Electoral Administration Bill

---

 
Column Number: 31

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairmen: † Mr. Edward O'Hara, Derek Conway

†Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con)

Betts, Mr. Clive (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab)

†Binley, Mr. Brian (Northampton, South) (Con)

†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)

†Cairns, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)

†Devine, Mr. Jim (Livingston) (Lab)

†Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)

†Harman, Ms Harriet (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs)

†Heath, Mr. David (Somerton and Frome) (LD)

†Johnson, Ms Diana R. (Kingston upon Hull, North) (Lab)
 
Column Number: 32
 

†Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab)

Laing, Mrs. Eleanor (Epping Forest) (Con)

†Linton, Martin (Battersea) (Lab)

†McGovern, Mr. Jim (Dundee, West) (Lab)

Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)

Robinson, Mr. Peter (Belfast, East) (DUP)

†Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)

Geoffrey Farrar, Matthew Whittaker, Committee Clerks

†attended the Committee

Column Number: 32
 

Standing Committee B

Tuesday 15 November 2005

(Afternoon)

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Electoral Administration Bill

(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election. )

Clause 19

Review of polling places

4 pm

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 19, page 18, line 36, at end insert

', except that such a notice may not be made in the period of three months before an eletion the date of which is prescribed.'.

Following this morning's correction, and to avoid any confusion, the word in the second line, which reads ''eletion'', is not supposed to be ''deletion'', ''delectation'' or ''electrification'' but ''election''. That is what was intended.

I have some general points to make about clause 19, which deals with the review of polling places, and a precise point, which is made by amendment No. 3, that it is not only inconvenient but inconsiderate to the electorate to make alterations to polling districts in the weeks immediately preceding an election whose date we know.

We generally have our suspicions about when a general election is likely to be called, but it can be called at any time, so no statutory protection can be given before it is held. We do, however, know perfectly well when municipal elections, European elections and mayoral elections will be, as they are on a fixed term. The confusion inherent in a change to the polling district, and therefore to the polling station at which the electorate are required to attend to cast their votes, is not in interests of the electorate. The change might also affect the candidate, such as a sitting councillor seeking re-election whom they want to support in that election. All those confusions are inevitable if there is a change, but they are avoidable in the immediate run-up to an election. I hope that I have made a sensible suggestion that simply offers protection against such confusion and ensures that our elections are administered well.

Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I have nothing to add to what the hon. Gentleman has just said, other than to say that what he said was thoroughly sensible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Cairns): In his preamble, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to some extent answered my objection to amendment No. 3, which is that part 4 relates to parliamentary
 
Column Number: 34
 
elections whose dates are not known. The amendment seeks to prevent the electoral registration officer from changing polling districts in the three months before an election, the date of which is known in advance. Clause 19, however, relates to parliamentary elections, the dates of which are generally not known three months in advance, so the amendment would not work.

I am sure, however, that we all have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. It would be very confusing to candidates, to party workers and others, but most of all to the electorate, if polling districts were changed willy nilly very close to an election.

The alteration to the polling district will take effect only once the electoral registration officer has published a notice stating that he or she has made all the necessary adaptations. In practice, a registration officer would be bound to use his or her discretion in publishing such a notice when he or she knew that an election was pending. I have an enormous amount of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. He is very obviously sounding a common-sense note when he talks about making such changes too late. Unfortunately, as I said, the amendment would not have the intended effect in part 4. With my assurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Heath: I do not entirely agree that the amendment would not have the effect that the Under-Secretary suggests, because the polling districts are used not only for the parliamentary elections but for other elections. [Interruption.] They are not necessarily used for other elections, but they frequently are. There is coterminosity between the polling districts and the district council wards in England, for instance, so an amendment to one will produce a consequent amendment to the other. Although we are considering polling districts at parliamentary elections, there is a contingent consideration in relation to the fixed-term elections that take place within the same polling districts.

That can be dealt with by guidance to electoral registration officers. If the Minister would accept that principle—he is nodding from a sedentary position, so I believe that he does—perhaps he could issue clear guidance to electoral registration officers, in which case we do not need to pursue the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Heath: I wish to raise two points. First, I want to be clear what proposed new section 18B(5) means, because I have looked at it and construed it in various ways, and I still do not understand it, although I am not particularly stupid in such matters. Perhaps the Minister can help me.

''If no polling place is designated for a polling district the polling district is to be taken to be the polling place.''

What does it mean? Will we have one big polling station that covers the whole district? Can one cast a vote wherever one happens to be, in the street? I
 
Column Number: 35
 
honestly do not understand it, but I am sure that it means something, and the Minister will be able to help me, but at the moment I am struggling.

The second point is more general. There is a degree of confusion in the terms. The word ''area'' means different things in different parts of the clause. That is not particularly helpful. On some occasions it is used to mean an electoral district, and on others it means something wider. In other instances, it appears to mean the building in which the polling takes place. If others are to construe what is proposed, it is not helpful for terms to change their meaning within a single section. I have not proposed an amendment at this stage; I simply put it to the Minister that he might like to consider whether the wording can be tightened a little, so that we are clear whether we are talking about a polling district, a building in which a polling station is situated or some other area. At present, the drafting looks slightly sloppy.

Mr. Djanogly: I would like to draw attention to one aspect of polling districts that has not been addressed in the Bill, and in respect of which the Conservative Opposition proposed an amendment that was not selected—for all the right reasons, I am sure, Mr. O'Hara. We believe that fairness in the electoral system would be appropriately addressed at parliamentary polling district level. Votes in different parts of the UK have significantly divergent values because of the enormous variation in the sizes of constituencies. The current boundary commission review proposes constituencies of widely differing sizes—from Hackney, South at 57,000-odd to Banbury at 78,000 and the Isle of Wight at 103,000, with a general over-representation of urban areas. In the 2005 general election, across England the average electorate in seats that elected Labour MPs was 67,592, compared with 73,004 in Conservative seats. The average number of votes cast for the winning party in England was 18,833 in Labour, seats compared with 22,763 in Conservative seats.

Mr. Heath: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the disparity between the size of seats. The Isle of Wight is a perennial problem, and I do not think that there is an easy answer. However, will he accept that Members of Parliament represent not only numbers of electors but numbers of citizens—souls—within their constituency, and that under-registration in many urban areas is a factor that has to be taken into account, as well as the number on the roll?

Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but if under-representation has to be taken into account, the disparity is arguably much greater than the figures that I give.

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): The figures that we have been given by the Electoral Commission suggest that under-representation involves between 3.5 million and 4 million people nationally, which equates to about 5,000 or 6,000 per constituency. Their backgrounds are low-paid, unemployed, in social housing, black and ethnic. There are far more of them in Labour seats than in Conservative seats. If the Bill is successful and we get those people back on the register, the skew will be ironed out.
 
Column Number: 36
 

---

Prepared 15 November 2005