| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
One of the reasons why there are so few prosecutions in election fraud cases is that it is very difficult to gather evidence. It is especially difficult to gather evidence within 28 days to seek an election petition. It would be much easier if one could inspect not only the statements that people make when they vote but the application forms for postal or proxy votes. In the past, the regulations have been grey and it has been possible to inspect those, but in the past two or three years the Electoral Commission has ruled that that is not possible, and registration officers seem to have applied that ruling. I do not understand why it is not possible to look at the application forms for postal and proxy votes. That would enable evidence on fraudulent applications to be gathered. At the moment, it is very difficult to do that.
On page 39 of the regulations, under the heading “Miscellaneous Amendments”, there is reference to an,
“Additional requirement for applications for ballot papers to be sent to different address from that stated in application”.
That is extremely welcome. I hope that the measure will be applied rigorously and that statements such as “going shopping” will not be accepted by registration officers as a reason for diverting postal votes. We all know of the Birmingham case and of many allegations in other places of the wholesale diversion
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC9
Applications for postal votes must be made on white paper within a box measuring 5 x 2 centimetres. That is fair enough. Presumably, if they are submitted on Basildon Bond blue paper, or if the relevant information is outside a box on the form, they will be sent back. As regards the postal voting statement that is sent in with the ballot paper, what happens if there is a perfectly reasonable signature, which is clearly the relevant person’s signature, but it goes over the edge of the box? Will that invalidate the vote? Will the form be sent back for another signature, which would be a recipe for all sorts of complaints and chaos? Or will it be accepted and looked at manually rather than by whatever other system will be used? It seems to me that there is great scope for silly problems to arise in that area if we are not careful.
Finally, page 50 of the regulations refers to the postal voting statement. As regards the boxes where the voter has to include his date of birth, no doubt it is fairly obvious to many people where you have to write the day, the month and the year. However, some people, particularly those from different cultures, may put those figures in the wrong place or write them back to front. It would be helpful if under those boxes the words “day”, “month” and “year” were included, as often occurs on other forms.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and I am delighted that I have light with which to find my answers.
I begin by addressing the two points raised on both sides of the Committee concerning the percentages that we have chosen to use to begin the work on personal identifiers, and the issue of service voters. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the 12-month review of the anonymity requirement. On personal identifiers, the first thing to say is that 20 per cent is the minimum. It has been decided in conjunction with electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission. We expect that in some areas they will want to look at many more. It is statistically an important percentage, and it will be done randomly at all stages, therefore acting as a deterrent to those who wish to try to defraud the system. It does not prevent, in any circumstances, those electoral officers who wish to go much further from so doing. That obviously depends to a degree on the individual circumstances in an area and the electoral officer’s view of whether more should be done.
We share the ambition held on both sides of the Committee to move towards 100 per cent as swiftly as possible, and we have made funding available to try to achieve that as swiftly as we can. Obviously, that is dependent on timescales for general elections—as noble Lords know, I know nothing about those, ever.
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC10
I rather thought that the valiant battle on service voters was won, not least because the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, who is not with us this afternoon, fought it extraordinarily well. I completely accept that noble Lords want us to go further, and I agree with the principle that we have to see at the next election whether the plans that we have put in place have been successful in achieving what we all agreed we wanted to achieve.
I say again, as noble Lords would expect me to, that it is not only this part of the process that matters; the other work that the Ministry of Defence is doing matters, too, not least in the registration days, some of which have already taken place. I hope that the combination of things that it wanted to do and is keen to do will make a difference. The period of three years was chosen in consultation again by the Electoral Commission with the Ministry of Defence. It is the minimum length of time that service personnel sign up for, and that felt about right, but it will be kept under review. Although I understand that noble Lords would like us to go further, the proof inevitably is in the eating of whether this works, and we will continue to work with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make sure that it is as effective as possible. We share completely the ambitions of noble Lords.
I will try to deal with a number of detailed comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. He began by asking me about the polling district and what the word “publish” meant. Regulation 3, on the review of polling districts and polling places, states that the relevant authority,
- “must ... publish ... by posting a copy of them at its office and in at least one conspicuous place in their area; and ... if the authority maintains a website, by placing a copy on the authority’s website”.
Lord Greaves: I did not read that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am here to help.
The corresponding number list will be sealed along with the ballot papers, so the same position as currently exists with ballot paper counterfoils will apply, which is that they can be accessed for inspection only after an election by the police with a court order made under the Electoral Administration Act.
