HC Deb 16 December 2003 vol 415 cc1474-87

'Before making any order under sections 1 and 2 which provides for electronic voting, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the manner in which the election is conducted (which may or may not be modified by pilot orders under section 2) ensures that—

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Heath

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

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Conduct of elections under a pilot order—

'Any pilot order made under section 2 may make provision for—

  • (a) all-postal voting; or
  • (b) any combination of postal voting and voting in person at a polling station;
but may not make provision for any other manner of conducting an election.'.

New clause 7—Matters not to be included in pilots—

'No pilot may include any use of voting electronically by computer, mobile telephone, SMS, text or any other form of e-voting.'.

Mr. Heath

The debate now moves from postal voting to all-electronic voting. New clause 3 was tabled prior to the recent report from the Electoral Commission. As with the provisions in new clause 2 in relation to postal voting, new clause 3 would introduce new safeguards for electronic voting.

Electronic voting raises even more pertinent questions about fraud prevention than does the use of postal ballot papers. However, I tabled new clause 4 after the publication of the Electoral Commission report, and to some extent it supersedes new clause 3. I am grateful for the support given to new clause 4 by Conservative Front-Bench Members.

3.15 pm

New clause 4 makes it clear that we feel that electronic voting should not form part of the pilot schemes to be held under the Bill, for the simple reason that it has been rejected in the Electoral Commission report. Paragraph 3.20 states: The Commission is not able to recommend that any region is suitable to undertake an e-enabled pilot scheme, as we believe that no region is ready for such innovation at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme. Moreover, paragraph 3.21 states:

The Commission acknowledges that there is some enthusiasm for electronic voting to feature in a 2004 pilot scheme but also that there is a recognition of the risks involved. We have come to the view that there is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June." New clause 4 is one of two litmus tests before the Government this afternoon. Much has been said about the Electoral Commission's importance, impartiality and independence, and about how it has looked at these matters in depth. The Minister has said, quite properly, that it is Ministers who first propose legislation, and then in the end determine what is included in a Bill. However, we have said all along that it would be improper for Ministers to overrule the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, unless they have extremely good reasons for doing so. Moreover, they must be able to explain any such reasons to the satisfaction of the House.

I do not believe that the Government have any grounds on which to reject the Electoral Commission's findings, which in effect underwrite the concerns expressed in Committee. The test is whether the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's clear recommendation. If they exclude it from the Bill, we need to know on what grounds they have made their determination, and for what reason.

I shall not detain the House on these new clauses, as I suspect that the battle has been won. I believe that our concerns have been recognised, and that the Government will accept the Electoral Commission's recommendation. I do not know whether they will accept new clause 4. I hope that they do, but they may continue to resist it on the ground that they will take a decision on it at some nebulous point in the future.

We must wait and see what the Minister has to say on that score. I shall return to the matter if his response is inadequate. It is not my intention to press new clause 3 to a Division at the end of this short debate, but I shall certainly ask the House to divide on new clause 4, which would, in effect, put the Electoral Commission's recommendation into action. That recommendation is the only right and proper position for the Government and Parliament to take.

Mr. Hurst

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the report by the Electoral Commission and he will have heard what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said on the issue, which may be supported by other hon. Members. While there is some evidence—it is not overwhelming, but it is considerable—that all-postal ballots increase turnout in local elections to about 50 per cent., some 40 years ago that would have been regarded as par for the course in ordinary elections. My father was a borough councillor and was often elected or defeated on turnouts of about 60 per cent. in local elections. These days, we might think that such figures represented progress in a general election.

