Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Strathclyde Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Strathclyde]

122S: Schedule 8, page 274, line 29, leave out “spoilt”

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, this is a new but small point. The amendment seeks to ensure that instruction 9 of form 2—

“Form of Declaration of Identity (to be used where proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers combined)”—

in Part 3 of Schedule 8 requires voters to return all the postal ballot papers in their pack in the event that any ballot paper is spoilt and a replacement is required. The voter will then be issued with a complete new set provided that the originals are returned by 5 pm on the day before the day of the poll. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach]

I congratulate the noble Lord or his official on having spotted that the word “spoilt” should not be included. It is not used in reference to England, Scotland and Wales; it crept in for Northern Ireland but it has been taken out again. We do not oppose the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, that is very doubtful indeed. The expression “at any stage” could well apply to the position after there had been recounts. When you reach that stage the count should be abandoned, to use my noble friend’s words in the amendment.

I would never accuse the two noble Lords but there is a kind of nitpicking in relation to this amendment. It is certainly not my intention—unless they persuade me otherwise—eventually to ask for the opinion of the House on the amendment; I want to know what the Government feel about this issue. My noble friend is making a serious proposal. He does not like lots being used at any stage in a democratic election and many may feel that he has a point. He says let the voters decide, not the toss of a coin or the drawing of short and long sticks. It cannot be right for administrative convenience to take over from elections.

My noble friend’s second amendment also relates to alternative vote elections. Noble Lords who are still following me will see on page 297 rule 12(2)(b), which reads,

“the numbers on the left-hand side are omitted, together with the vertical rule separating them from the particulars of the candidates”.

In other words, under an alternative vote election, because it will be open to a voter to put “1”, “2”, “3” and so on on the right-hand side of the ballot paper, the number by each candidate that we are used to seeing on the left-hand side will go in alternative vote elections.

My noble friend is concerned about that, although he sees the sense of why that should be, because there may well be confusion if the numbers on the left-hand side link “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6” and the job of the poor voter is to put in “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6” on the right-hand side. There is a serious point here that we should not run away from. This is an issue because in a number of constituencies—maybe many around the country, not just inner-city ones but also ones in other areas—English is the second language for many people, and they currently vote by numbers. Supporters of all parties have been known—and there is nothing wrong with it at all—to stand outside the polling station, asking for support for a particular number on the ballot paper. In other words, the voters do not do English for names but can do numbers. This is not a patronising comment, it is what actually happens in the real world and it is the way votes are taken quite legitimately in some other foreign countries.

Supporters of a particular candidate can no longer use numbers because they will not be on the ballot paper under the alternative vote system. This amendment is strictly to probe the issue of names and numbers on ballot papers, were we to have an alternative vote system. My noble friend—I do so on his behalf—asks whether the Government have thought about this issue and whether this will make people a bit more reluctant to go to the polls or to vote if they realise that this change will be made and they will not be able to vote by numbers. I beg to move.

[Lord Strathclyde]

The noble Lord was kind to speak to these amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who meant no discourtesy by not being here—he could not have possibly imagined that we would still be in Committee this week when he planned the rest of his diary. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a skilful and interesting amendment. It is also an imaginative amendment, but it raises points that need to be answered, which I shall try to do.

The purpose of the amendment is to insert new provisions into Schedule 10 to make provision where there is equality of votes at any stage in the counting process. The proposed approach differs significantly from that provided for in the Bill, which essentially proposes that a tie between candidates will be settled by reference to the number of votes secured by the relevant candidates in previous counting rounds, starting with the number of first preference votes obtained in the first counting round. If at that stage there is a tie, the next stage will be looked at and so on. If that process fails to decide the tie—that is, there is an equality of votes for the respective candidates at all previous counting stages—the tie will be decided by the drawing of lots. Under the Bill, there is no provision for the poll to be abandoned and a fresh election held in the event of a tie between candidates. The Government recognise that it is possible to take different approaches on this issue. However, in developing the AV provisions in the Bill, we have taken into account the legislation and practice in elections to bodies across the UK and in other countries where preferences are used.

There is a strong case for referring back to the first preference votes received by candidates and taking those into account in the first instance when deciding a tie, as the first preference votes represent voters’ first choice as to which candidate should be elected. The noble Lord wishes to avoid an election being decided by lot. Under the current rules for UK parliamentary elections—under the first-past-the-post system—in the event of a tie, the returning officer decides the winner by lot. In the AV provisions, we are continuing with that principle that a tied vote can be decided by lot.

As my noble friend ably pointed out, the amendment as drafted would result in a fresh election being held in the event of a tie between candidates at any stage of the counting process, regardless of which candidates were involved. We think it would be hard to justify abandoning a poll where, for example, 10 candidates are standing and there is a tie between, say, the ninth and 10th placed candidates in the first round of voting. I know the noble Lord said this was a probing amendment—I understand that—but that is a flaw in the argument.