REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1949

HC Deb 11 November 1964 vol 701 cc1155-64

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lawson.]

10.1 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

I begin by offering sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) on his appointment. I extend to him my very good wishes for a happy and successful tenure of office. My hon. Friend is possessed of infinite charm and good humour, coupled with a deep fund of good commonsense. I therefore expect that this evening he will be largely in agreement with what I have to say.

I sought this Adjournment debate as a direct result of some personal experiences during the recent General Election which led me to make some investigations into the administration of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. I regret to say that, as a result of those investigations, I have some grave misgivings about the whole administration of the Act.

Broadly speaking, my remarks this evening will fall under two heads: first, actions committed by the presiding officer or the polling clerk which lead to the rejection of ballot papers, and, secondly, the state of the electoral register.

Paragraph 27 of the Parliamentary Elections Rules lays this duty on the returning officer: The returning officer shall appoint and pay a presiding officer to attend at each polling station and such clerks as may be necessary for the purposes of the election, but he shall not appoint any person who has been employed by or on behalf of a candidate in or about the election. The first question to which we have to address ourselves is: how are the presiding officers and polling agents recruited? I know that the practice varies from area to area, but, generally speaking, there is a shortage of such people who can undertake this responsible duty which is an important aspect of democratic elections.

On making inquiries from the deputy returning officer of Lanarkshire, which includes Glasgow's 15 constituencies, I found that, generally, the practice is to have a sprinkling of local government officers reinforced by people from the employment exchanges. There may be people from the employment exchanges who can do this work. In fact, there are many disabled people who can sensibly and intelligently discharge the duty of a presiding officer or polling clerk, but no test whatsoever is applied to the people who are sent by the employment exchanges. It seemed to me that, in the absence of such a test, it might be necessary to narrow the field of recruits to responsible people, drawing these officers on the election day from the local government service or from the teaching profession, who are generally on holiday during the period of a General Election.

I know that there are many people who act as presiding officers who are well over 80 years of age. One case in the constituency I represent was the following—I discovered that the lady who acted as a polling clerk was almost stone deaf and an elector had to repeat her name about four times before she agreed that there was such a name upon the electoral register. If we are going to allow this haphazard method of appointment, we must look at the results of what I regard, in a large number of cases, as unfit people discharging this duty.

There is nothing laid down in the regulations, as far as I am aware, as to what briefing ought to take place in order to instruct the people who are recruited for this job on the day of the election. It may be in some areas that some definite line is laid down by the returning officers, but in the Lanarkshire area I discovered that all the people, and there are over 3,000 in Lanarkshire, are brought in small groups before the returning officer, who delivers a little lecture lasting from eight to ten minutes about the duties of the presiding officer. They are given a booklet about a week before the election day, they are asked to read it, and that sums up the whole of the briefing, the whole of the instruction, that these individuals receive.

I am concerned with one aspect of rejected ballot papers. Where an elector so chooses to invalidate his paper, that is his or her business, but I think it is wrong that there should be such a large number of papers rejected because of the gross errors and wrong actions of a presiding officer or a polling agent. In my own constituency, I discovered for the first time a most unusual form of error, which led to the rejection of 60 valid ballot papers because of the gross error or action of presiding officers. There were 60 papers where the presiding officer or his polling clerk had written across the face of the ballot paper in ink the electoral number that appeared opposite the name of the elector in the electoral register. There was nothing that the returning officer could do, because it is expressly laid down that where there is any mark upon the ballot paper which could identify the elector such a ballot paper is automatically rejected.

There was another case. When I was speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) he told me that in his constituency 200 ballot papers had been invalidated because the presiding officer had written on the reverse side of the ballot paper the electoral number in the register. In addition to that, in my own constituency, we had cases of ballot papers rejected because not only was the ballot paper torn out but it was torn out together with the counterfoil.

This is one aspect of invalidation or rejection. The other aspect is the case which is all too common, of the presiding officer omitting to affix the mark to the ballot paper itself. Something which, during my long experience of public life, has caused me a good deal of grief is that we should have people, briefed as they are all too shortly, with an instruction in front of them on the table saying that all ballot papers must be franked before being handed to the elector, who fail to carry out this instruction. Therefore I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether, instead of waiting until the last minute and allowing a forgetful presiding officer or polling clerk to omit to affix the stamp, thereby invalidating a good paper, it would be possible—and if it is impossible why it is—to have that frank or perforation affixed when the ballot paper is printed?

I know that we shall hear stories about the possibility of forgery or fraud. If anyone wished to engage in forgery, they could do so by getting a postal ballot paper, when they would see that the frank is affixed to the postal vote. If so minded, they could copy that.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I think the hon. Member is wrong about that. The frank on a postal ballot paper is different from that on an ordinary ballot paper. I am with the hon. Member in considering that there are difficulties and inefficiencies about the selection of people. Will he bear in mind the suggestions which I made to the House in the last Parliament about avoiding confusion over the names of candidates, and will he try to urge some of his hon. and right hon. Friends to adopt the measures which I suggested at that time?