There may be a case for all-postal voting, but there is probably no case for new-fangled electronic techniques, which many people—including one or two Members of Parliament—may not fully understand. Therefore, we would create two classes of elector: those who know about such things and those who do not. One of the problems caused by juggling around with the electoral process is that it creates uncertainty. I have read a helpful Library paper on turnout in various pilot schemes and I cast my eye over one or two of the tables reproduced in it. One of them gave the figures for spoiled ballot papers, and the largest number spoiled by voting for more than one candidate or for no candidate occurred in 2001, 1997 and 1979. Those were all years in which there was another election held alongside the general election, which created natural confusion in the minds of some people. Thus, the number of spoiled ballot papers rose dramatically, compared with other occasions.

I do not wish to labour the point too strongly, but we must be mindful that if we alter the mechanism of voting—the way we vote—we may change the decisions that the electorate make. If we make it easier for those who have electronic equipment to vote and more confusing for those who are unused to electronic equipment to vote, the result may be different from what it would have been had we not taken those steps. All those issues need to be considered with great care.

We have yet to reach the ultimate test for postal voting, which would be its application in a general election. It would take a courageous Government, of whichever party, to take that decision, because it would almost certainly create a different result to the old system. However, it is only when that step is taken that we will see whether all-postal voting, or anything other than ballot-box voting, increases turnout. In limited pilots, such as local government elections or European elections, we might only be raising the number of those who vote to the levels of general elections, and the changes in the voting system might not make any difference in a general election. The only final test would be applying the system to a general election and we may need to think long and hard before we take that step. Meanwhile, if we should beware of anything we should beware of electronic voting, which could distort the result of an election.

Mr. Hawkins

As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has said, this group contains new clause 3, tabled by the Liberal Democrats before the Electoral Commission report was published, and new clause 4, which supersedes new clause 3 and to which we have added our names. We had added our names before we saw the report, which pleased me because it showed that we realised which of the new clauses was going further in our direction.

The group also contains new clause 7, which we tabled. I anticipate that the Minister will be able to be helpful, in the light of the Electoral Commission ruling out e-voting for next year's pilot, but even if he were able to convince the Liberal Democrats not to press new clause 4, I would wish to press new clause 7. We want a total ban on e-voting included in the Bill, because we have no enthusiasm whatever for it.

I said earlier that the Conservative party sees no need for so-called modernisation, which would spoil our traditional election methods. We can see some case for some expansion in postal voting, although many of my hon. Friends have taken the view that the changes that have already been made—which allow people who want postal votes to obtain them easily—are as far as we need to go. However, with some reluctance, we have accepted the possible need for further pilot schemes for postal voting, but in our opposition to e-voting we go even further than the Electoral Commission, which says that regions are not yet ready for it. We are delighted that the Electoral Commission has come to that conclusion, because all the evidence of technical people that e-voting systems are not secure reinforces it. We want to make clear our complete opposition to e-voting being included in the Bill. It would demean elections to start treating them as though people were voting in a television game show such as "Big Brother"— [Interruption.]

Mr. Leslie

I know that the hon. Gentleman will have the courtesy to hear what I have to say before he decides definitely to press new clause 7 to a vote.

Mr. Hawkins

Of course I will give the Minister that courtesy, but unless my ears deceive me, I thought I heard the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary saying, "Hear, hear" to some of the things that I said about "Big Brother". If I am getting support even from the PPS, it reinforces the strength of my views.

We do think that the issue is vital, and I shall explain why. When it comes to e-voting, had the Government proceeded with their original plans—as they gave every indication of doing when the Bill was in Committee—one region would have had voting by telephone, by text messaging or so-called SMS voting, via digital television and via the internet. As the region that might have adopted e-voting would also have been an all-postal one, voting electronically in a polling station would not have been relevant.

3.30 pm

As I said, my party is not in favour of e-voting, not only for the European election but generally. As the Electoral Commission has come to the view that there is insufficient time available for all necessary development work to take place for the elections in June 2004", we are reinforced in our opposition. The commission continued:

Although local election electronic pilots have been delivered in less than six months, we believe that the scale of a regional pilot presents a higher level of complexity…when assessed against the criteria no region would be suitable to conduct an electronic voting pilot. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made that point clear.

