|
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West) (Lab): And that was in Frome!
Mr. Heath: It was not in Frome; it was considerably further east than that, I am happy to say.
I ask the Minister to check that we are doing what the ODIHR and the OSCE want us to do. It would be silly to go half way and allow people from emerging democracies to say that we do not allow them the same sort of access that we expect them to give to us, that the situation is not fair and that some countries are considered to be inherently fairer than others. We in this country have nothing to hide with regard to our electoral arrangements, so we should be big enough to abide by the same rules as other countries in Europe and central Asia. If the Americans can do it, so can we.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Ballot paper design
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 59, in clause 32, page 40, line 17, at end insert:
', following consultation with and agreement from all registered political parties (as defined in Schedule 1 (6A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983)'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 30, in clause 32, page 40, line 25, at end insert—
'(5) The Secretary of State shall by order prescribe a minimum size or sizes of typeface to be used on ballot papers.'.
No. 60, in clause 32, page 40, line 25, at end insert—
'(d) No regulations are to be made under the provisions of this clause unless a draft of the regulation has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
Mr. Djanogly: I shall discuss amendments Nos. 59 and 60 together, as they combine to produce our intended result. The style and content of ballot papers is prescribed by statute. The current design of ballot papers for first-past-the-post elections is widely accepted as being easy to understand. There are long-standing issues about the use of the official mark, which has to be applied by hand to each ballot paper at the polling station under rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules.
The procedure dates from the Ballot Act 1872. On occasion, votes have been invalid because of human error in failing to apply the official mark. That was a feature of the election petition at Winchester after the 1997 general election. For some years, there has been disquiet about the policy of numbering ballot papers and counterfoils, in case the two are combined to facilitate vote tracing other than in the context of an election petition or criminal investigation, although counterfoils can be used to trace electoral offences.
Column Number: 109
That issue was explored in 1997 by the Home Affairs Committee, which supported a limited view that the system played little part in the prevention of personation, and that concerns about possible abuse of the system by state agencies outweighed other considerations. The Electoral Reform Society evidence considered that the existing system should be maintained because of its use in local government elections on a number of occasions to uncover fraud. The issue was raised again by the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe report on the 2005 election, which recommended the abolition of serial numbers on ballot papers. The Government response to that report set out the justifications for the current approach.
The Electoral Commission made proposals to improve the security aspects of ballot papers in its policy report ''Equal access to democracy'', summarised in ''Voting for change—An electoral law modernisation programme''. It recommended the use of bar codes in place of serial numbers on ballot papers for detection of fraud, and watermarks in place of the official mark to reduce the scope for human error to invalidate the vote cast. The Government response accepted both proposals. The Department for Constitutional Affairs paper of May 2005 announced proposals to change the design of ballot papers in order to improve security. The proposed changes were to improve security markings on ballot papers through watermarks or security printing and to replace serial numbers on ballot papers with bar codes, allowing fraudulent votes to be more easily identified and removed.
The paper noted that bar coding had been used in a number of recent electoral pilots, notably in the European parliamentary elections of June 2004, local elections and the north-east assembly referendum in November 2004. Bar coding would also allow electors to check with the returning officer whether their postal votes had been received before the close of voting. It would also assist returning officers who are asked to issue replacement ballot papers to electors who had not received them. At present, that is possible only up to 5 pm on polling day.
1.15 pm
The May 2005 policy paper also announced proposals to allow the automated production of postal vote documents that did not look identical to the ballot paper. That has been the subject of a number of pilots. At present, statutory requirements ensure that postal ballots are identical to those cast at polling stations. The policy paper says:
''The law as it stands was originally designed to ensure that the rare postal vote did not stand out against the ones cast at the polling station which would potentially allow people to identify how someone voted''.
Clause 32 amends the provisions on the design of ballot papers to allow for two columns of named candidates in elections with several candidates. It allows the Secretary of State to make regulations on ballot paper design so that primary legislation is no longer required to make changes. I see that the
Column Number: 110
Minister of State is busily preparing herself for her response to the debate.
We accept many of the suggested security improvements to ballot papers. Our amendments seek to avoid giving the Secretary of State such a wide power to decide on the nature and design of ballot papers without parliamentary approval. Amendment No. 59 would require consultation with all registered political parties before the Secretary of State could prescribe a different form of ballot paper. Amendment No. 60 would require regulations made under these provisions to be laid before Parliament and approved by the resolution of each House.
Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a tad excessive that both Houses should have to approve the size and shape of a ballot paper? Further, as ballot papers have no effect on the House of Lords, should their lordships have a say at all?
Mr. Djanogly: That point may or may not be important; it depends how radically the Government wanted to change the ballot paper. We believe that such changes should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Given the importance of ballot papers, and the Government's poor record on electoral matters in recent times—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Cairns): Not on winning elections.
Mr. Djanogly: The Government may be good at winning elections, but they do not organise them so well. It is important that Parliament does not lose control.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), which seeks to give the Secretary of State further powers to prescribe a minimum size of font to be used on ballot papers. Our amendments, saying that Parliament should have control, supersede what my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Heath: This interesting group of amendments deals with Ministers' intentions. It is clearly a de minimis issue; it would be nonsense for both Houses to debate changes in the size and design of ballot papers, but it would be entirely proper for radical changes to be debated. We ought to have the opportunity to discuss the basic rules of design.
Generally speaking, our ballot papers are well designed. However, problems for those with disabilities must be properly dealt with; the Minister knows of those concerns, and that she needs to talk to the representatives of the various disability organisations to ensure that we do our best to ensure that people can vote independently.
Amendment No. 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, is about font size. Speaking as a registered optician, I entirely agree that there should be a minimum size. I find it odd that we could have a ballot paper that people with poor eyesight were be unable to read with confidence. The point is rapidly reached when it becomes difficult to ascertain exactly what is written on the ballot paper.
Column Number: 111
There are also design issues about which we are all confused. The only ballot paper issued to me in recent years that caused me some concern was for the mayoral elections in London—I see the Minister nodding. The folding instructions were clearly harder for many people to understand than one might have expected. I cast my vote in the Brick lane polling station, and I know that the ballot paper seriously confused a number of people. That is an example of a ballot paper that was not well designed.
There are, therefore, some basic standards and guidelines that the House should consider. There are also issues about people with disabilities, on which the Minister must have further discussions. I suspect that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) will not press the amendments to a Division, but I hope that his points are listened to seriously.
The Chairman: Before I call the Minister to reply, I note that the bits of paper before her suggest that she may be about to demonstrate some things visually to the Committee. Although I enjoy ''Show and Tell'' as much as the sandpit at playtime, it is important for her to bear mind the fact that her words must be intelligible to those who follow our proceedings in Hansard—so with that in mind, I am sure that she will describe whatever it is she has in front of her .
| 
