year
term. We started with it, because the existing maximum term for
Parliament is five years. That is the number that we settled on.
The last Parliament ran for period. If you look at the post-war
experience and take out the very short Parliaments, such as the
one which ran from February to October 1974, the average is 4.4
years, so we felt that five was an appropriate number. I know
that others take a different view. That is what the Government
settled on and that is what we plan to stick with. n the issue
of combination, we have had a lengthy discussion on the combination
of referendums and elections. This is about the combination of
elections. In his opening speech on Second Reading the Deputy
Prime Minister said that the Government recognise those are qualitatively
different. Whereas we think there is not a problem in combining
referendums and elections—indeed, there are some advantages—when
you are asking a simple yes or no question, there are issues raised
when you combine elections. That is not just about the mechanics
but about the media coverage, the narrative and the difficulty
for voters to make decisions about the governance of both their
devolved Parliament or Assembly and the national Parliament. We
recognise there are some issues about those things. At the moment,
the Government are discussing possible solutions with the devolved
Administrations. For example, in your case, you will be most concerned
about Scotland, I presume. The Scotland Secretary has written
to the leaders of all the groups in the Scottish Parliament, and
the Presiding Officer, because it is not just a matter for the
Administration in Scotland. The Scottish Government is a matter
for the Parliament. He has also written to the Scottish spokesmen
in this House and the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Those discussions are under way and we are thinking in Government
about how to deal with the combination, which of course will only
happen if all the Parliaments stay on schedule once every two
decades. It is perhaps unfortunate for the Government that it
happens the first time around, otherwise I suspect it perhaps
may not have received as much attention. It was something we were
aware of when we published the Bill. We haven't reflected a solution
in the Bill, because we want to reach the consensual solution
that we have reached with the devolved Administrations. All I
can really say is that that work is under way and we will hopefully
bring forward solutions and announce them to Parliament in due
course.
Q357 Sheila Gilmore: It is the
first time that it has some additional importance. The major issue
is about the fact that we really should be looking at these things
separately and giving the whole politics of it its proper due
place. However, the very fact that it is the first time is in
itself of some significance, because you would be potentially
have not just the two elections but different voting systems.
An issue we faced in Scotland in 2007, when we had the local and
Scottish Parliament elections—we have had them on the same
day previously—was compounded by the fact that we had moved
the local government voting system to a new voting system, so
you had different systems operating on the same day. They are
not just technically different but in some ways have different
processes and tactics, as well as substantial boundary differences.
In 2007, perhaps for the first time, a kind of nesting of local
government into parliamentary seats, changed things completely.
So there is a first-time issue where people are facing something
very new.
Mr Harper: Sure. It is worth saying
that, even if we haven't introduced any proposals for a fixed-term
Parliament, it is entirely possible, if this Parliament ran for
a full term, that we would have a coincidence of elections anyway.
Indeed, you could argue that the fact that we have introduced
the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, where we are now saying in 2010
that we expect things to coincide is an advantage, because it
does at least mean that we can think about it now, and we can
think about the consequences and plan for them. If they end up
coinciding, we can think about how to handle that. If we end up
not having them coincide, we can plan for that. If you think about
what would happen without the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, we
would have happily trundled through the Parliament. We'd have
got to our fourth year and we'd have had our "When will the
election be? Will he or won't he?" It could have ended up
that we had a coincidence and we would have all had three weeks'
notice. The poor electoral administrators would have had three
weeks' notice to run combined elections in different parliamentary
constituencies, potentially on different voting systems, and that
might have been a nightmare. In some ways, the Fixed-term Parliaments
Bill has given us the opportunity to think this through and think
about some of the consequences. You raised a good point about
the non-coterminosity of parliamentary seats. Of course, in Scotland
the constituencies are not the same—you are absolutely right.
There are some serious issues and we are working on them with
the devolved Administrations. We hope to provide a solution, which
we will announce to Parliament in good time for the debate on
the Bill.
Chair: Can I take a couple of interventions
on that particular point from Nick?
Q358 Nick Boles: Do you accept
my view that the coincidence of elections is something to be encouraged
and actively sought? I said in the House the other day, during
Second Reading, that the United States has a clear, long-standing
tradition that all elections happen on the same day at an agreed
time for every level. I genuinely believe that that prevents people
from using an election about one thing to express an opinion about
something else that is somehow more important to them at the time.
We all know that that happens, and the one way you prevent that
is by having all elections on the same day. People can express
as many different opinions as they like, so by and large they
are more likely to say: "We think that this mayor, even though
he is a Republican, has done a good job, but we're going to vote
for a Democrat President. And we're going to vote no to proposition
73." Is that your view, or are the Government agnostic either
way, saying sometimes it is a good thing, as with the referendum
next year, and other times it is to be avoided?
Q359 Chair: Minister, before you
reply, may I add, if Nick will allow me, something else of concern
to the Committee? It is about the relations between local and
national Government. I understand that that is being looked at,
and we will look at it in due course. To have elections around
the same date allows the ability to put propositions, or we might
say referendums, about local decision making on the same ballot
paper.
Mr Harper: Regarding the Government's
view on whether we should go for a sort of big bang election day,
I don't think the Government have reached a settled view. Mr Boles
is from our side of the House, but I think I'm right in saying
that Chris Bryant has expressed the same view—his own personal
view—that that has some merits as well. I haven't heard
it more widely shared than that. What I said in response to the
questions from Ms Gilmore about Scotland and what the Deputy Prime
Minister said in the House responds to the concerns in the devolved
countries. They have responded, and they feel that having the
elections on the same day will be a detriment to them, and the
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish dimensions will be overshadowed
by the national election. I think there are some differences from
the US position. One of the causes for concern is around our media
system. Certainly in Scotland, I think I am correct in saying
that people feel that the media coverage will just be all about
the UK election, and there just won't be an adequate debate about
Scotland. The other thing that they feel is that the debate at
the UK level won't adequately distinguish between what is and
what isn't devolved. In other words, there will be a big argument
going on at the UK level about health, which of course will really
be about the English health service and be completely irrelevant
to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where those
issues are devolved. You have to be careful about reading across
from other democratic systems. The US is a much bigger country,
much more decentralised, and it has far more local media markets,
so people can have those debates at local, state and national
level. However, you make a point that is worth thinking about.
Given that we are effectively creating lots of new elections to
various things—the Government have proposals for electing
police commissioners and for more elected mayors—there are
almost certainly going to be more combined elections. That is
where it is useful to picking up the Chair's point about local
elections. We are used to it for general elections. General elections
are frequently combined with local elections. In my own experience,
voters do as you said: they make a distinction between who they
are voting for at local level and at national level, both on party
and on personal facts. Personally, I think voters are perfectly
capable of making those decisions. What we are responding to in
the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish cases is the perfectly
legitimate concern outlined from those countries by both MPs from
the devolved Administrations and by the Parliament and Assemblies,
and we are trying to address them. Part of the debate is exactly
what you suggested, but the Government have not reached a view
on whether we have a big bang day. Clearly, those are issues that
will be debated when we debate the two Bills.
|