One of our many objections to e-voting is that, apart from the fact that it demeans elections—I very much welcome the views just expressed by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) from the Government Back Benches—in the few pilots that have been held it has not had a significant effect on turnout. The Electoral Commission's evaluation of the 2002 electronic voting pilots noted that the findings suggest that the advent of new technology did not inspire the electorate to vote in significantly greater numbers than would otherwise have been the case…there is no strong pattern of improved turnout. That quotation comes from page 62 of the commission's report, "Modernising Elections", published in August 2002.

Even if one accepted the Government's criteria and agreed that the proposals might be a way of overcoming voter apathy, a view expressed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris) in response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when we were discussing the need to give young people extra reasons to vote, I cannot see that the e-voting pilots have in any way encouraged young people to vote.

Mr. Tom Harris

Is the hon. Gentleman's opposition to e-voting solely related to the Bill or is it a point of principle with no time limit? In other words, is he simply opposed to e-voting? The reason for my question is this: since the congestion charge was introduced I have regularly paid it by text, which is a fantastically accurate and efficient system, and I imagine that at some point in the future—not next year, but within the next 10 years or so—most people will think that is a perfectly natural way of casting their vote.

Mr. Hawkins

I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman, especially on his congestion charge example. I continue to receive letters from throughout my constituency and to read many horror stories in the newspapers with descriptions of how people with vehicles such as vintage cars, which have never left the garage, are being wrongly charged by Capita. There are also cases where people fraudulently use number plates, so I do not think that the example is a good one.

I am about to go into our objections to e-voting in more detail as it is important to put such things on the record, but to answer the hon. Gentleman's direct question, they are not restricted only to the Bill. We take the view that e-voting is demeaning of the whole election process. However, the strongest reason for our objection to e-voting, not only for the Bill but for the immediately foreseeable future, is that IT experts say that the system is not yet secure against the danger of electoral fraud.

Our objection might not remain for ever, but we shall certainly maintain it for the foreseeable future. While IT experts say that the system is not secure and the Electoral Commission expresses concerns, my party cannot envisage being ready to welcome e-voting in the immediate future. There are two aspects at this stage: the practical points relating to the views of the Electoral Commission and to IT security; and the issues of principle. I hope that that is sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Before one could possibly contemplate substantial e-voting developments, one would have to address the issues that have cropped up not merely in this country but elsewhere. We are hugely concerned about security. The hon. Gentleman and other Members may be interested to learn that I have some professional expertise in e-security. Before I was a Member of the House, I worked as a corporate lawyer at a senior level in the credit card industry, and during my 11½ years in this place I have continued to take a great interest in electronic security measures. Quite apart from my Front-Bench duties, I am personally interested in the issue.

Under the small-scale electronic voting pilots that have taken place, important information, such as pin numbers for e-voting, has been sent to voters by what the Electoral Commission conceded could be insecure means; for example, postcards that give the pin numbers could be read by someone else in a house of multiple occupation. The internet can also be insecure. Many Members have suffered from such problems in their offices and both the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and I have raised points of order about the insecurity of the parliamentary data and video network. Although we were reassured that such problems would not recur, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that not long after we raised the matter, the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) experienced similar problems in his constituency when information from the Government was being sent to a hairdresser in Blyth Valley instead of to him. So there are even concerns about the e-security of the House. The internet is therefore notoriously insecure and vulnerable to attack.

There has also been significant controversy in the United States about the reliability and lack of security of e-voting machines. Companies in the USA that make the machines have refused independent scrutiny of their software for commercial reasons, raising concerns that there could be security flaws that have not been identified through proper testing. The technology correspondent for The Times, David Rowan, has remarked that the commercial companies supplying the technology for UK election pilots say that security is their priority. But growing evidence is emerging that some of these companies have covered up security flaws in the past…If Mr Blair insists on rushing towards e-voting, he must ensure that any software companies awarded contracts make their computer code available for independent scrutiny, and that every time a computerised vote is cast a paper copy is printed to let voters know that ballots have been recorded as intended…It will take just one security breach to undermine public confidence irreparably". That is from The Times on 2 December…only a fortnight ago.

