Draft Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab)
† Bray, Angie (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Campbell, Mr Gregory (East Londonderry) (DUP)
† Coffey, Dr Thérèse (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab)
† Fabricant, Michael (Lichfield) (Con)
† Glindon, Mrs Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)
† Gyimah, Mr Sam (Minister for the Constitution)
† Hammond, Stephen (Wimbledon) (Con)
† Lumley, Karen (Redditch) (Con)
† McCartney, Karl (Lincoln) (Con)
† Mowat, David (Warrington South) (Con)
Munn, Meg (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
† Turner, Mr Karl ( Kingston upon Hull East ) (Lab)
† Twigg, Stephen (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Watson, Mr Tom (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
† Wright, Simon (Norwich South) (LD)
Fergus Reid, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
The following also attended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(2):
Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Tuesday 3 March 2015
[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]
Draft Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015
8.55 am
Minister for the Constitution (Mr Sam Gyimah): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015.
The Chair: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015.
Mr Gyimah: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
The Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 relate to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015. The instruments are being brought forward to put in place changes for the general election on 7 May. I shall turn first to the combination of polls regulations and then to the order, which is necessary as a consequence of the regulations.
The regulations remove the restriction that prevents returning officers from commencing the count of UK parliamentary ballot papers at combined elections before verification has been completed for all the ballot papers for all the polls. The regulations do that by amending the Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, which make modifications to the parliamentary elections rules where a parliamentary election is combined with other elections. The order applies the provisions in the regulations to police and crime commissioner elections, where they are combined with UK parliamentary elections.
The instruments, if approved by Parliament, will come into effect on 7 May—the day of the general election. The order contains a minor misspelling in a citation of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which will be corrected when the draft order is made.
The provisions allow the counting of parliamentary ballot papers taken from a ballot box to start once they have been verified and mixed with parliamentary ballot papers from another ballot box. In this context, “verified” means the ballots have been checked to ensure that the number of papers in the box corresponds with the number expected to be there. The provisions also allow the counting of postal ballot papers to take place once they have been mixed with ballot papers from at least one ballot box for which the ballot paper accounts have been verified.
Without allowing that, the counting of UK parliamentary ballot papers cannot commence until all ballot boxes from all polling stations have been received at the count, and all the ballot papers in each have been verified. That could mean a significant delay, as nothing can happen before the last box from the polling station furthest away, or a box delayed by transport issues, has been received. As a result of the provisions, returning officers can more easily meet the requirement in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take reasonable steps to begin counting the votes on parliamentary ballot papers within four hours of the close of poll at 10 pm.
Importantly, a count cannot be finalised, or the result declared, until verification for all the ballot papers in all the combined polls has been completed. The measures will ensure that any UK parliamentary ballot papers that have been wrongly placed in ballot boxes for other polls are identified and included in the right count.
Allowing the returning officer to get ahead with the count of the UK parliamentary ballot papers for any given constituency where polls are combined may reduce the time between completion of the verification stage and the end of the count of UK parliamentary ballot papers, and an early announcement of the UK parliamentary election result could be made. I am sure we would all welcome that.
The provisions were developed in discussion with regional returning officers, who support them. The Electoral Commission has been consulted on the instruments, and it is satisfied that they will allow more flexibility in verifying and counting in a combined election. The Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives have confirmed that they welcome the changes.
I now turn to the Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015. The regulations make changes to the form of the ballot paper used at UK parliamentary elections, by amending provisions in the parliamentary election rules set out in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. The instrument is intended to come into effect the day after it is made, so that the provisions are in place well ahead of the general election on 7 May. Returning officers and their printing suppliers can then print ballot papers in good time to send out postal votes.
