A Working Party on Electoral Procedures, under the Chairmanship of the then Home Office Minister, Mr George Howarth, met on nine occasions between January 1998 and July 1999, to consider a wide range of electoral arrangements. A copy of the Working Party's final report, published on 19 October 1999, is attached[4].

Responses to individual recommendations

   (1)  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. (Paragraph 8).

  We agree that it is important for the health of the democratic and political system that participation in the electoral process should be as high as possible. The Working Party examined a wide range of electoral arrangements, primarily with a view to encouraging increased participation in the electoral process. The setting up of an Electoral Commission with a wide remit to keep under review electoral law and administration will ensure that our electoral arrangements are subject to regular scrutiny and in future keep pace with the requirements of a modern participatory democracy.

   (2)  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. (Paragraph 10).

  We support this conclusion. The Government's proposals for an Electoral Commission would charge that body with preparing and publishing a report on the administration of major elections held in the United Kingdom. It is expected that the Electoral Commission will take the opportunity offered by such reports to highlight any deficiencies in electoral law and administration and to make recommendations for improvements.

  The Government's White Paper also addressed the likely relationship between a future Electoral Commission and electoral administrators. While it is not envisaged that the Electoral Commission would take on a direct supervisory role in relation to electoral administrators, it is expected that their relationship will be a close one with the Electoral Commission becoming a natural focal point for the provision of guidance to electoral administrators and promoting best practice in the way they discharge their statutory duties.

   (3)  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. (Paragraph 12).

  We entirely agree with the view of the Committee that, while a review was essential at this stage, our present arrangements have worked well and fairly over many years. In carrying out its task the Working Party kept firmly in mind the need to preserve the integrity of the electoral system.

   (4)  We have no doubt in concluding that the participation rate in British elections—particularly at European and local elections—is low and that it would be desirable for it to be increased. (Paragraph 16).

  We have noted the evidence that our participation rate at European and local elections is low compared with that of most of our European Union partners, even within the context of a decline in participation in nearly all Member States at this year's European Parliamentary elections. The decline in participation at the 1997 General Election was also a matter for concern. We share the Committee's desire to see the levels of participation increase. We have accepted the Working Party's recommendation that the Home Office should prepare and issue enhanced and consolidated guidance on good practices which have been found to be effective in maximising electoral registration.

   (5)  We fully recognise that the major factors affecting turnout relate to voters' general perceptions of the importance of the election, the importance of the institution being elected, the importance of their own vote, and their views of the particular candidates which they are offered . . . But this conclusion does not absolve government, Parliament and political parties from doing what can be done to increase the levels of interest in the system. (Paragraph 20).

  We share the Committee's view as to the major factors that influence turnout, but agree that it is a matter for everyone participating in politics to increase levels of interest within the system.

   (6) Measures to raise levels of interest and awareness of the political process are important and every effort must be made to identify new ways of making those measures relevant and effective in modern circumstances . . . We strongly endorse (the proposal that "citizenship education be a statutory entitlement in the curriculum and that all schools should be required to show they are fulfilling the obligation that this places on them"). (Paragraph 23).

  The Government considers that the setting up of an independent Electoral Commission offers an opportunity to provide a focus for efforts to promote awareness of electoral matters. Clause 11 of the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill would place the Electoral Commission under a duty to promote public awareness of electoral matters and of systems of local and national government and the institutions of the European Union. As well as undertaking campaigns to encourage voter registration and turnout, the Commission may also be expected to promote good citizenship more widely as well as building confidence in the democratic process. In carrying out this function, the Electoral Commission will want to co-ordinate its activities with those undertaken in schools to prepare young people for their role and responsibilities as active citizens in a modern democracy and to take account of the Government's proposals to include citizenship in the national curriculum.

   (7)  We recommend that resources are found to fund a programme of voter education whenever a new electoral system is introduced. (Paragraph 24).

  We agree that a programme of voter education, whenever a new electoral system is introduced, is highly desirable. This was carried out before the Scottish Parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections in May 1999, and before the European Parliamentary elections in June 1999. On these occasions, extensive Government education campaigns were undertaken involving TV and newspaper advertising, and a leaflet drop to every household.