Dr. Pugh

The hon. Gentleman's comments are extraordinarily valuable. Does not the American experience also demonstrate, however, that these machines have a strange predisposition to award a greater number of votes to the Republicans than opinion polls show?

Mr. Hawkins

I was going to come to the so-called hanging chads controversy, and I know that the hon. Gentleman, in the main part of his remarks, supported the concerns that we are expressing.

Another expert, Dr. Ben Fairweather, a research fellow at De Montfort university in Leicester's centre for computing and social responsibility, has said: I have seen most, if not all of the pilot schemes demonstrated, and have spotted substantial flaws with some of them…There are serious worries about SMS voting. Operators can discard text messages if their systems are busy. Also people are obliged to key in long sequences to vote by text. It's a pale imitation of a cross on a piece of paper. Electronic voting in general has not reached maturity". That was taken from a publication called The Register on 31 July this year.

The Foundation for Information Policy Research has asserted that election integrity can be assured only if e-voting machines produce a paper audit trail that can be verified by voters and later by election scrutineers. It remarked in The Register in May this year that the only safe way to allow electronic voting is through machines controlled by election officials that produce an auditable paper trail. Anything else is an invitation for fraud to hackers and virus writers around the world and could destroy public confidence in our elections. It's always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems. Election turnout would be increased if citizens were convinced their vote would make a difference. Simply computerising the current system is unlikely to achieve this". …[Interruption.] The Opposition say, "Hear, hear," to that. As the son of two research scientists, may I say that I agree totally that it is always a bad idea to look for technical fixes to social problems?

Most significantly, the Electoral Reform Society, the independent experts on these matters, has asserted that the fact is that e-voting, whether by telephone, internet, digital TV or text messaging, does not raise turnouts in any significant way…We are concerned that any form of remote voting is potentially more open to abuse than polling station voting". That is the basis of one of our most significant concerns.

Even the Local Government Association has maintained that we have concerns about e-voting on a regional basis, particularly in the short space of time between now and the next elections. A failed e-voting pilot in 2004 could jeopardise this being seen as a realistic development for the future". Even if the Opposition agreed with the Local Government Association that that might be a helpful development for the future—which we do not—if even it says that a failed e-voting pilot could happen and could jeopardise that, that shows how bad an idea it would be.

Angela Watkinson

Does my hon. Friend agree that just one of the difficulties is that e-voting could only ever be an option alongside other types of voting, because it could never be ensured that everybody had access to a computer? Many people now use the people's highway in libraries, which presents its own difficulties. The selection of methods of voting during an e-voting pilot would make the audit trial to which he has just referred very difficult.

Mr. Hawkins

As always, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. One of our concerns is that some of the voters who believe in the traditional method of voting, which has been tried and tested over more than 100 years, might be put off by feeling that their votes were being devalued in some way if they could not get access to a mobile phone or the internet. Ultimately, pilots will not tackle the general problem of voter apathy, as even Cabinet Ministers in this Government agree. On 26 April 2002, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills told Public Finance: Generally, I don't think the experiments are the answer". If Cabinet Ministers do not believe that the experiments are the answer, the Government would be wrong to pursue them.

Finally, I want to quote The Guardian—not my regular reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On 17 April, the IT journalist Bill Thompson wrote: I do not think it is possible to design an e-voting system that can be guaranteed secure against a concerted and well-funded attack… The Government's continued obsession with e-voting in its many forms, especially voting over the internet, is a perfect illustration of how style has triumphed over substance. Instead of finding ways to make people believe that voting actually matters, they want to reduce it to the level of texting a friend or buying a book online". Hear, hear to that. That is why we are so strongly against the experiments.

When the Minister stands up, I hope that he will accept both new clause 4, to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names, and new clause 7. If they are included in the Bill, we will at least know that we will not be faced by such experiments and that the Government have conceded that all the points that we made in Committee and on Second Reading were right. We were right and the Government were wrong. The Electoral Commission now agrees with us that the security for the use of technology is not ready. The Electoral Reform Society and all those experts also agree with us. I hope that the Government will accept new clauses 4 and 7.

Mr. Leslie

We have heard that new clauses 3, 4 and 7 would prevent e-voting pilots from taking place unless certain security and contingency measures are in place. Similar amendments were tabled in Standing Committee, but they were not debated. It may be helpful if I set out our latest thinking.

Electronic voting methods have been used successfully at the local level in nine authorities in 2002 and in 17 authorities in 2003. Overall, electronic voting did not significantly increase voter turnout, but it provided people with greater choice in how they voted. In e-pilot areas where traditional polling stations were open, more than one fifth of voters chose to vote by electronic means. Electronic voting therefore remains a key part of our longer-term plan to provide people with greater choice and access, reflecting their lifestyles and circumstances.

The Electoral Commission's view is that at this stage in the development of the electoral modernisation programme, no region is yet ready as a whole to pilot electronic channels. Although we still believe that such a pilot could have been both successful and valuable, the commission's advice is clear, and we are inclined to accept it. I can therefore inform the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend to proceed with electronic voting at next year's European and combined elections.

We recognise that our decision will be disappointing for those who are especially keen on electronic voting. The local authorities that have successfully piloted e-voting will, no doubt, regret that e-voting will not go ahead. However, we remain committed to the development of e-voting channels and will continue to work with local authorities and others to pilot those methods at future local elections. Our aim remains that there should be a multi-channelled, e-enabled general election some time after 2006. However, we have always been clear that we will not rush the implementation of e-voting, which we know is the reasonable concern of Government and Opposition Members. If it takes longer to develop, test and secure e-voting channels, so be it.

Although the Government remain committed to electronic voting in the long term, we do not intend to rush its implementation. Given that I have said that we intend to pilot solely all-postal voting at next year's European and combined local elections, it is clear that new clauses 3,4 and 7 are superfluous and that their aim has been satisfied sufficiently by my comments and the decision not to proceed with electronic voting. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will withdraw the new clause.

3.45 pm
Mr. Heath

Let me say at the outset that I welcome what the Minister says. I do not have a neurotic opposition to e-voting. Indeed, it was trialled in the South Somerset district council area, which includes my constituency. Although it had little apparent benefit for voter turnout, it provided voters with a further option, as the Minister rightly said.

I opposed including electronic voting in the pilots because the technology is not yet available to make it safe and resistant to fraud. Although I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been made, it is absolutely crucial to have not only verifiable systems of identification that are not open to abuse, a proper audit trail that allows people to trace from where a vote was cast and a recapped facility, which is not available under the present system yet is critical to the integrity of the process, but public confidence in the system. Such confidence would have been put at risk by rushing ahead with the proposals.

As the Minister said, some people will be disappointed by the Electoral Commission's conclusions. Disabled voters, whom I mentioned previously, will be disappointed because e-voting would have allowed them to cast their votes in confidence, which they cannot do by other means. They will be disappointed that further proposals have not come forward. Nevertheless, our reasoned conclusion must be that the technology is not yet right and that it would be improper to introduce e-voting on a wide scale until we are assured that that has been addressed.

Although I welcome the Minister's response, I fail to understand why the Bill makes provision potentially to permit a form of voting that he does not intend to be used. The House is responsible for the legislation before it rather than ministerial assurances on secondary legislation, so consonant with the Minister's assurances, it would be entirely appropriate to make the Bill fit the circumstances, which is why I shall press new clause 4 to a Division. However, I shall not press new clause 3, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to