A similar draft instrument providing for the changes was debated and passed by both Houses last year. However, it was not moved for approval on the Floor of the House of Commons by the date it was due to come into force, which was 6 April 2014, so it was not possible to proceed with making it. We are therefore laying a new instrument, based on the previous one. As before, the statutory instrument amends the ballot paper to remove numbering against candidates’ names, provide for the left alignment of candidates’ details, require the title of the election to be displayed and replace the traditional grid pattern with a more reader-friendly layout.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, the Electoral Commission supports this proposal. I think that we all received a note from the Commission regarding this, in which it was explained that the numbers can confuse some voters. However, is he assured that removing the numbers will not result in increased electoral fraud?
Mr Gyimah: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The assurance I can give him is that ballot papers without numbers have already been used for elections in the Welsh Assembly, the European elections last year and local mayoral elections. We have not encountered an increased incidence of voter fraud in those elections, so there is no reason to think that that would be the case here.
My hon. Friend focused on the numbering of the ballot paper. I have an example of what the ballot paper would look like without numbers, and we would have a much cleaner and simpler ballot paper that would help voters to make the right choice at elections. The Electoral Commission found that numbering on ballot papers can confuse voters who do not know what they mean or are for. Usability testing carried out for the Commission found that some individuals—especially new voters—were unsure whether to circle the number next to the party or candidate, or to use the box allocated for a cross to be marked in.
The Electoral Commission’s guidance on the design of voting materials states:
“As some elections require people to vote using numbers, it is better not to print any numbers on the ballot paper itself to avoid any confusion.”
That is already the case, as I said, for a number of ballot papers, including those for mayoral elections, police and crime commissioner elections and European parliamentary elections. All the changes in the revised ballot paper have been subject to additional user testing carried out on behalf of the Government and were followed by stakeholder consultation, in order to make the ballot paper as clear and easy to use as possible. The regulations amend the directions for the printing of the ballot paper to support the changes.
The new instrument is identical to the previous version, except for some minor changes. Those minor changes include a new provision in paragraph 1 to change the commencement date and a new transitional provision to mandate that the changes to the ballot paper do not apply where the notice of election has been issued before the regulations come into force.
We have consulted the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives on the instrument. The Electoral Commission confirmed that it welcomes the Government’s acceptance of its recommendation to legislate for the removal of numbers from UK parliamentary ballot papers. The AEA and SOLACE raised no objections to any of the changes. The disability charity Scope supports the changes. While not actively supportive of the removal of numbering from UK parliamentary ballot papers, the Royal National Institute of Blind People does not object to it. It considers that the measure does not significantly affect the ease with which the special tactile voting device designed to help voters with visual impairments to vote in person and without assistance can be used.
The changes to the UK parliamentary ballot paper form part of a wider exercise to update forms and notices used by voters for the full range of elections in the UK, including poll cards, postal voting statements and the ballot paper. The changes are intended to make the voting process more accessible for voters and to
encourage voter engagement. In conclusion, the three instruments are being made to facilitate a successful general election, and I commend them to the Committee.9.5 am
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. We support the first two sets of regulations, which relate to the combination of polls. I welcome that proposal, and I imagine that Members on all sides of the House and candidates from all parties will support measures that should result in a more efficient counting process and should reduce delays in many constituencies, therefore meaning that everyone gets the results sooner on Friday 8 May and at future elections.
I particularly welcome the support for the two sets of regulations from the AEA and SOLACE, which the Minister set out. However, we remain opposed to the removal of numbers from parliamentary ballot papers. I will focus my remarks on that proposal, and we will seek to divide the Committee on it.
Michael Fabricant: I am slightly curious. I will listen to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments about his opposition to the proposal, but I note that while there are 10 Members on the coalition’s side of the Committee, there are only three Members on the Labour party’s side. I wonder how convinced he is that his arguments are so serious if there is quite clearly no chance of his winning the vote.
Stephen Twigg: There would be no chance of my winning the vote if every single Opposition Member were here, unless Government Members were to vote with us. I am sceptical of that happening, though I have a high opinion of my ability to persuade people. When we met last year to discuss this, I failed singularly to persuade any Government Member. However, I would point out that since we started, the number of Opposition Members on the Committee has trebled.
This is an on-balance decision. The Minister set out the Electoral Commission’s view. As the hon. Member for Lichfield pointed out, the Commission has previously briefed Members of the House on why it and others, including Scope, support this. However, we believe that two arguments still merit consideration. They are the same arguments that I and other Opposition Members made when the Committee met last year to discuss this.
The first argument was made powerfully in the debate last year by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). He and a number of my colleagues in the House have made the case that numbers can be very helpful for voters for whom English is a second language, since they might sometimes not speak English fluently. In particular, those whose first language does not use Latin characters might find numbers a helpful addition to the party symbols.
A linked issue that I raised last time and will mention again, though I do not want to raise hilarity again, is that the combination of a number and symbol can be helpful where there may be confusion about similar names. We know that there have been examples in the past of Literal Democrat and Conservatory candidates standing. The previous legislation has largely dealt with that, but it cannot deal with candidates having similar names. I mentioned in our previous debate that at the
2010 election, my Liberal Democrat opponent had the surname Twigger. The Liberal Democrats in Liverpool, West Derby have selected Paul Twigger again as their candidate, so we will have Twigg v. Twigger for a second election. Having numbers as well as symbols is a good way of ensuring that voters in my or any other constituency avoid confusion and do not end up voting by mistake for the wrong candidate.The second substantial point of concern is one on which the Minister reflected towards the end of his remarks. I accept that Scope—a fantastic organisation for which I have enormous respect—supports these changes and has made an argument that having numbers on ballot papers is confusing. However, we have had conversations with other disability organisations that have expressed a different view. The Minister reflected on Government discussions with the RNIB. Prior to our previous debate, the RNIB told me that
“removing numbers that identify candidates from a ballot paper would make it very difficult for people with sight loss who use tactile and large print templates to vote.”
Sense, the deafblind charity, went a little further. It said:
“when a deafblind or visually impaired person votes independently at a polling station, they use a tactile voting device that identifies candidates solely by number. We are concerned that removing identifying numbers from ballot papers will make it more difficult for deafblind people to use these tactile voting devices and, as a result, more difficult for deafblind people to exercise their fundamental democratic right to vote independently and in privacy”.
Michael Fabricant: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again—he is being very generous—but did not the Minister say that the Royal National Institute of Blind People absolutely supports the changes?
Stephen Twigg: I shall allow the Minister to intervene if I have misrepresented what he said. I think he said that it does not oppose the changes, rather than actively supports them. Scope certainly supports them. The Minister is nodding. In the discussions that I had when we prepared for last year’s debate, the RNIB had the concerns that I have quoted, as did Sense. My understanding from those two organisations is that when voters use tactile devices, there is often a cross-referencing between the ballot paper itself and the device. Sense raised the concern that having numbers on one but not the other could add to the confusion.
I accept that we debated this matter last year and there was a clear vote. We do not believe that any new evidence has come to light to change the view that Labour took when the issue was debated last year. For that reason, we will vote—all three of us—against the proposal, but we will support the other two orders.
The Chair: Under the Standing Orders of the House, any Member may attend and speak in Committee, but, unless they are a member of the Committee, they may not vote.
9.11 am
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): Thank you, Sir Roger. As is well known, I attend a lot of Committees, sometimes two at once. On this occasion I am not attending the Committee as a voting Member, but I am concerned about the proposals for the new ballot paper. I am particularly concerned about the lack
of numbers. In Birmingham we have often emphasised the numbers. In a campaign in one ward the posters contained only the number, and one presumes that there was a reason for that. I think the essential reason is that of literacy. Some people are not very literate, but they can read numbers. The question then is whether the symbols are sufficient to emphasise who the candidate is. The difficulty is that the consultation process did not go through to the political parties. It stayed outside that arena, and I think there is a need for additional work on this issue.I am also concerned that the size of the candidate’s surname does not emphasise their name—at the end of the day, people vote for the candidate—and that could cause difficulties as well, although I do not think it will cause election fraud, or have an effect on election fraud. My concern is that people do not manage to vote the way in which they intended. We had a good example of that in the referendum on whether to have a directly elected mayor. A lot of people wrote “no” on the ballot paper and then found that their ballots were disqualified—about 5,000 people in Birmingham—whereas if they wrote “yes”, their votes were counted. I know that that sounds odd. I can explain it at length if the Committee wishes.
