CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS (TRAINING OF ELECTION STAFF)

HC Deb 05 March 1998 vol 307 cc1211-8

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall—

1. (a) publish a detailed training manual for persons directly concerned in the conduct of elections under this Act and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978; and
2. (b) establish and publish details of a standard of proficiency which is to be achieved by such persons.

(2) Local authorities shall certify to Parliament the number of persons achieving the standard established under subsection (1)(b) above.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Application of this Act to elections to be subject to implementation of section (Conduct of elections (training of election staff))— '.The provisions of this Act shall apply only in the case of an election held more than twelve months after the requirements of section (Conduct of elections (training of election staff)) have been met.'.

Mr. Clappison

The new clauses deal with training for the new election system. Their purpose is to uphold our valued tradition of well-conducted elections, which the Minister will join me in wanting to maintain. They simply require the Secretary of State to publish a training manual for persons concerned in the conduct of the elections and to establish and publish details of a standard of proficiency for them, and that the system is in place in good time for the European parliamentary elections.

In all fairness, the Government must accept that the new system will be unfamiliar both to electors and to those charged with the conduct of elections. As we have said before in Committee, the simplicity of the new system, which the Home Secretary valiantly paraded as one of its virtues, has not been entirely self-evident during our proceedings. If he found the task of making the requisite divisions and understanding the difference between d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague difficult, we do not think that it will any easier for those charged with the conduct of elections to carry out the necessary calculations and operations. We think that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to say a little more about how the Government plan to equip the people who will run the elections, to ensure that they run smoothly and efficiently.

We note from the explanatory and financial memorandum that the Government estimate the cost of training for those operating the system at £4 million. The Government owe us a little more detailed explanation of that cost. How does it compare with the cost of training staff for previous European elections under the present system? Is it a one-off cost or will it continue to be incurred in future European elections? I hope that the Minister will be eager to give details of the training that the Government plan to give those who will conduct the elections. I think that he agrees that it is important that the Committee should be reassured that they will be properly trained, and that that training will be carried out in good time for the elections. Therefore, can the Minister tell the Committee a little more about the details of the training? Can he tell us, for example, on what basis those who are to be trained will be selected? Who will train them? I should welcome a response from the hon. Gentleman on those two specific points.

I would also appreciate a response from the Minister on whether any qualifications or experience will be required on the part of those responsible for training. What is the Government's time scale for the training? Can we be assured that the training that the Government plan will be in time for the elections? That is an important feature of our new clause. We want the training to be done in good time.

I have to say to the Minister—I do not think that I am being unkind—that I have not been entirely impressed by the progress of the legislation so far, the way in which it has been introduced or the changes that have had to be made. We want to be reassured that the problems that have occurred with the calculations of proportionality will not recur when it comes to training those who will conduct the elections. We want the Government to reassure us that the training will be carried out in good time.

Can the Minister tell us a little more about the arrangements for counting the votes by those who have been trained? For example, will the votes for one of the new large regions be counted at a single regional venue, or will there be multiple counts? If there are to be multiple counts throughout the region, on what basis will the locations be chosen?

Will the Minister tell us a little about the training of those who will do the calculations after the votes have been counted? I have raised a number of issues with him. I emphasise that we want to know how those who will do the calculations will be trained. We know that people in other countries have to do such calculations, but the calculations are new to this country and it is possible that mistakes will be made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman joins us in not wishing to see the integrity and standing of our electoral system undermined by any mistakes. We want to see that people are well trained in advance, in doing what may sometimes be fairly complex calculations.

In the same vein, we should like to know where the calculations will be done. If there are multiple counts, will the calculations be done at the regional venue? If not, where will they be done?

The new clauses have been tabled in a helpful spirit. We hope that the Government will want to tell us a little more about the operation of the new system. It is fair to say that it is not an entirely simple system. It will be very new. We want to be reassured that its conduct will be up to the standards that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have come to expect of the conduct of elections, which is a tradition of long standing in this country that we want to see maintained.