Sir M. Galpern

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come to that point.

I should like to hear from my hon. Friend the reasons why it is impossible to have the frank affixed to a voting paper during the printing of the paper. Because of errors in franking, we find that thousands of ballot papers, which otherwise would be perfectly valid, are rejected.

Another aspect relating to rejected ballot papers arises from what is done by an elector. I am not worried about that. But during the recent General Election 11 Members of Parliament were returned to this House with majorities of under 200. They included majorities of 11, 14, 27, 47 and 53. If any candidate was defeated by 53 votes when there were 60 perfectly good ballot papers which had to be rejected because of some action on the part of the presiding officer, it might not only have altered the result of the election, but, in a situation such as that in which we find ourselves today regarding the state of the parties in the House, it might well have altered the composition of the Government. I do not say that that would have happened, but it could have happened.

I suggest that we should try to recruit more responsible people as presiding officers and polling clerks. Those are very responsible jobs. Teachers and local government officers could, I think, be found in sufficient numbers to be employed to discharge such duties. There is nothing laid down in the Act to ensure that these people are briefed in the duties they have to perform. The briefing sessions should be longer and people should be put through a test by means of a mock election to discover whether they can perform their duties.

I wish to refer to the state of the register. I have every sympathy with registration officers, who have a very difficult and onerous task to discharge. Their staff consists of temporary employees whose duties are laid down in the Act. The staff must make sure that all houses are visited in a house-to-house inquiry or other sufficient inquiry made as to the persons entitled to be registered. I have discovered from conversations, with some of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members since the General Election, that the state of the register in their areas, as in my own, was absolutely shocking.

That is not always the fault of the registration officer, it is often due to the inefficiency and laziness of people engaged to carry out the canvass. In Glasgow there are residences comprising three or four flats to which access is gained by stairs. In a number of cases canvassers would knock at the door of the downstairs flat and inquire of the occupant whether "Mr. and Mrs. Brown", four stairs up, still lived at that address, or whether they had died. Whatever the occupant of the ground floor flat communicated to the canvasser was taken as gospel and recorded. That is not good enough in such an important matter. Not only did that happen frequently, but buildings and whole streets were excluded. Generally speaking the register was in a shocking state.

I come to the state of the register vis-à-vis the number of "Y" electors who were due to vote for the first time in the recent General Election. From official figures supplied by the Home Department and the Scottish Home Department, it appears that in 618 constituencies, excluding Northern Ireland, 319,450 young voters were on the register. But about 710,000 young people became 21 during 1964. Of that total it can be reasonably assumed that during the qualifying period the number who would reach their majority would be about 460,000. Therefore, 140,000 young people were robbed of the opportunity to vote at the recent General Election. With figures of such magnitude, it is time that the whole of the administration of this Section, together with the other Sections of the Representation of the People Act, was examined. In addition to the large numbers I have mentioned, there were many more omissions—lodgers, people who had changed their addresses, and so on.

I realise that electors are warned, as they have been warned at present, that they should go to libraries or some other public place and check that their names appear on the register. I regret to say that, human nature being what it is, all too few people avail themselves of the opportunity. I wonder whether two things would be possible.

First, since so many movements are taking place, with people moving from place to place because of overspill and 101 redevelopments, why cannot we revert to the six-monthly register which was in operation up to 1949 but which, for reasons of economy, ceased to operate? That would to a great extent obviate many of the cases which have occurred of people not getting the opportunity to vote. Secondly, just as the returning officer sends out a polling card to each elector on the register prior to the General Election, possibly some machinery could be devised so that the registration officer should send out a card to each elector indicating that he is on the register. If an elector did not receive such a card, one would hope that he would be goaded into going and finding out why he had not.

With these brief remarks dealing with two broad issues, I hope that I have given my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State something on which he will be able to reply. I hope that in the interests of good democratic Government and democratic practices he will give us some assurances this evening that he will ensure that these matters are looked into before the next General Election.

10.18 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas)

I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) for the personal remarks that he addressed to me at the beginning of his speech. He is a very distinguished Member of the House and when a distinguished Scotsman pays tribute to a humble Welshman it is doubly appreciated.

My hon. Friend has raised a subject on which hon. Members on both sides of the House will be very sensitive. The administration of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, is a matter of the utmost importance in the conduct of a General Election. My hon. Friend, with his experience in the House, was wise to realise that we can only discuss tonight the administration of the Act. It would not, however, be inappropriate for me briefly to refer to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday in reply to Questions, namely: We are considering various proposals for electoral reform, and hope to arrange for discussion between the parties shortly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November. 1964; Vol. 701, c. 829.] The main issue which my hon. Friend has raised is whether the machinery set up by Statute has worked as it should and whether steps can be taken to make that machinery work more effectively and efficiently. I should like to make one or two brief general remarks before dealing with the points raised by my hon. Friend. In the Representation of the People Act, 1949, Parliament has placed responsibility for the conduct of the election in each constituency on the returning officer. In Scotland, this is the sheriff. In England and Wales, the returning officer for a borough constituency is the lord mayor or mayor and for a county constituency, the sheriff. In practice, as we all know, the returning officer delegates the exercise of most of his function to an acting returning officer, who is the town clerk or clerk to the county council, as the case may be, and in Scotland normally the sheriff clerk.

