house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

1151 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1152
My inclination would be to grant the returning
officer discretion so that, when there has clearly been a
simple error such as entering the wrong date on the
postal vote application or statement, the returning
officer might write; but where the returning officer
suspects fraud, he or she might consider that notifying
the police to investigate is the correct course of action.
This judgment should be made in conjunction with
administrators and the Association of Chief Police
Officers, rather than leaping to a decision that may
hinder rather than help attempts to tackle fraud. At
this late stage in the passage of the Bill, I do not
consider there to be the time available for us to work
through the issues so that we can be confident about
making a change of this nature.
9.15 pm
Another matter for further consideration is the
question of those electors who do not respond to the
letter issued by the returning officer. It may well be
desirable for additional follow-up action to take place
in this instance in order that the ERO might establish
beyond doubt the identity of the individuals residing
at that address with a view to ensuring the
comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register.
However, this is properly a role for the electoral registration
officer. Clarifying the powers for returning officers
and electoral registration officers to share data for
these purposes is another area which would need
careful consideration. Rightly, there are clear provisions
in law concerned with the safe disposal and secrecy of
election documents. It would be all too easy to implement
a change in the legislation which sought to provide
access to election records for one purpose, but which
inadvertently compromised the safety and secrecy of
the information that those records contained.
On the provisions for dealing with election documents,
I should also make it clear that the amendment put
forward by the noble Lord is defective. It provides that
the proposed list should be regarded as a relevant
election document for the purpose of Section 42 of
the Electoral Administration Act 2006. However, this
section provides for access to election documents in
relation to elections other than parliamentary elections.
Corresponding provision in respect of parliamentary
elections is made in rules 55 to 57 of the parliamentary
elections rules.
I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord
Henley, any answers, but his questions make the point
that the Government would make. It is not
straightforward. We would need to understand the
size of the burden, the implications for a successful
criminal prosecution and the implications for the whole
area of privacy.
To summarise, we agree that there is merit in the
intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, but we
are concerned that the right measures are put in place
and we would wish to consult more widely before
bringing forward proposals. I note from its briefing
that the Electoral Commission supports the intention
of the noble Lord. However, I understand that it
shares our concerns about moving to legislation without
due consideration of the issues at hand. The Government
will therefore undertake to consider this issue with the
commission, ACPO and other appropriate stakeholders
with a view to legislating in the next electoral Bill. On
this basis, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his
amendment.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am very grateful for that
reply. I agree with a great deal of what the Minister
has said, particularly about the potential tension between,
on the one hand, when a returning officer or an
electoral registration officer writes to people to say,
“Sorry you have made a mistake. You ought to know
this because you are losing your vote”—accidentally,
presumably—and, on other hand, when they think
that it might be evidence of fraud. I thought about
that issue before writing this amendment, but I came
to the view that it would be best to put down a simple
amendment in order to raise the issue and in the hope
of getting the response that the Minister has given. I
am very grateful for that and for his promise. I was
getting quite excited until he used the word “stakeholder”,
then I lost interest.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I do not
think that there will be a huge administrative burden.
There will be a little extra administrative burden because
when someone applies for a postal vote—at general
elections a lot come in at the last minute—the returning
officers write to people to check that they want it and
that it is okay. Election offices are full of computers
which are for ever churning out letters and envelopes.
They do that all the time—perhaps they do it too
much. Nevertheless, it is not a huge question. On the
privacy and secrecy of documents, it is important that
lists of everyone who has voted and everyone who has
returned a postal vote envelope are produced, just like
those that are produced at the moment.
The noble Lord referred to spoiled ballots. We are
not talking about spoiled ballot papers, but those that
have not even been looked at. I agree that a spoiled
ballot paper should never be divulged because that is
the way someone has voted, but here we are talking
about ballot papers that have not been looked at or
counted, so no one knows if they have been spoiled
because they are still in their envelopes, having never
been opened.
The Government said that they would work through
these issues. Instead of waiting for the next election
before introducing legislation, I wonder whether it
might be possible to deal with this through secondary
legislation by introducing statutory instruments to
amend the election rules. I would ask the Government
to look at that once they have carried out the consultation.
However, I am very encouraged by what the Government
have said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 84 withdrawn.
Amendment 84A
Moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch
84A: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause—
“Ballot papers
(1) Except in the case of postal votes, ballot papers must be
given to voters unfolded.
(2) The Commission shall monitor, and take such steps as they
consider appropriate to securing, compliance with subsection (1).
(3) Within three months of an election, the Commission shall
publish a report pursuant to subsection (2).