Mr. George Howarth

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) explained the reasoning behind the new clauses, but I am not entirely convinced that he has introduced them in a deeply serious way, although he asked some questions that I shall try my best to answer. I am not convinced, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really is, that it is really necessary to include in the Bill the sort of detail that he suggests on training, but I shall cover the issues.

The Government's recognition of the need to train officers on the ground to use the new electoral system is clearly stated in the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman conceded. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum gives an estimate of £4 million for that purpose, and clause 4 provides for that cost to be met from the Consolidated Fund. That £4 million is a one-off cost; but because a subsequent Parliament may make changes to the legislation, it is not possible to say that there will never be a repetition. One cannot look into the future, but if changes were made in future, additional resources would be necessary to carry out extra training for the new system.

Officials in the Home Office are already holding discussions with the relevant bodies, in particular the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Electoral Administrators. The hon. Gentleman asked whether a certificate or diploma qualification would be available and, although I am not aware of any plans to introduce a specific qualification for these European elections, I spoke at the Association of Electoral Administrators conference in Plymouth last week and awarded the first diplomas in competence in electoral administration, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a proper certificate and that the curriculum includes European elections, in addition to all other forms of election. Therefore, there will be a certificate available and, although it will not be necessary in every case to hold that certificate, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman questions the competence of the electoral administrators we already use.

Mr. Clappison

I take it that the Minister has moved on from the question of cost, but before leaving it entirely, can he make it absolutely clear how the £4 million compares with the cost of training those conducting elections in the past? Is the £4 million a new cost?

Mr. Howarth

I am not in a position to provide that information. If, after discussions with the electoral administrators and others, that sum proves inadequate or compares unfavourably with previous costs, we shall take that into account. If, after checking the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, I find that there is some difference, I shall let him know in writing.

The local authority chief executives and the electoral administrators are confident that they will be able to operate the new system without any undue problems. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the men and women who are involved in the conduct of elections: they perform a valuable service and do so capably and professionally. In changing the voting system for future elections to the European Parliament, the Government appreciate that the job carried out by those officers will change. We shall assist local authorities as much as we can in preparing for that change, but we shall not take the unprecedented step of dictating the sort of training required and burdening them with draconian performance standards; nor do we wish the introduction of the new system to be postponed by an arbitrary period of delay.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the location of counts and of the calculation of the aggregates on a regional basis. My recollection is that counts will be conducted at parliamentary constituency level and that the aggregation of those results into a regional result will be carried out at a regional centre, according to a formula—either the one on the face of the Bill, or some other formula that has been agreed subsequently.

The Opposition are intent on preventing the new system from coming into force by any means they can devise. They have already shown that in their previous amendments, and they are doing so again in these new clauses. Although the new clauses raise subjects that are worthy of debate, they are not worthy of incorporation in the Bill. Unlike the Opposition, we recognise and acknowledge that the traditions of the electoral officers mean that they will be able to cope with the new system with their normal admirable ability. They will be properly trained, and I am confident that they will maintain their current high level of professionalism throughout 1999 and beyond. If the hon. Member for Hertsmere has the same regard for me as I am sure he does for those proficient officials, I am sure that he will feel inclined to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam)

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) say that his new clauses were helpful, not obstructive. New clause 3, in proposing an arbitrary 12-month delay, seemed to us an ingenious method of trying to derail the 1999 timetable, but we stand corrected on that. I was also pleased that the Conservatives were able to congratulate our election staff on the work that they do, and I was pleased to hear those congratulations echoed by the Minister.

It seems to be a feature of the debate about more proportional systems that opponents of proportionality tend to overstate the complexity of such systems. In fact, similar systems are used throughout the world, in many different arenas. Moreover, anyone who has watched election staff trying to do a multiple local government by-election count, perhaps at the same time as a general election count, knows that we already have a fair degree of complexity in our system, and that our staff are perfectly able to cope with it.

Liberal Democrats do not believe that it is necessary to have a doctorate in electoral systems, or to have completed a—

Mr. Martin Linton (Battersea)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not say that the systems were complex—he said merely that he did not understand them?

