house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

1153 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1154
(4) If the Commission consider that failure to comply with
subsection (1) may have affected the result of an election, it shall
advise the Secretary of State on the validity of the election result
and make public its advice.”
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as I mentioned
at col. 893 during our last proceedings, this amendment
is inspired by the very unsatisfactory events of 4 June
during voting for the European Parliament. The name
of my party, UKIP, which came last alphabetically on
ballot papers, was folded over at the back of a large
number of them. The result was that many hundreds
of voters blocked our call centre saying that they
could not find UKIP on the ballot paper and either
asking what to do or telling us that they had voted for
another party. I appreciate that a number of noble
Lords may feel that this could not have happened to a
nicer party, but it is worth recording that Mr Nick
Griffin of the BNP won his seat from us in the
north-west by only 1,300 votes.
The problem appears to have been at its worst in the
south-east, where I understand that we may have been
denied another seat. It is certainly true that we received
a great many complaints from voters in East Sussex,
especially Bexhill; from West Sussex, especially around
Worthing; from Hampshire, especially in Farnborough;
and from Surrey, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire,
especially in Aylesbury. Such inquiries as we have been
able to make indicate two main causes: machine folding,
perhaps before the ink was dry, by printers supplying
local returning officers, and the manual folding of
ballot papers by polling clerks. This latter practice is
encouraged by the Electoral Commission in its guide
to polling station staff. Machine folding by printers
appears to have been a major problem in Yorkshire,
while manually folded papers caused serious problems
in the eastern region and the West Midlands.
Following a complaint from our party leader, Mr Nigel
Farage, the commission did issue guidance on 4 June
that all ballot papers should be handed out unfolded,
but this followed only very late in the day, sometimes
as late as 9 pm, and does not appear to have been
generally followed at all in the north-west. As things
stand at the moment, the onus appears to be on UKIP
to discover exactly what happened and where, and if it
can muster sufficient evidence, to mount a petition to
the commission for a re-run. This is a prohibitively
expensive task and one, I submit, that should not fall
to the affected party but to the commission. I would
have hoped that, at the very least, the commission
would find out how many ballot papers with UKIP
over the back were machine folded and where they
were distributed, and how many were folded at polling
stations. I would have thought that the commission
should also employ a good independent psephologist,
if it does not have one in-house, and publish an
objective report drawing on all these inputs. If anything
like this happens in the future, surely the commission
should sort it out, not the damaged party. I look
forward to the Minister’s view on these questions.
I also wonder whether the commission should be
empowered to oversee and direct regional and local
returning officers on the printing, distribution and
handling of ballot papers, especially when the list of
candidates is as long as it was in many areas on 4 June.
I understand that the commission does not think that
this amendment is necessary, so may I assume that it
will be doing all the things I have suggested above
under the present Act? If not, how will we get redress?
What happens next? I look forward to the Minister’s
reply and I beg to move.
Lord Bates: My Lords, I shall comment briefly on
the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson,
and, in doing so, I recognise that it is of the utmost
importance that people get the opportunity to vote for
the party they wish to vote for.
One of the consequences of the ever expanding list
of parties seeking election under our proportional
representation system for European elections is that
the ballot paper is ever lengthening. An interesting
point has been raised as to whether someone needs to
think—forgive the pun—outside the box on this and
consider whether the shape of the current ballot paper
is the right one. The noble Lord’s amendment, which I
assume is a probing amendment, might not be able
to answer the point. If a burden is placed on people to
ensure that papers are not folded, it might lead to
disputes in polling stations. If a paper were folded
there could be a discussion about whether it was done
by one of the polling clerks or by the elector. I can
foresee many such disputes.
The noble Lord raises a valid point. If he cannot
find satisfaction on this issue, he might consider changing
his party’s name so that it appears further up the
ballot paper. However, I do not wish to be guilty of
giving too much assistance to him.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the amendment seeks to
ensure that all ballot papers are handed out in polling
stations with the paper flat in order to prevent the
problem of folded papers potentially hiding the names
of candidates from the sight of electors. The amendment
would require the Electoral Commission to monitor
whether that was done and to report on it, and to
assess any adverse impacts if and when it was not
done.
Clarity for the elector and a level playing field for
the parties are of course important factors, and I fully
understand why the noble Lord has brought forward
his amendment. It cannot be right that the nature of
the production of a ballot paper, or any other element
of the administration of an election, should adversely
impact on how electors vote or on the results for a
party or candidate. In this instance, I understand that
the production of the ballot papers with machine folds
had caused the bottoms of the papers in some areas of
two regions—Yorkshire and the Humber and the South-
East—to be bent upwards. It is reported to have
potentially obscured the names of one or a number of
candidates so that they were not apparent to electors
as they marked their votes. There are, however, large
versions of the ballot paper posted up in all polling
stations to assist voters in making their choice.
As I understand it from officials, action was taken
to address the issue on 4 June, once the concerns of
the noble Lord and his party were raised in the morning.
Indeed, I had the pleasure of speaking to the noble
Lord that morning in the environs of this Chamber.
This included the local returning officers in relevant
areas being asked to ensure that ballot papers were