This inquiry

1. If democracy is to be properly safeguarded, the laws relating to the running of elections need to be efficient and effective. In recent years relatively little reform has been discussed and implemented. In practice, any reform has to be considered and decided upon in the immediate aftermath of a General Election; otherwise, the process can fall foul of the next election as it becomes impractical to design changes in time before they have to be put into effect, or—worse—before there is a risk that the imminence of the election can give rise to accusations that the changes may be motivated by party advantage. We accordingly chose electoral law and administration as one of our first full inquiries on being set up after the 1997 election; although not necessarily the most important issue on our potential agenda, it had to be examined now or not at all.

2. Our inquiry has taken place while a Working Party on Electoral Procedures, comprised of officials and election administrators and practitioners, has been meeting under the chairmanship of Mr George Howarth, Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Home Office.[1] The Working Party first met in January 1998 and is likely to continue its work until well into 1999. It has already come to conclusions on some points, including on a number of matters discussed in this Report; these interim proposals have received the backing of the Home Secretary, but will be subject to further public consultation.[2] Parts of the Working Party programme are linked to a parallel programme by the Department for Transport, Environment and the Regions to improve participation in local elections as one element in the package of issues raised in the DETR's consultation paper Modernising local government [3] and subsequent White Paper Modern Local Government.[4] By reporting now, we will be contributing to the debate on the proposals already put forward and to the further deliberations of the Working Party.

3. There are a number of important features of the political and electoral process which we do not discuss in this Report. The voting system itself—whether or not to move to some form of proportional representation for national and local elections, and if so which form—is one such area; this is under review in a separate process, with a Commission under Lord Jenkins of Hillhead currently identifying a possible system which might be put to a national referendum against the existing first-past-the-post system. The second major area is that of funding of political parties, together with the related issue of party spending, currently subject to examination by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, under the chairmanship of Lord Neill. Because the issue of the rules on local election expenses is related to how national party spending might be controlled, this also has been excluded. Other important issues not within the scope of this Report are the broadcasting rules, the work of the Boundary Commissions, and whether to have fixed term parliaments.

4. The Report is focussed on the more detailed 'nuts and bolts' issues of how to administer the electoral register and the physical voting process so as to maximise turnout, on certain issues relating to the franchise and to candidates, and on whether or not there should be an Electoral Commission. The Report concentrates particularly on parliamentary elections, but most electoral procedures are common to General, European, and local elections and thus much of what we have to say—in particular in connection with the register—affects all elections. Likewise we do not address in detail the specific situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland since most issues are common to all parts of the United Kingdom and where differences are appropriate they are not principally matters for this Committee. The Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee published a report on Electoral Malpractice in Northern Ireland earlier this year.[5]

5. For the purposes of this inquiry, the Committee has taken oral evidence from academics (Dr David Butler and Professor Robert Blackburn), electoral administrators (the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE)), groups representing people with various kinds of disability (SCOPE, Mind, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind), the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties, and the relevant Home Office Minister, Mr George Howarth MP, with Home Office officials. Additional written evidence was received from a number of other expert and relevant bodies. All the evidence received is listed at pp .... We are most grateful to all those who helped us during the inquiry. The Committee has also been able to draw on a number of other reports and studies covering all or some of the matters we discuss. These include previous reports of this Committee,[6] the 1991 Hansard Society report on election campaigns,[7] and the study by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher on local electoral turnout,[8] among others.[9]

Is there a need for any reform?

6. Two main arguments for reform of the present system have been put to us.

7. The first is that participation rates in British elections are low and efforts should be made to increase them. In the 1997 general election turnout was 71%. In the 1998 local elections the average turnout was 40%. In the last European elections in 1994 turnout was 36%. As we show in paragraph 14 below, these participation rates are either lowest or equal lowest among the larger West European democracies. They are even lower in inner city areas. And for various reasons that we discuss below (see paragraph 15) the official figures are likely to overstate rather than understate the real rate of participation in elections.

8. We accept that participation rates in elections are affected by a wide range of factors, and we discuss some of these below (see paragraphs 17-20). The practical aspects of election procedures are only one factor, and arguably a relatively minor one. Nevertheless, we regard it as important for the health of the democratic and political system that participation in the electoral process be as high as possible. We consider that there is a need to examine all aspects of the British electoral process, including therefore the election procedures, to establish what practical steps can be taken to increase participation.