   (8)  We would support initiatives to make greater use of the polling card as an instrument for encouraging turnout. (Paragraph 25).

  We are giving careful consideration to suggestions for making greater use of the poll card to encourage turnout without causing confusion or conflict. Suggestions such as including the closing date for absent vote applications and a map showing the location of the polling place have already been adopted by some electoral administrators. Further ideas such as including the names of nominated candidates have to take account of different requirements for the issue of such information within the electoral timetable. All these options will be evaluated and suitable guidance will be issued in due course to electoral administrators.

   (9)  Our view is that while it may not be desirable to have any form of compulsory voting we nevertheless consider that there should be a public debate over this, bearing in mind the much higher rate of voting in democracies where such a system exists. (Paragraph 29).

  We welcome this recommendation and will consider how the views of the voting public might best be gauged on this matter. We would wish to take this forward initially in consultation with those United Kingdom political parties which are represented at Westminster and/or in the European Parliament.

   (10)  We recommend that consideration be given to giving registration officers further legal rights to access to specified relevant records held by (public authorities or utilities). (Paragraph 34).

  The Working Party looked at this issue in the context of rolling registration, discussed below. While recognising the resource implications, they recognised the usefulness of such sources and recommended that legislation should be amended so as to allow EROs to request and receive information from local authority and other appropriate public data sources to help them carry out their duty of maintaining an accurate and up to date register. We accept this recommendation.

   (11)  We conclude that the time has come whereby consideration should be given to the devising and imposition of national minimum standards for the work of registration officers. (Paragraph 35).

  The Working Party considered the case for establishing national minimum standards for registration work to reinforce the adoption of good practice and to provide for benchmarks against which EROs can measure the effectiveness of their work. The form and scope of such standards, however, depends on the nature of the registration system that it informs. Taking into account the likely implementation of a rolling register (see below), we accept the Working Party's view that further work should be taken forward to develop and publicise national standards for compiling and maintaining the accuracy of the electoral register.

   (12)  We conclude that particular efforts must be made to improve registration rates amongst young people . . . (For attainers) at least it should be possible to improve registration rates by work in schools and by use of school records. (Paragraph 37).

  We are in sympathy with the view that particular efforts must be made to register young people. We believe that the enhanced and consolidated guidance recommended by the Working Party should be particularly beneficial in identifying effective ways of approaching this group, whose members are among those least likely to be caught by traditional canvassing.

   (13)  We support the introduction of a rolling register, and we therefore welcome the decision of the Home Secretary's Working Party to recommend its introduction. (Paragraph 40).

  We share the Committee's welcome for this recommendation, which is one of the most significant changes proposed by the Working Party.

   (14)  Moves towards a rolling register must only go forward at a rate which can be properly supported by the technology in use by local authorities and which commands the confidence and the consent of all the main political parties. (Paragraph 41).

  The Working Party's model for rolling registration has been designed with a view to maintaining the integrity of the electoral register. It is a relatively simple scheme which the Government considers should be regarded as the first, although a major, step along the road to a fully integrated registration system capable of being delivered, maintained and accessed electronically. The Government and electoral administrators will examine further ways in which a standardised data format for the register may be developed and introduced.

   (15)  We would be unhappy about allowing electors to be placed on a register because of an entitlement which arose only after an election has been called. (Paragraph 42).

  The Working Party agreed with the Committee's view and recommended that there should be a cut off date for claims after which no adjustment can be made to the register to be used at a particular election. The Government supports this principle in the interests of the integrity of the system, and proposes to legislate to this effect.

   (16)  We consider that registration officers should not be put in a position where they have to risk breaking the rules as a consequence of being more flexible in defining a "residence", since it is important that homeless people are not effectively disenfranchised; we recommend that, while incorporating appropriate safeguards, the Representation of the People Acts be amended accordingly. (Paragraph 45).

  We agree with the Committee's view on this matter and have accepted the Working Party's recommendations that: EROs should be able to accept a declaration of locality from any eligible person unable to provide a contact address for registration purposes (it is noted that one member of the Working Party dissented from this, but we believe that acceptable safeguards can be put in place for what should be a small number of such claims); provision should be made to allow EROs to accept addresses such as those of guesthouses, hostels or day centres for registration purposes where they are satisfied that a reasonable connection has been established; the definition of contact address should be capable of including addresses such as shop doorways and railway arches to assist EROs to register the majority of homeless people to a temporary address.

   (17)  We recommend that the restrictions on using psychiatric hospitals as residences for the purpose of electoral registration be removed; alternative kinds of restriction, not based on residence grounds, should be devised if it were thought necessary to bar from voting certain patients whose condition made it inappropriate for them to have a vote. (Paragraph 46).

  We have accepted the Working Party's recommendation that the restrictions on the use of mental hospital addresses for registration purposes should be removed, except in the case of patients convicted in the courts but detained in hospital in place of sentencing. We also support the Working Party's recommendation that the requirement for voluntary patients to complete a patient's declaration should be removed.

   (18)  We recognise the strength of the calls for a means of registering without having to reveal information which could make the elector vulnerable, and consideration should be given to developing such a system . . . We consider that any such system should allow for anonymous registration only in exceptional circumstances. (Paragraph 49).

  The Working Party noted the concerns about electronic search vehicles based upon the electoral register which may be used by people with criminal intent to trace others. It considered the arguments for introducing some form of anonymous registration, but concluded that this required further study. We agree, as we share the Committee's reluctance about compromising the openness of the electoral process. The Working Party's proposal to allow people to opt out of having their register details sold on for commercial purposes should help to alleviate many of the existing concerns.

   (19)  We see no alternative to the general principle that copies of the register should be generally available, at least for electoral purposes. (Paragraph 50).

  Again, in view of the importance of maintaining the openness of the system, the Working Party concluded, and we agree, that copies of the full register should continue to be available to electoral users and should also remain available for consultation at local libraries, town halls and other public buildings. However, we are also considering making it an offence to copy the registers in those places for commercial use.

   (20)  We . . . do not think it is necessary or desirable for the state to be heavy handed in pursuing non-registration through the courts . . . The Home Office should gather reliable statistics from local authorities about the numbers of prosecutions and levels of fines. (Paragraph 52).

  Electoral administrators say that they find that the power to prosecute remains a valuable means of obtaining compliance with the registration process. We do not therefore intend to remove the power, although some modifications will be necessary to take account of rolling registration.

   (21)  We conclude that the time is right to consider a range of possible reforms to the physical process of casting a vote. (Paragraph 56).

  We have accepted the Working Party's recommendation that legislation should allow the Home Secretary to authorise and evaluate pilot schemes of alternative voting arrangements.

   (22)  Reforms must therefore be approached cautiously and changes which are based on visions of what new technology can offer must be assessed not simply on the basis that they are "modern" or "exciting" but on whether they are safe and effective. (Paragraph 57).

  We agree entirely.

   (23)  We recommend that harmonised voting hours of 7 am to 9 pm be brought in for local and national elections. (Paragraph 59).

  This is one of the possibilites which we hope may be piloted and evaluated. A permanent change can then be considered.

   (24)  We see sufficient potential advantage in weekend voting for it to be worth experimenting to see if it would actually generate the increased turnout hoped for. (Paragraph 64).

  We consider that this is a suitable area for pilot schemes, provided that they take religious observances into account.

   (25)  We recommend that the Home Office discuss with electoral administrators how much further the deadlines for (a) postal vote applications and (b) proxy vote applications could be reduced and take the necessary steps to implement the agreed new timetables. (Paragraph 67).

  This discussion was carried out within the context of the Working Party. The advice received from administrators was that there should be no change to either date. Some of the inconvenience that has been reported by electors may be alleviated by other proposed changes. We shall therefore look at this question again whenever those changes have bedded in and the staffing implications have been established.

   (26)  We recommend that the various grounds for entitlement for an absent vote be abolished, and that electors be allowed to apply for an absent vote on demand. (Paragraph 70).

  We support this recommendation, so far as absent postal votes are concerned, with the exception of Northern Ireland, where different considerations apply, and with the exception of emergency applications. The Working Party concluded that this would allow increased choice and flexibility to the elector, and recommended postal votes on demand to cover all elections or any elections over a particular period.

   (27)  We recommend in the meantime that the government take steps to remind all GPs that they are obliged to deal with applications for absent voting free of charge. (Paragraph 71).

  Under their Terms of Service, GPs are required not to charge for attestations of absent voting forms, provided they are requested upon medical grounds. The Home Office will ask the National Health Service to consider means of reminding GPs that this is a requirement.

   (28)  We support the idea that registration officers should more actively promote take-up of absent voting entitlements, particularly those for indefinite entitlements; we suggest also that appropriate methods for doing this should be included in any mandatory minimum standards for registration introduced under our recommendation at paragraph 35 above. (Paragraph 72).

  We support this recommendation in principle; and it will be taken into account when preparing the further guidance that has been recommended by the Working Party.

   (29)  We consider that early voting facilities at convenient locations, specially adapted to assist those with disabilities but nevertheless open to all, should be introduced. (Paragraph 78).

   (30)  We consider that early voting stations should not open until the week in which the main polling day falls—ie the Monday before the main polling day. In order to prevent any effect on the rest of the election, exit polling of early voters should be prohibited. (Paragraph 79).

  We consider that early voting facilities would be a good subject for pilot schemes in local government elections. We agree with the Committee that such schemes should be adapted to assist those with disabilities and that exit polling of early voters should not be permitted. Early voting would require completed ballot papers to be kept securely until the count, and close control over the register to prevent double voting.

   (31)  We recommend that the increased computerisation of the work of registration officers should progress in such a way as to allow registers to be available and marked up at polling stations throughout a constituency on a common basis. When reliable technology is in place and tested and proven, but not before, we recommend that voters should be able to vote at any polling station in the constituency. (Paragraph 83).

  This is another appropriate subject for pilot schemes.

   (32)  We do not therefore recommend experimentation with electronic voting, though we accept that in the longer term this may require re-examination. (Paragraph 84).

  We note the concerns that the Committee has expressed about electronic voting. We fully understand these reservations. Nevertheless, in accordance with the recommendations of the Working Party on pilot schemes, we are prepared to countenance proposals for piloting electronic voting or counting. Pilot scheme proposals will need to consider the integrity of the arrangements and the likely voter reaction. We are considering arrangements whereby votes at the Greater London Mayoral and Authority elections in 2000 may be counted electronically.

   (33)  We conclude that the Home Office guidance to returning officers should recommend improved training of presiding officers in relation to the difficulties faced by disabled people, including a briefing prior to each election so as to encourage them to allow maximum flexibility within the current rules. (Paragraph 86).

  The Working Party recommended new and consolidated advice to electoral administrators in order to support the national standards which it has recommended should be issued (see below). This recommendation will be taken into account in the production of that guidance.

   (34)  We recommend that the Home Office guidance to returning officers on the conduct of accessibility audits makes use of national standards and suggest that the audits be carried out, wherever possible, in close co-operation with local disability groups. In particular, we recommend the establishment of local telephone "hot-lines" to ensure that access problems can be acted upon immediately. (Paragraph 88).

  The Home Office supports the issue of national standards on access by the disabled to the electoral system. The first part of these standards is now in place in the form of current Home Office guidelines. As redrafted and reissued for the European Parliamentary elections in June 1999, these underlined the requirement on returning officers to make provision for access to polling stations. The new guidelines provide check lists to audit accessibility concerns for both the designation of polling place and the setting up of polling stations. The Home Office is maintaining contacts with disability organisations, as recommended by the Working Party, and will use guidance in order to encourage these contacts at a local level.

   (35)  We concur with the view that compulsory standards should not be imposed at national level. (Paragraph 89).

  We agree with the conclusion, of both the Working Party and the Committee, that mandatory standards would not be appropriate, as there will always be a greater understanding at local level of how the competing requirements of all electors in a polling district may best be served.

   (36)  We believe that in this important area of the exercise of democratic rights the cost of providing 100 per cent grants is justified. In particular, full grants should be available for the cost of equipping all polling stations with polling booths accessible to the disabled. We also urge the Home Office to improve its advice to returning officers on the availability of grants and the deployment of the equipment. (Paragraph 90).

  We agree with the Committee about the importance of keeping returning officers aware about the availability of grants and advising them on the deployment of equipment. On the issue of full grants, however, the Working Party noted the likelihood of a substantial increase in the level of claims against the Consolidated Fund, as a result of property owners seeking grants in order to meet the standards of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We agree with them that it may be necessary to maintain the current proportions of grants, and to set a cap on the funding available in any one year, while ensuring that funds are equitably distributed.

   (37)  We therefore recommend that the Home Office take any necessary steps to ensure that assistance by polling station staff and companions may be provided to all blind and partially-sighted persons who require it and that the companion providing assistance may be registered in any constituency. (Paragraph 91).

  The Working Party did not address the specific issue of the companion having to be registered in the constituency. In fact, current legislation allows the companion to be any reasonably close member of the family or, it would appear, anyone who is eligible to vote at the election in question. We have accepted the Working Party's recommendation that the existing provisions should be extended to allow companions for all other electors who otherwise would not be able to cast a vote in person.

   (38)  We believe, however, that as a minimum the size and clarity of all ballot papers, including the type size for the candidate's description, should be improved with a large print reference copy displayed in each polling station. The Home Office should also pilot the use of Braille and large print templates. We therefore welcome the announcement that, subject to legislative opportunity, the Government now intend to make possible the introduction of polling aids for disabled people generally. (Paragraph 92).

  We have accepted the Working Party's recommendation for the introduction of changes to the election rules governing the provision of posters and equipment in polling stations to allow large print posters of the ballot paper to be displayed and for simple ballot paper templates or polling aids to be provided in polling stations. Changes of this kind will benefit more than 1 million people in the United Kingdom with partial sight.

   (39)  We believe that every practical option should be explored to enable disabled people and others with mobility problems to exercise their right to vote in person and recommend that a pilot exercise to assess the feasibility and cost of mobile polling stations should be undertaken. (Paragraph 93).

  We agree. We will look to local authorities to propose pilot schemes for mobile polling stations which may help in reaching identified groups of voters who are less able to travel. Examples of those who might be helped would include people in residential and convalescent homes.

   (40)  We have no firm evidence to suggest that abuse of the absent voting system by people fraudulently influencing how such votes are obtained and cast is widespread. . . . We recommend that the Home Office and returning officers conduct research, on a sample basis, into whether absent voters at a recent (or a forthcoming) election were satisfied that they were able to cast their vote free from any improper outside influence, and also into the question of delivery of the ballot papers once completed. (Paragraph 98).

  Since the Committee's report, there have been further concerns about abuse of proxy voting at local authority elections and a number of police investigations are still under way. The Working Party concluded that it would be wrong to make recommendations affecting proxy voting at present. We agree, and will consider the need for further research once the result of the current investigations is known. There is no evidence to support similiar concerns about postal voting, but the Working Party recognised that it was for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to consider which, if any, of their recommendations on postal voting to accept, as the circumstances there may require different arrangements.

   (41)  We broadly agree that there is at present no great problem with impersonation in British elections outside Northern Ireland, and we do not see a need to introduce any additional requirements to prove identity before being given a ballot paper. (Paragraph 102).

  We agree.

   (42)  We concur with Liberty's view that (the system of marking counterfoils to allow vote tracing should be abandoned). (Paragraph 107).

  We recognise that this is an area of electoral procedure which requires re-assessment. However, we have reservations about ceasing the present system of marking the ballot paper counterfoil to allow for vote tracing in specific circumstances in view of the implications for the tendered vote system. We are aware that Liberty's view is not shared by other independent authorities on electoral practice as referred to in the evidence which the Home Office presented to the Committee.

   (43)  We consider that there should continue to be some form of mark or identifier on ballot papers to enable a false paper to be readily identified. However, we regard the physical application of a mark to each such paper at the polling station as unsatisfactory, given how easily it can be accidentally omitted, leading to the effective deprivation of a valid vote. We therefore recommend that the Home Office and the electoral administrators identify and introduce a more up to date and simpler method than the present official mark. (Paragraph 110).

  We agree that the present system of including an official mark remains an essential part of the present system of using paper ballot papers. We accept, however, that the means of ensuring that every ballot paper which is issued to electors bears that mark requires reconsideration in view of the effect that its omission can have on election results.

   (44)  We take the view that the 20 year maximum period within which a British citizen overseas may retain the right to vote is excessive and that the earlier limit—five years—should be restored. (Paragraph 116).

  The Government shares the view of the Committee that there is a balance of arguments for and against the restoration of the original five-year qualifying period for registration as an overseas voter. A number of Members of Parliament have raised the issue in response to the Government's proposals in respect of the funding of political parties. We are considering the issue afresh in that context and will announce our conclusions in due course.

   (45)  We do not think the present voting entitlements for non-UK citizens need extension. (Paragraph 118).

  We agree. Citizenship is the standard criterion for voting in domestic parliamentary elections in most democracies throughout the world. We have no plans for any extension to permit citizens of EU countries (other than the UK and the Republic of Ireland) to vote in UK Parliamentary elections.

   (46)  We recommend that, provided the administrative costs are not excessive, all persons registered on more than one register should be required to specify at the time of registration which one was to be regarded as their main residence and thus the one at which they would vote at any national election. (Paragraph 121).

  This issue was examined by the Working Party which took the view that such a requirement would be complex to administer and could serve to discourage rather than encourage voting unless late changes could be allowed to the declared intended voting location. We agree with the Working Party's conclusion that it is not practical or desirable to introduce such a requirement. Double voting at an election is already an offence, and we have no evidence of abuse in this area.

   (47)  We recognise the argument for reducing the age for candidates to 18, but on balance we do not recommend such a change. (Paragraph 124).

  We agree with this recommendation.

   (48)  We therefore recommend that, with one exception, all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed; the exception would be in respect of all serving bishops of the Church of England who, for so long as places are reserved for the senior bishops in the House of Lords, should remain ineligible to serve as Members of the Commons. (Paragraph 127).

  We are seeking the views of those churches whose clergy are prevented from sitting as Members of Parliament, and will consider this matter carefully in the light of their responses.

   (49)  We agree that people who are putting forward genuine political views and policies should in a democratic society be able to stand as candidates without undue difficulty, even if their views are unlikely to secure the support of any more than a small minority of voters. At the same time, we do not believe the political process is enhanced or democracy well served by a proliferation of candidates who are standing purely for the sake of personal publicity, whether for the purposes of humour or of commerce. We therefore agree that it is right and proper for there to be some basic threshold candidates must pass if they are to be allowed to stand. (Paragraph 131); (and)

   (50)  We do not favour a major increase in the threshold for becoming a parliamentary candidate but we do think some further rise would be appropriate in current circumstances. We recommend that:

(a)  there should be a modest increase in the deposit to £700 for the next general election, and that the deposit should thereafter be indexed;

(b)  the number of assentors required should be raised to 50, though returning offices should have a clear power of discretion to accept nomination forms containing only minor errors in the names and details of assentors; and

(c)  before signatures of assentors are collected the nomination form must be authorised by the returning officer confirming that the candidate's name and description are accurate. (Paragraph 134).

  We accept that there are occasions, particularly at parliamentary by-elections, where some candidates may not take the electoral process seriously.

  Accordingly, we accept that the proposals in recommendation 50 are all worthy of consideration, and that this may best be done by means of consultation with the political parties represented at Westminster and in the European Parliament. As regards the current level of deposit, we accept that, as it has been in operation for 14 years, there is a serious case for considering an increase and whether it should then be index linked. We doubt whether an increase to 50 assentors would be sufficient to discourage all of those frivolous candidates who may be determined to stand—and it would place a significant additional burden on electoral administrators. There is a practical problem for candidates of ensuring that the information about their assentors on their nomination papers is correct. However, allowing the returning officer to have discretion about what constitute minor errors, so that the nomination paper is not rejected, could lead to inconsistencies.