Mr. Allan

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. One of the key features of debate on the Bill is that all of us have increased our understanding of more proportional systems. I hope that, as they come to understand such systems, Conservative Members will recognise their value and change their position, as they are changing their position on many constitutional issues.

In our view, it is unnecessary for the people responsible for the conduct of elections to have written a dissertation on the inherent differences between d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague, or to have passed a training course, and such provisions need not be in the Bill. We see no need to support the new clauses. We hope that Conservative Members, having heard the Minister's reassurances on the training of our staff and having praised their quality, will accept that that quality will be perfectly sufficient to cope with the system that the Bill will introduce.

Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)

I shall speak in support of new clause 2. Scrutineers from political parties play an important part in the electoral process, but the role of agents has not yet been mentioned. Under our current system, agents have a legal position vis-à-vis the candidates and, if they get things wrong in terms of expenditure, they can go to prison.

We are to have a new electoral system as a result of the Bill. Some time, registration of parties may well have to be introduced. Inevitably, the time will come when we must decide whether to have an agent system as before, and whether imprisonment is to be a penalty. Given the size of the electoral areas and the fact that a Conservative party agent or a Labour party agent for, let us say, the South East, may face legal penalties if things are not done correctly, publication of any training manuals on the conduct of elections would be useful, not only for the local government officers and others who deal with the election, but for the political party agents, who may have to scrutinise and/or risk objections or legal action. Such eventualities are quite likely, especially under a new system, and especially as candidates might not wholly understand the implications of what is going on at the count.

Therefore, it is sensible, if the system is to work and deliver a result, that we publish manuals to enable the political party agents to understand the ground rules, so that when the count takes place, and when expenses must be accounted for, everyone knows the ground rules.

The Minister may say that this is not the most appropriate moment to discuss that matter, but I believe that the Government must address the issues concerning agents, expenditure and possible imprisonment. Is it practical to expect an agent for the region of the South East, responsible for millions of voters and perhaps thousands of party workers, to be confronted with imprisonment, and is it practical to expect an individual to control an election campaign in the traditional sense? Those issues must be considered, and I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I am delighted to be given the chance to say a few words.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was somewhat pessimistic—but, I suppose, realistic—in his appraisal of the Tories' misfortune on 1 May. Perhaps the Conservatives are looking for a delaying tactic, to give them more chance of putting together a substantial case when the elections come. His speech was also a pessimistic appraisal of the education system, which the Conservative party lorded over for 18 years, because it implied that, in the 15 months before the elections take place, we cannot educate the electoral officers responsible for running and managing those elections, to equip them to do their job successfully.

4.45 pm

I have fought 25 elections in the past 30 years at three different levels, so I have some experience of elections going wrong. As someone who has been on the wrong end of two very narrow counts to get elected, or re-elected, to the House, I know too well of the arguments that occur because of the inadequacies of the system.

However, my worries relate not so much to the system that the Government will resource, or to training—although it is important—as to local government's failure to honour its commitment to the democratic process. For too long, local government has tried to get away with conducting the democratic process—that is, elections and the preparation of electoral registers—on the cheap.

We are about to embark on a new system, which the public will have to understand. I am sure that they will embrace it with enthusiasm, and will come to regard it as the system on which they would want all elections to be based. At such a time, it is important that local government—which has a responsibility to furnish up-to-date registers of electors, to inform the public and to run elections properly—is given the resources to enable it to fulfil that responsibility, so that it cannot make the excuse that mistakes were the Government's responsibility.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the training for which he would be responsible. Part of that responsibility must be pushed down to local government level, but it must be accompanied by sufficient resources. I should like an assurance—

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

Does the hon. Gentleman consider that he is being rather broad-brush in his criticism? My local authority, Stroud district council, puts a great deal of resources and time into training and informing representatives and agents on how the election process will work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there is good practice in local government, and that it needs to be promoted.

Mr. Hancock

I entirely agree, and I sympathise with other hon. Members who have had bad experiences in elections. I know from first-hand experience over 30 years of the frustration of the person whose name is not on the electoral register—the person who takes time and trouble to inform the local authority that they live at a specific address, only to find that nothing is done about putting their name on the register. Too many such examples exist, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention in pointing out the good practice.

However, I seek a real assurance from the Minister that the training will not be confined to one level—that it will go right down the system, so that everyone involved in the elections has a fundamental grasp of what is expected of them. If that is done, we shall have, in 15 months' time, a successful new episode in the practice of democracy in our country, of which we can all be proud.

Mr. George Howarth

I shall try to cover as many as possible of the issues that have been mentioned.

In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), we are consulting those responsible, both at chief executive level and electoral administrator level, and I believe that any difficulties that they have will be resolved. I am confident that, given their professionalism and the consultation exercise that is taking place, we can resolve some of the difficulties.

I was just trying to calculate how many elections I have stood in. I must have stood in fewer elections than the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South, but I have probably stood in about 12 or 14, at two levels—local authority and parliamentary. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I have been fortunate, in that I have never failed to be elected. However, I concede that, in the seats for which I stood, there was little chance of any other result.

I should correct a false impression that I may have given the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). I said, wrongly, that the counts would be carried out at constituency level. In fact, the intention is that they will be carried out at local authority level. I apologise for that and set the record straight.

On the role and responsibilities of agents, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), there will be a single agent per list. That is the only way of resolving the problem. Although, as the hon. Gentleman says, it will be a more complicated role than that of an agent on a single constituency level, it will be better to have one agent per region for the list than to fragment the region into a number of constituencies.

Mr. Syms

I am glad to hear what the Minister says. It would be more sensible to have one agent for the entire region, but there are a number of wrangles and difficulties. What happens when a minor party—an odd and a sod—wants a recount of a whole region? Such questions must be sorted out in more detail. Under current law, there is considerable precedent—thick files of "Parker's Election Laws" and so on—to which one can turn. We are in a new ball game with the proposed system. The Government and others must get together to get the ground rules right.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are established procedures for requesting a recount, for example. It will be the responsibility, technically, of the agent to demonstrate to the returning officer or his or her representative that the required threshold exists to justify such a request. That could be done by the agent for the list in a region or by the agent for an individual named candidate on the ballot paper. Such details will be discussed in the training that we propose. I am confident that the i's can be dotted and the t's crossed in those details.

To answer the hon. Gentleman's further question, it will still be the agent's responsibility to ensure that he controls his party's electoral expenditure within the legal and agreed limits. All of that will be covered in regulations under schedule 2, which amends schedule 1 to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978.

Whether intentionally or not, this has been a useful debate. We have covered various nuts-and-bolts issues, so perhaps the system will be better understood. I hope that as a result of those reassurances, the hon. Member for Hertsmere will consider it prudent to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Clappison

I am grateful to the Minister for the spirit in which he responded to the debate, which was introduced as a serious matter and which, as he says, has proved useful. I was slightly surprised by the partisan comments from some quarters, in view of the reasonably non-partisan way in which I introduced the new clause.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) referred in an intervention to the degree of understanding of the system on the part of various hon. Members. I did not say that I do not understand it—I never professed to do so. I said that the Home Secretary had got it wrong and made a mistake.

If the hon. Gentleman was present earlier in the Committee's proceedings, he will have heard the Home Secretary commendably and frankly acknowledge that he had been mistaken in what he told the House on Second Reading about the basis of the system. I do not think that the Under-Secretary will be particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter because, as I recollect, it was the Under-Secretary who had to put the record straight in a written answer after the Home Secretary got it wrong. I do not think that he will thank the hon. Gentleman for that reminder.

I have one other piece of advice for the Minister. He should not listen too closely to Liberal Democrat Members. They seem to be in an awful rush to enact the Bill. We think that in this case undue haste would be the midwife of chaos, which is the last thing that we want. We want a system that upholds our valued traditions of efficiently conducted elections, which hon. Members in all parts of the House will value. That is the spirit in which we tabled the two new clauses.

I put numerous questions to the Minister. They were serious questions, as he recognises. I should be grateful if he would reply to me in writing on the matters that he did not cover in his response to the debate. In that spirit, and in order not to delay the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.