On the secrecy of numbers on the corresponding numbers list, equipment is being developed so that the voter can see only their own details when signing the list, which I hope will solve the problem that the noble
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC11
The noble Lord asked whether there would be a consultation with the candidates about increasing the figure from 20 per cent. There is no requirement for a consultation with the candidates. The noble Lord will know that the practice varies in different places, and I would expect that candidates or agents will be keen to make representations when they think that there is a problem. The noble Lord asked, too, whether checking would be done in the presence of agents and candidates. The answer is yes, it would be.
4.15 pm
The noble Lord asked a couple of other questions that he has raised in parliamentary Questions, which I have responded to on behalf of my honourable friend Bridget Prentice, about Judge Gilbert’s points about proxy voting. The noble Lord will know that we have not yet had sight of precisely what the judge has said, which we would want to examine very carefully before committing further. But I put a copy of the Written Answer that I gave the noble Lord in the Library. I hope that it will deal with the specific points about proxy voting. We shall come back to noble Lords if any further issues arise from the judge’s remarks, when we have had a chance to see them.
The noble Lord asked about requests to inspect postal voting statements. They are made in writing to the registration officer; they must state who will inspect the documents and the date on which they wish to inspect them. They can be viewed only for electoral or research purposes and under supervision. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s point.
The noble Lord asked what would happen if a mark went over the edge of the box. If it did—because some people have more flamboyant signatures than others—it would get kicked out by the machine, a person would look at it and see that it was fine, and it would be fine. So the machine process points up the fact that there is an issue, but it would not cause the problems that the noble Lord is concerned about.
With the date box, lots of people print “DDMMYY”, which is a way in which to get people to put the dates in the right order. We shall have a look to see whether we have covered that. The point is well made, especially in these days of Americanisation, when the date is sometimes changed round.
I think that I have answered the points that the noble Lord made. If I have not, I shall pick them up separately with him. I hope that in general noble Lords will feel that the regulations are worthy of support.
Baroness Hanham: To go back to the personal identifiers, I am pleased that the 20 per cent will be a minimum. It is clear that the Electoral Commission hopes that the figure will move up to 100 per cent.
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC12
“We hope that the Government will commit itself to putting the necessary resources and technology in place for 100 per cent checking to be implemented across Great Britain before the next UK parliamentary general elections”.
I would be remiss if I did not ask whether the Government were going to do just that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, we are. Our ambition is to get to 100 per cent by then. We have already put in place funding, and £4.1 million is available to enable the commission to have the equipment to do this. We hope that as soon as possible people move towards that. I am hesitant about saying that it will happen by the general election only because I have no idea when that will be. Were it to be sooner rather than later, there might be an issue. But that is our ambition, and the resources will be available.
Lord Greaves: Could the Minister respond to the question about the reasons given for diverting votes, which is a subject very close to my heart? Is it possible to give guidance to registration officers that the forms that they put out should require reasons that are a bit more specific? If people have moved, they should say where they are now living and, if they are in student accommodations, they should say where they are studying, rather than just saying that they are away from home or “gone shopping”, or things like that. That would make a big difference in stamping out illegal diversion of votes, which obviously we all want to do.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sorry that I did not answer that point specifically. The Electoral Commission will be giving that kind of guidance. I have written myself a note to say that we should pick the point up with the commission; if I might, I shall do so and ask it to write to the noble Lord directly to address those concerns.
Lord Goodhart: On verification, if the returning officer discovers that, of his 20 per cent that he has opened, a significant proportion are not verified and the figure is so large that it might affect the outcome, is any guidance given to him that he should proceed to count the whole lot?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope that electoral officers will need no guidance and that it will be obvious that they must do further things. The new regulations allow a returning officer to make additional checks on any postal ballots opened at a previous opening session, where they have not been verified. We have left when to do that to the discretion of the returning officers, but I have no doubt that there will be additional supportive guidance from the Electoral Commission. It is part of the ambition of moving to 100 per cent as quickly as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC13
Service Voters’ Registration Period Order 2006
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Service Voters’ Registration Period Order 2006 [36th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 [36th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) England Regulations 2006
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 [35th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: I commend to the Committee the Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2006 which, if approved, will be made under Section 57A of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 as inserted by Section 65 of the Local Government Act 2003.