A returning officer is not subject to direction by or answerable to my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland as regards his conduct of an election. Although the acting returning officer is clerk of a local authority, he is not, as returning officer, the servant of or answerable to that authority. He is answerable to the courts in that summary proceedings may be taken against him by any person for any act or omission in breach of his official duties.

Breaches of official duty by a returning officer of so serious a nature that they might be thought to have affected the result of an election—and this was re- ferred to by my hon. Friend—could be a ground for an election petition. The statutory independence conferred upon the returning officer is designed to ensure the fair and impartial conduct of an election. It is true that both my right hon. Friends offer general guidance to returning officers, but there can be no question of giving instructions, still less instructions about particular points or places.

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—and I am glad to have my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office present with me in this debate—has it in mind in due course to convene a conference at which the difficulties that arose during the General Election may be considered. No decision has yet been taken whether similar general consideration is necessary in England and Wales.

Before I deal with the detail of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston, I should like to pay tribute to the very high general standard of efficiency and devotion to duty displayed by returning officers and acting returning officers and their staffs, to whom we in this House—I know that my hon. Friend feels the same as I do—

Sir M. Galpern

Hear, hear.

Mr. Thomas

—and, indeed, the electorate as a whole are greatly indebted. Each of us, being victors at the General Election, has had the privilege of proposing the vote of thanks, a privilege which I always appreciate deeply.

To turn to the important questions raised by my hon. Friend, he was concerned first with the recruitment of presiding officers and polling clerks. This is entirely a matter for the returning officer in terms of Rule 27 of the Second Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. In practice it is true that provisional lists of people suitable for appointment are compiled by the returning officer and that the help of the local office of the Ministry of Labour is sought. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that, of course, there are elderly and disabled persons who are quite competent, indeed more competent than some young and able-bodied people, and on social grounds as long as they are suitable they must be available and must have the chance to be employed.

My hon. Friend raised questions about Glasgow. I have no responsibility for Scotland. No Welshman would claim it. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about England?"] I have some responsibility there, I am pleased to say. In Glasgow because of the numbers involved—about 3,000—and the time available there is no possibility of all the candidates being personally vetted by the returning officer or his staff but about 300 of the staff recruited are deliberately taken from the corporation staff. These 300 are selected for their known competence in electoral matters and are appointed as No. 1 officers with general oversight of a school or some other public building containing a number of polling stations.

All presiding officers and clerks in Scotland are given quite clear instructions, and particular stress is laid on procedure for marking the counterfoil of the ballot paper and not the ballot paper itself. Everyone, of course, deplores it when mistakes are made. Millions of operations take place on election day and it would be a miracle if there were not some mistakes. I recall suffering an experience similar to that of my hon. Friend in the 1945 General Election. My majority was large enough to overcome my indignation but I know exactly how I would have felt if my majority had been less than the number of spoilt votes because the ballot papers were not embossed. I believe that returning officers take every possible care in the selection of people, and in the performance of their duty the returning officers take every possible care and give the presiding officer the right instruction.

My hon. Friend suggested also that the ballot papers should be pre-embossed. This was a suggestion well worth serious consideration, but pre-embossing, as my hon. Friend anticipated, would give a period of time for any attempt at the preparation of forged ballot papers indistinguishable from the authentic ones, or even for spare papers to be improperly procured at the printers or at some later point of distribution. Embossing at the poll is considered to provide a safeguard also against the inadvertent issue of two ballot papers instead of one. There does not seem to be evidence, taking the country as a whole, that the present procedure causes serious difficulty.

The number of votes disqualified in the last election through lack of the official mark is not yet known, but I understand that the figure for all Scotland in 1959 was 927, there being none in my hon. Friend's constituency. On this occasion, however, according to my information there were 38. The compilation of the register also is a subject on which we all have sensitive feelings. We have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said about young voters being left off the register, but I must point out to him that the truth is that there has not yet been time fully to explore the apparent discrepancy in the numbers which are supposed to have been left off the register. That matter is being looked at.

It is true that electors have an opportunity to check the register. It is a pity that people leave their concern for their vote until the General Election is upon them. All of us have met people who are frustrated because their names are not on the register or because something has gone wrong to prevent their having their vote, but, bearing in mind the magnitude of the operation, every possible precaution is taken to see that all citizens entiled to vote can have a vote if they exercise their civic right. We can only—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to eleven o'clock.