9. The second main argument put forward for reviewing the present electoral arrangements is that they are out of date. As Dr Butler has pointed out "... the basic framework under which constituency battles are fought by candidates and administered by returning officers remains as it was laid down in the 1870s and 1880s".[10] A particular problem is that the system was designed against a background of electorates of under 1000, with the type of bribery and intimidation of the period, and with relatively little concept of a General Election being essentially a national rather than a local process.[11] Electoral administrators made the same point, adding that even if the age of the system was not in itself a ground for review then the new purposes to which the system was having to be adapted—i.e. a new voting system in European elections and in the elections to devolved assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and increased use of referendums—gave rise to such a need.[12] A number of witnesses suggested that the increased use of referendums in particular might require a review of the electoral process.[13]

10. Some of these points go beyond the narrow areas we consider in this Report. Nevertheless it is clear that the present election procedures are not designed for the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries. New technology has opened up possibilities which did not exist before. We conclude that there is a need to bring election administration up to date so as to maximise its effectiveness and its relevance to modern needs.

11. The central threads of the inquiry have been examination of how to improve turnout, and how to keep the system reasonably up to date. These two issues have to some extent come together to make examination of how the accuracy of the register might be improved, and how the physical process of casting a vote might be made easier, our main subjects for consideration. But we have also looked at certain other areas, relating to the franchise, fraud and candidacies, in which also there is a case for review in order to ensure that the law remains up to date and thereby perhaps more relevant to the modern voter.

12. But changes must nevertheless be examined carefully before they are introduced. As the submission from the Conservative Party noted, "Our present system of voting is recognised world wide for its fairness and for its lack of electoral corruption. Whatever changes are considered need to be carefully compared with out present system, a system that has stood the test of time".[14] It might also be added that the present electoral system is, according to the Home Office, relatively cheap compared to most other western countries.[15] We are in no doubt that the time is right for a review of electoral arrangements. Nevertheless, we entirely accept that the current electoral arrangements by and large work well, are fair and are inexpensive, and that change must not be introduced for change's sake. Above all, the integrity of the system must be preserved.

13. Some witnesses have gone further, suggesting that there is a need for an overall reform of the whole electoral law. Current law, based on the Representation of the People Act 1983, which consolidated earlier legislation and which contains the parliamentary election rules at Schedule 1, is detailed and lengthy; it is often cast in relatively obscure and archaic language, and a proportion of its provisions derive—as already noted—from the Victorian era. The Association of Council Secretaries and Solicitors argued that there "is a case for promoting a new parliamentary Bill which re-writes the law on elections".[16] We have found in this inquiry that concentration on even a few main issues leads to a need to consider a wide range of detailed amendments to the existing law. We have not gone into all the detailed ramifications of proposals, but have instead set out our view on the directions in which reform should go. There are also a range of administrative issues which we have not examined, even under the restrictions we imposed on the scope of our inquiry; examples are the procedures relating to the count and the procedures relating to election petitions. Undoubtedly there will be a case in due course for a reconsideration of all the detailed provisions, once any current reforms—whether arising from this Report or other matters arising from the Home Office Working Party's review—have been put in place and tested. But any such exercise must not hold up more important reforms where these are justified.[17]

2  Home Office Working Party on Electoral Procedures interim report (August 1998). Back

3  Modernising local government: local democracy and community leadership DETR 1998. Back

4  Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People Cm. 4014 (July 1998). Back

5  Second Report, 1997-98, HC 781. Back

6  Electoral Counting Methods Third Report, Session 1991-92, HC 49; Representation of the People Acts First Report, session 1982-83, HC 32. Back

7  Agenda for Change: report of the Hansard Society Commission on Election Campaigns (Hansard Society, September 1991). Back

8  Enhancing Local Electoral Turnout - A guide to current practice and future reform by Colin Rallings, Michael Thrasher and James Downe (York Publishing Services, for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996). Back

9  Other relevant reports include the Voter Participation section of the 1993 report of the Labour Party's Working Party on Electoral Systems (Chairman: Lord Plant); and reports by the Electoral Reform Society. Back

10  King-Hall Paper No. 5, published by the Hansard Society, February 1998, p.6. Back

11  QQ 1-2. Back

12  Appendix 6 SOLACE; AEA ELA 3. Back

13  See Q 6 (Dr Butler) and Q 357 (Mr Gardner and Lord Parkinson) for example. Back

14  Appendix 8. Back

15  Appendix 1, para 1.3. Back

16  Appendix 12, para 17. Back

17  Mr George Howarth MP, the Minister responsible, expressed the fear that it would be difficult to find a time in the parliamentary legislative programme in the near future for a comprehensive Bill covering the whole of electoral law (Q492). Back