These regulations make one specific change to the transition scheme for the current non-domestic rating lists. The transition scheme was brought in as part of last year’s revaluation of non-domestic rates and is designed to soften the impact of sudden and dramatic rises in business rates bills as a result of revaluation. The change is required to give effect to a High Court decision earlier this year and brings into the transition scheme a very small group of properties that were not covered by the original transition scheme.
This is a small change to a very technical set of regulations and affects only a very small number of non-domestic properties. I shall do my best to explain how the scheme works and how the change affects it.
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC14
Under the original scheme, which took effect on 1 April 2005, properties that had a rateable value of zero pounds on the last day of the previous ratings list—in this case, 31 March 2005—were not included in the transition scheme. These regulations bring those properties into the scheme. Briefly, the transition scheme works by limiting the amount by which rate bills can increase or decrease compared with the rate liability for 2004-05. The scheme lasts four years and the cost of capping increases to some rate bills—for those in upward transition, obviously—is funded by capping reductions in other rate bills: those in downward transition. There have been similar transition schemes as part of each revaluation since 1990, in 1995 and 2000.
The caps obviously change depending on whether relief is being given to a large or small property; they are different. The arrangement for small properties is more generous, to reflect the greater burden that rates generally pose for small businesses compared with larger concerns. For the rating period that began on 1 April 2005, however, all ratepayers will pay their full rates liability in 2009-10—the final year of the five-year life of the current rating lists.
To qualify for transitional relief under the original scheme, properties had to have a rateable value greater than zero on 31 March 2005, the last day of the old rating list. The rateable value of a property is generally based on the assumed rent that the property would attract if let on the open market on a specific date. In some cases, this will be a nil value, but the property must still be shown on the non-domestic rating list.
Because the amount of rates that a property has to pay is calculated according to its pre-revaluation liability, any property with a rateable value of zero pounds at 31 March 2000 would continue with a zero liability for the four-year life of the 2005 scheme. If you multiply anything by zero, it comes to zero. The most that ratepayers in this position would have to pay would be a small contribution each year toward the cost of the small business rate relief scheme.
Previous schemes in 1995 and 2000 had allowed properties valued at zero to be considered for transitional relief. As the 1995 and 2000 transition schemes lasted for the full five years of the rating lists, the base liability on the last day of those lists remained at zero because the liability of the final day on one list was used to calculate the transition bill for the following five-year rating period. The effect was that the hereditament never had a liability and would have continued to pay zero indefinitely. We obviously wanted to avoid that paradox in the 2005 transition scheme. The major institution caught in this contradiction was British Waterways.
By definition, a transition scheme should smooth changes in rates bills, not act as a de facto exemption from rates. The transition scheme for the 2005 revaluation set out in the original regulations
30 Oct 2006 : Column GC15
In the case of British Waterways, whereas from 2000 to 2005 it paid no rates, in 2005 it was liable to pay £746,925. As I will explain in a moment, another 18 hereditaments also fell into the same category, out of—this is a very important figure—the 1.7 million hereditaments as a whole. Removing this tiny category from the scope of the transition scheme meant that those ratepayers would have to start to pay rates, quite rightly, but that they would also inevitably not qualify for transitional relief. This approach meant that ratepayers in this situation would pay their full rates liability from the first year of the 2005 rating list.
The scheme came into effect from April 2005. Ratepayers were issued with rate demands that had been calculated either in line with the Local Government Finance Act 1988 or, where the transition scheme applied, the chargeable amounts regulations. The British Waterways board challenged this aspect of the regulations. The High Court found that excluding hereditaments with a rateable value of zero as at 31 March 2005 from the transition scheme was unlawful. British Waterways is the only ratepayer on the central rating list to be affected by the court judgment. At the time when these regulations were laid before Parliament, the Valuation Office Agency had identified 13 properties on local rating lists that fell into the same situation as British Waterways. Since then there have been further changes to the rating lists. We have now identified 18 properties in a similar position to British Waterways.
These amending regulations give effect to the court’s decision by bringing British Waterways and the other affected ratepayers into the existing transition scheme. The effect is that, instead of having to pay their full rates liability for each of the five years’ life of the 2005 rating list, these ratepayers will have a greatly reduced rates bill until the final year of the scheme, beginning 1 April 2009. It is possible that appeals against the 2000 rating lists that have yet to be decided may result in some additional properties having their rateable value at 31 March 2005 reduced to zero.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |