Recall of MPs Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Rennard

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

It presumably works when I agree with the noble Baroness’s arguments. Sadly, I may not on this amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

There may have been others when the noble Lord did.

As we said earlier, the idea of reviewing the Bill—in that case it was to see how it fitted with the cases taken to the electoral court—seems entirely sensible. It is a new part of our democratic structure and one that could impact both on how MPs see their role and how constituents view their ability to hold MPs to account. While the Act is new, we will need to see whether it achieves the aims set for it. We must also review whether, as we fear and as the House has heard, big money could enter the equation; or, failing that, whether local electors who participated in a recall feel empowered by it or cheated by it, or that it was not what they expected. Anyway, we think that all Bills should be subject to some post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that they solve whatever they were set up to meet, and we support a review once the process has been used.

What surprises me is that the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Tyler, who is not in his place, should want a review in the hands of a committee with an in-built Commons majority. As my noble friend Lord Kennedy said just now, we foresee a bigger role for an independent organisation, the Electoral Commission, in reviewing the workings of the Act, should it ever be used. Therefore, I am particularly surprised that an eminent academic, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, does not want a more vigorous and independent look at the operation of the Act. I am equally surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who in Committee argued for an independent trigger out of the hands of MPs, now wants a review conducted by a Committee with a majority of MPs. Sadly, he is not here to explain himself.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Rennard

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments 5, 21 and 22 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler. These amendments concern the detail of potential civil penalties. From the outset of the consultation on the draft Bill, I argued strongly that the existing legal requirement to fill in a registration form when invited to do so must continue under individual registration.

At the moment, electoral registration forms have something like an 80% response rate. Although that is not as high as we would like, it is a clear indication of the value of the statement on the form that there is a legal requirement to complete it and to return it. The civil penalty is a distinct arrangement for individual registration as opposed to the household inquiry form. In my view, the present criminal offence for failing to fill in a household form is proportionate in that failing to do so can prevent others from having the right to vote. That criminal offence will remain for the household inquiry forms under IER. The civil penalty associated with the follow-up individual registration process should be welcomed by electoral registration officers since it retains a serious sanction for them to use as a last resort when someone fails to fill in an individual registration form, but one that would be less cumbersome than having to initiate a full criminal prosecution.

I am very pleased that the Government have given us the benefit of seeing in draft form the regulations that will govern the operation of the civil penalty. Like all our amendments, Amendments 21 and 22 are there simply to encourage the Minister to look at whether the civil offence of not filling in the form when requested to do so by an electoral registration officer should be one of strict liability; in other words, can not knowing or not understanding that you were supposed to fill it in and return it be a proper defence? I am sceptical that anyone, after a registration officer has gone through all the steps set out in the draft regulations, could not know or understand that there is a legal requirement for them to register. A great deal of time and money could be wasted with people claiming that in fact they did not know or understand.

Ministers have talked about the level of the civil penalty being akin to a parking fine. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, wishes to address that in his Amendments 23 and 29. I suggest that if it is to be like a parking fine, the idea that you can escape it by simply saying that you did not know you were responsible or you did not understand the rules is misplaced. As anyone who has received a parking fine—as I suspect many of us will have done at some point—will know, not understanding or not knowing that you have to pay it is not a defence. If we could all claim ignorance, many more of us would park illegally with impunity. I would be most grateful for the Minister’s comments on that point in his response to Amendments 21 and 22.

Amendment 5 deals with trying to ensure that people are indeed fully aware of the potential fine. If it is made a strict liability matter, as it probably should be, it is clearly even more important that people are informed at every opportunity of the risk of a fine if they do not register. To that end, we believe that this fact must be spelled out on the individual registration form itself. The draft regulations before the House suggest that the prospect of a penalty will be mentioned only in the “invitation to register”, which is effectively a covering letter to the form. Clearly, there is a risk that any covering letter could be set aside in haste and that an elector would not know of the legal requirement to register if it is not printed clearly on the form as well.

Finally, Amendment 4 seeks to equip electoral registration officers with a civil penalty as a means of obtaining necessary information from people when they request it. The Government’s present plans, as I understand them, are for the civil penalty to be imposed only if someone fails after several times of asking to return a form. However, there is a risk that someone may not provide enough information to permit the electoral registration officer to proceed with a registration. The Government’s position is that someone who has not provided enough information should not be subject to criminal prosecution under the present offence of failing to provide information when requested, yet the Bill and the draft regulations do not provide any way for the established alternative to criminal prosecution—the civil penalty—to be used instead. We believe that this needs to be addressed. In tabling all these amendments, we are seeking some reassurances for the record—to see in Hansard—that these issues will be dealt with and remedied in the final version of orders which come before this House.

Commenting briefly on Amendments 23 and 29, I do not personally think that it would be right to put the level of the penalty in the Bill. Clearly, it will need to change from time to time, just as the previous criminal penalty changed many times, from £20, I think, when it was first introduced in 1991 to £50, £400 and then to £1,000 over the years. Since this will change from time to time, I am not sure we should fix it now for ever at £100. However, if the process does work, people will ultimately find that it is simply easier to register than it is to pay any fine. All I would hope in this part of our deliberations is that the Committee will be told the latest government thinking on the level of penalty.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I will address the two amendments in this group in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. They concern the new civil penalty in the Bill, separate from the criminal offence, with, as we have heard, a possible penalty of £1,000. The civil penalty is for failure to co-operate with the electoral registration officer.

It remains a serious civic matter for people to be on the register, not least of course for jury service, for which nearly all are eligible, although not myself and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. Having been on the judicial bench—in a small way in my case, as a magistrate—we are I think are excluded from jury service. However, for the vast majority, of course this is the important source for identifying those who will serve on juries. Also, as democrats, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, it is an important right that everyone who has the vote—for which many have fought in the past—is able to exercise that right. They need to be on the register because they need to be able to vote at the moment at which the mood so takes them. Often, that may be only days before an election, when they suddenly want to kick out whoever is there or, on the contrary, maintain the incumbent; or in some way influence the Government or the local authority. However, it is only if they have registered at the appropriate point, rather than a day or so before the election, that their right can be exercised. It is for this reason that it is so important for us to get this registration accurate and complete as early as possible.

We will hear—and already have heard—a lot about the importance of the register being complete, but it behoves all of us to play our part in that by responding to the request for information from an electoral registration officer, so that we can, if eligible, be correctly entered on to the register. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, suggested it could perhaps be done by statutory instrument but the significance of Parliament writing it into law in the Bill and deciding the penalty for failure to comply with this part of our civic responsibility should not be underemphasised. For that reason, Amendment 29 would remove from Schedule 3 the power to determine the amount of the civil penalty by regulation and Amendment 23 would write into the Bill that it should be £100.

The exact amount perhaps need not detain us this afternoon, although it surely should be at the very least the same as a parking ticket, which some in the Committee may find themselves frequently having to pay. We can perhaps discuss the exact amount some other time but surely the principle is that Parliament, with this new system of registration, should fix the amount clearly in the Bill as an indication of the seriousness with which it views registration. That is the point that we want to make.

I shall speak to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and his birthday compatriot the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I also wish him a happy birthday, and I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is not here to pass her wishes on; if she is watching, we can wish her a happy 80th birthday today. I will add emphasis to what has been said about those civil penalties and their use by registration officers. Particularly for the initial use of this brand-new system of registration, it will be important to impress on registration officers the significance and importance of the task that they are undertaking on our behalf, in part so that they communicate this effectively to all those with whom they will have dealings in obtaining and then registering relevant information. If individual electoral registration is to be the success that we all hope for, everyone must play their part. With the penalties being the only real weapon in the hands of those on whom we will depend to produce the register, we must give the EROs the backing to employ civil penalties if need be, and particularly the ability to have the threat of using them to the full.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Rennard

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this is perhaps the most important of the amendments that we will discuss today. This group of amendments has basically a twofold purpose. One is to maintain the annual canvass. The annual canvass is a critical tool, not only in compiling the register but as the only way of judging whether the other systems, which we welcome, and all the other work that is taking place on getting information from a variety of data sources are actually working. Without the annual canvass, there will simply be no check on the completeness of the register.

I have discussed this with a number of people who have more current experience in this area than I do, and they are adamant that the old fashioned canvass remains a crucial tool in locating citizens domiciled in Great Britain. Simply put, as has been said for other reasons, houses do not move. Ensuring that their eligible residents are on the list is best done via the canvass—really, nothing else competes.

We will press the Government hard on this, so our other proposals in this group to make it harder to abolish the canvass and to ensure that this could happen only with the super-affirmative procedure would, we hope, not actually be needed. Certainly I think it would be unacceptable to this House for an elected politician in government to take the decision to dispense with this crucial democratic tool. Our amendments, should any such proposal to abolish be considered, would ensure that the Electoral Commission’s report on this came before Parliament, not just to the Minister, and that any similar report published on piloting proposed changes to the annual canvass also came here, with time for debate on those, and that any proposals to change the canvass were made only with Electoral Commission approval. The Electoral Commission was quite rightly set up to take many of these decisions about the running of elections out of the hands of those with a vested interest in the outcome; in other words, elected politicians. It is therefore right that any proposals to change the way the register is compiled, for example, should have the Electoral Commission’s public nod of approval so that everyone can see that fair play in the interests of voters and democracy is taking place. I doubt that anyone will argue with that.

There are other proposals in this group where I doubt the Minister will raise any objection, particularly that the local registration officers should ensure that they have addressed every residential property with which they have contact, whether for council tax or anything else, as well as those in the relevant gazetteer.

There is one further word in these amendments to which I would draw the Committee’s attention: October. It is no good having a January canvass because by the time the register is complete it is almost too late for all the systems to download all that information. It perhaps sounds an easy job but, because it is done locally, the computer formats used by local authorities are not quite the same. I have looked them up. Formats include three types of Strand format, a Pickwick format, a Pickwick variant, CSV files, Xpress formats and page image formats. If all those come in, it takes a lot of time. If the annual canvass takes place too late, there is simply not time to do all that data cleansing between these different computer programs, on which I do not profess to be an expert.

The Government said that they currently have no plans to remove the power to abolish the annual canvass. I wondered about the word “currently”. I hope it means that the Minister will listen to us about the need for an annual canvass and remove from the Bill that ability to abolish it. Only a few minutes ago, he said that instead of addressing landlords, it was much better to have a canvass of all properties—I think I wrote down his words correctly. Amen to that. A canvass of all properties is an essential tool for making sure we have caught everybody, and the idea that it could be abolished by a Minister without Parliament having a say is one that we could not go along with. I beg to move.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, the annual canvass is an established part of our electoral arrangements and, on the face of it, there cannot be a more effective way of finding people living in their homes than to go knocking on their doors. I am therefore instinctively sceptical about the prospect of abolishing this annual exercise. Like so much of the transition to individual electoral registration, the possibility of ceasing the annual canvass is very much contingent on the success of other parts of the package.

If there is a comprehensive process of data matching and data mining, of the sort we discussed in the previous group of amendments, and electoral registration officers get a serious suite of ways to discover that someone has moved into or out of a local address, the Government’s argument that the canvass may at some time in future become redundant starts to look more realistic. However, there should always be a duty on returning officers to visit a property where they believe an elector is based and to revisit and revisit again, if necessary, to find them in. We know that just sending letters is not enough, and to that extent Amendment 14 raises a particularly important point about what returning officers have to do. We will come back to look at that again in the context of a duty to take all necessary steps to establish a complete and accurate register when we get to Amendment 39 on Wednesday.

Turning briefly to the specific provisions in some of the amendments in this group, I would make the following observations. It does not appear, on the face of it, that there is a good reason for an annual canvass always to take place in October. Indeed, in many ways, it would be easier and more sensible to undertake such work in the spring, when evenings are lighter and days are longer. The tradition of the October canvass goes back to when 10 October was the fixed date of electoral registration and therefore the canvass was timed for October to coincide with it. Once we sensibly moved to rolling registration with the ability to go on the electoral register at any time, it was no longer necessary to have an October canvass, so the annual canvass can take place at any time. It seems to me that on a cold, dark night, people would be less willing to open their doors. We all know that from our canvassing experience. It would probably be better to do this canvass earlier in the year.

Like some of the earlier Labour amendments, Amendment 37 seeks to turn the Electoral Commission from a body that reports and gives advice to Parliament to one that makes decisions. We are not therefore inclined to support this amendment, which would mean that the commission had to agree every pilot which might take place. In general, like the previous Government, I am in favour of piloting and I do not think that it should be subject to the veto of an advisory body. Pilots of this nature generally should be welcomed.

No doubt in his concluding remarks, the Minister will make reference to Clause 7, which was added on Report in the Commons specifically to make sure that the Electoral Commission had a strong role. The role given to the Electoral Commission in the Bill appears to be the one that it asked for in its briefing at the time; namely, to make clear that the Electoral Commission must be consulted and its response made available to Parliament before any order is made to reinstate the annual canvass. We do not think that it is right to alter that very logical and consistent position.

Amendments 31 and 38 perhaps provide a neat reassurance. Looking at them, they probably provide a middle way between having this provision and not having it, in that the use of a super-affirmative procedure to remove the annual canvass in future would by definition ensure that such decision underwent thorough scrutiny. We would very much welcome that.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Rennard

Monday 20th December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

The noble Lord suggests that perhaps few people have taken advantage of the rolling register. Does he not recall that in April—the month of the general election campaign—many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people, used this rolling register facility to register to vote in the general election? All the reasons why people do not wish to be on the register may apply in the future, while this year, because of the general election, many more people applied for inclusion on it. That is why 1 December might be a very good date on which to base the boundary review.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Before my noble friend responds, will he consider what those young people, many of them probably students, will think, having got on to the register and possibly having voted Liberal Democrat, possibly because of tuition fees; and how they may now feel about being added to the register?

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Rennard

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it is late so I will make just four points. First, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who sat through most of the debate, is not here. I want to take up something that he mentioned—a threshold for the referendum. That has also been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport. This, as has been said, is an implementing, not an advisory, referendum. However, it will turn on a single moment of thought. There will be no Second Reading, no Third Reading in both Houses on the issue, and no time for ifs and buts—just a sudden death play-off between two sides and only two sides. Can we really think it is a great idea to change decades or centuries of voting habits on a turnout of, perhaps, 15 per cent and a majority of, perhaps, 1,000, in a single moment of thought? That moment, incidentally, might reflect delight with or contempt for the Government of the day, rather than a real verdict on the issue on which the noble Lord has just spoken.

[Lord Rennard]

On the issue of turnout, there were referendums in Scotland and Wales, introduced by the Labour Government in 1997, and proposals by the Labour Government possibly to consider referendums on the European constitution and the single currency. Indeed, in the last Labour manifesto, there were proposals for a referendum on the alternative vote. Where was the mention, at any point in any of these referendums, of a threshold being applied?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

At that stage I would also have argued for a threshold. George Cunningham remains a friend of mine; he reminds me frequently of the importance of a threshold. However, there is a difference in that this is an implementing referendum, rather than what they would have been.

I ask another question. There is the threshold issue, but is a majority of one across the whole nation enough? In a way, I look forward to our debates on the equivalent of the hanging chad. Will there be spoilt ballot papers and people outside polling stations unable to get in? Will Peers or EU citizens perhaps be forbidden to vote in the referendum—one correctly and one incorrectly? That should tie up the electoral court for many a long night. What if Wales votes one way and England another? Have we considered having different voting systems in these two different countries?

Secondly, I turn to the question of numbers. I enjoyed the grasping at the air of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, yesterday on where he thought the number 600 came from. My noble friend Lady Liddell said yesterday that she hoped the Minister would explain this lovely round number when he replied. We look forward to that later this evening. The Constitution Select Committee concluded that this number was chosen without consideration of the role or functions of MPs and, as has been said many times in this debate, that it unbalanced the relationship between government and Parliament with no reduction in the payroll vote, boosting the power of the Executive rather than the power of the legislature. What do the Government have against Wales that they have decided to drop a quarter of its seats? Perhaps that was vengeance for Wales not voting Tory often enough. That step certainly does not show an understanding of the very special geography, history, culture and language of my original home.

Thirdly, as many noble Lords have said, it is important that boundaries take account of more than numbers. They should take account especially of geography, whether of Anglesey—where I used to live—across the Menai Bridge; that of Cornwall, across the Tamar; or that of the Isle of Wight across the Solent. They should also take account of the geography of valleys—coming from Wales, I know about those—and of rivers. I now live in London, where almost my biggest decision in life was to move from Battersea Bridge Road, just by the river, across the river to the north bank. I have only just got over that and that was 26 years ago. The Scottish boundary is sacrosanct but other boundaries, such as the river in London, are not recognised, and will not be recognised in the drawing-up of boundaries. In the days of the Empire when we were carving up the colonies, people with pencils drew lines across countries to which they had never been. I have visions of that happening here, with the same bad results, because we should not take into account simply physical geography—important though I think that is—but travel-to-work zones, hospital and school catchment areas, transport hubs, even football supporters and where they come from. These are also important issues for community, as my noble friend Lady McDonagh said. Local government, especially education authorities, has to work very closely with its populations. Education authorities must ensure that there are adequate junior school places, and senior school places for pupils to feed into subsequently. This is something about which parents feel very strongly and on which they frequently lobby their MPs, but how can MPs understand the issues involved if they are dealing with two or even three local authorities and MPs’ boundaries shift every five years, just when they have got to know the characteristics of their local schools, local communities and the travel and local hubs?

Furthermore, it is not simply voters who contact their MP, as all those in the House who have been MPs will know much better than me. Hospital staff, the police, businesses and school heads also contact their MPs and may well have views on how their community can best be represented in Parliament. However, they will have no say in decisions on boundaries taken by the commission. Such groups and individuals should be able to make representations to the boundary commissions on constituencies other than the one in which they live. Businesses, which rely heavily on local and transport services, may find themselves dealing with a number of different MPs for no other reason than that this Government prefer tidy numbers to the true representation of local interests.

The proposal that constituency numbers are based solely on registered voters does serious disservice—indeed, disrespect—to the role of MPs, whose workload, responsibilities and pastoral concern extend to, and are generated by, the whole population of their constituency, as many of your Lordships have said. We therefore need a greater margin than the simple plus or minus 5 per cent to allow for these vital attributes. As Andrew George—I believe that he is not a Labour MP—has said in another place:

“The Boundary Commission should be given the discretion to recognise identity, culture, tradition, history, geography … so that places with strong identities, historic communities”,—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/10; col. 680.]

are not divided up to satisfy statistical equalisation.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue comprises boundary reviews. Only written submissions are to be permitted. Let me think who that might favour. Will it favour those with money who can employ clever specialists and PR advisers; those well used to the written word as their weapon of choice; and those with access to computers, design facilities, photocopiers and postage? Let me think who they might be. Would they be shop workers, local parents, hospital patients, tenants’ groups or youngsters? No, they would not have access to such facilities or the ability to undertake such a campaign, but hitherto they have had the right to hear, see and comment on the submissions of others. The process will become the equivalent of the sealed bid process, with substantial documents being received on the closing day from well heeled vested interests. It will be much harder for local groups—the big society, on which our Prime Minister is so keen—to make their voices heard.

I contend that this point is particularly important in view of the fact that the first major redistribution exercise will affect every seat—sorry, every seat bar two—in the country. This redrawing will disrupt and destabilise community identity and voters’ identification with their existing MPs. Worse, it will then continue in each Parliament, thus damaging the ongoing pastoral role of MPs, which depends on working relationships not only with their population and its representatives—whether that is local tenants’ groups, parents’ groups or local business communities—but with the relevant decision-makers, who might be local authorities, hospital trusts, water, gas and electricity suppliers, PCTs, GP commissioners or the police. Those relationships really matter if an MP is to do his or her work properly and effectively on behalf of their electorate. Constituencies need community identity in order to function as part of our democracy and local people are best able to explain that, including the relevance of a constituency’s name, which might be the biggest issue that the boundary commissions have to face. There need to be public hearings for this matter to be debated and to enable the community to become involved in it.

If the Government truly believe in the big society, they will want that community involvement. The old Liberal Democrats—how we miss them—favoured public involvement and democratic scrutiny of the Executive, but they now seem to be afraid of public hearings about these proposals. I wonder why.