If people wrote “yes” in the box that said, “Do you want a directly elected mayor?”, it was assumed that they meant, “Yes, I do want a directly elected mayor”. If they wrote “no” in the box that said, “You do not want a directly elected mayor”, their vote was disqualified for uncertainty.
Michael Fabricant: I am amazed at that. Surely the role of the electoral registration officer is to ensure that the intention is clear. If it is clear, the vote is valid. That is how it works in a general election.
John Hemming: That is true, and there are very interesting rules in respect of what can be done to get a vote counted. For instance, if someone puts a smiley face against one candidate and a scowling or sad face against the other candidates, the vote is treated as being clear. However, the guidance issued by the Electoral Commission or whoever on the referendum was that if someone wrote “no”, the vote was rejected, as happened in Birmingham in the case of about 5,000 people. It was difficult, because they were not analysed separately to all the other spoilt ballots. Some were spoilt because nothing was written on them, so they were not really spoilt but uncompleted ballots.
Having seen the draft ballot paper now, I am concerned that the candidate’s name is not sufficiently emphasised. I say that as somebody who has been a candidate in a rather large number of elections, but perhaps that is not the priority for other people. There is an issue that it will be harder to communicate with people who are less literate. It is great for the political parties because they do not need to know which number their candidate is on the ballot paper and put it on election leaflets, so they can design their leaflets a bit earlier. The issue of removal of the number needs to be kept under review.
9.15 am
Mr Gyimah: Thank you, Sir Roger, for the debate so far. I welcome the Opposition’s support for the first two measures. As the Opposition spokesman mentioned, we
have had this debate and been around this course before. Therefore I will keep my comments brief because, as far as I can tell, there are no new arguments. On the likely impact that removing numbers from the ballot paper would have on the ability of people who have English as a second language to participate in the democratic process, our party logos are sufficiently strong and clear enough for people to use them as an indicator, rather than having to read the names of candidates if that is how they choose to decide which way to vote.The issue of candidates with similar names—we were given the example of Twigg versus Twigger and the likely confusion that it could cause—has not come about as a result of removing numbers from the ballot paper. The problem existed under the previous system. Now, Twigg or Twigger would have to really emphasise their party logo for their supporters to generate the votes that they want and need to win the election.
On the RNIB’s position on the matter, I draw the Opposition’s attention to the point I made that we have already had numbers removed from ballot papers in previous elections. That seems to have carried on fine. The European election was the previous significant election for which we did not have numbers on ballot papers. The tactile voting device, which I have here, will not include numbers but it is clear that someone who is visually impaired will be able to identify candidates by using the device without the numbers. RNIB should be promoting the new ballot paper and the clarity that it brings to the electoral process for visually impaired people.
Finally, on the size of candidates’ names, of course all of us standing for election would like our names to appear quite large on the ballot paper so that our supporters do not miss us. The draft ballot paper has been user-tested and that showed that the text has to be legible and understandable for the different range of elections. We have been through the process of testing different font sizes and arrived at the one we have as it will be most effective without confusing voters. I commend the three measures to the Committee.
The Chair: The Minister said that the Opposition were supporting the first two motions. His papers are in a different order from those on the Order Paper. I think that he means the second two. I would not wish the Committee to be confused.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 3.
AYES
NOES
Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015.
draft Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.—(Dr Coffey.)
draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015.—(Dr Coffey.)