   (51)  We accept that the position with respect to the prevention of the use of deliberately misleading names by candidates may be adequate in theory. In practice however there are still difficulties. We recommend that candidates should be nominated under a name by which they can show that they have been known for a given period before the election (such as the name by which they are listed in the electoral register). (Paragraph 138).

  We know of a number of cases at the last general election where rogue candidates attempted to stand using a similar name to well known candidates in an attempt to confuse the electorate. We recognise that this could become an increasing problem which needs to be addressed without, however, prejudicing the right of independent candidates to stand for election. Any change in legislation to meet the Committee's suggestion that candidates should be nominated under a name by which they can show they have been known for a given period before the election might create problems for those who have legitimately changed their name shortly before an election. The test suggested, of being listed in the electoral register, would bar anyone who, for whatever reason, was legitimately not on the register but was otherwise qualified to stand as a candidate. This problem requires more careful consideration involving the United Kingdom political parties represented at Westminster and in the European Parliament.

   (52)  We welcome the provisons covering candidates' descriptions in the Registration of Political Parties Bill so far as they go . . .. We believe however that returning officers will need stronger guidance than is provided in the Bill as to whether particular descriptions should be allowed. There may also be a need to establish a mechanism to ensure consistency between different returning officers' decisions. We conclude that the Government, electoral administrators and political parties should monitor developments closely, and that the Government should be ready to introduce further proposals if necessary. (Paragraph 145).

  A number of RPA circulars contained guidance on the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. In particular, RPA 423 gave guidance to electoral administrators on dealing with registered parties and included examples of descriptions that returning officers would probably consider would, or would not, lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party. In the light of questions asked by electoral administrators, RPA 424 contained further guidance and examples. Amendments to the Local Elections Rules were brought into force in time for the local elections in May. The arrangements seemed to have worked well at these elections and those for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the European Parliament.

  It is also relevant to note the Government's proposals as set out in the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill which would repeal, and re-enact with modifications, the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. The effect of these proposals would be to put in place revised arrangements for the registration of political parties which would have the object not only of regulating and protecting the use of particular descriptions by candidates but also of bringing political parties within the ambit of new controls on their income and expenditure.

  Under these proposals responsibility for the registration of political parties will transfer from Companies House to the Electoral Commission. It will be open to the Commission to provide advice and guidance to returning officers in respect of candidates' descriptions as on other areas.

  Under the new scheme, registration will, in effect, be compulsory for political parties wishing to put forward candidates in their name. The provisions (clause 19) of the draft Bill require that no nomination may be made in respect of a candidate for election except in respect either of a person who is authorised to stand at the election by a registered party or a person who does not purport to represent any party or group (ie if the nomination paper gives the description "Independent" or no description whatsoever). This new requirement should reduce the occasions on which returning officers may need to reject nomination papers on the grounds that the description of the candidate is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with another registered political party.

   (53)  We have received no serious criticisms of the present work carried out by the majority of local authorities and electoral officers, and we congratulate them on their record. (Paragraph 147).

  We are delighted to endorse this conclusion and to be associated with the Committee's congratulations.

   (54)  An electoral commission should be established whether or not one is recommended by the Neill Committee (on Standards in Public Life). The responsibilities of the Home Office would be correspondingly reduced. One of the tasks of the commission would be to ensure that the electoral process is continuously monitored and discussed and kept up to date. (Paragraph 156).

  The Government has accepted the recommendation, also made by the Neill Committee in its Fifth Report on the funding of political parties, that an independent Electoral Commission be established. The Government's proposals in respect of the constitution and functions of the Electoral Commission are set out in Part I of the draft Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill and explained in Chapter Two of the White Paper.

  The Commission's functions will be wide ranging. In addition to being responsible for administering and ensuring compliance with the new controls on political parties' income and expenditure, the Commission will also have a broad remit in respect of elections and referendums. In particular it will be charged with reporting on the conduct of national elections and referendums and advising the Government on any necessary changes to the law. In the longer term, the Commission will also take over the functions of the parliamentary boundary commissions and the Local Government Commission for England. In exercising its functions the Commission will assume a number of functions from the Home Office, although the Home Secretary will retain responsibility for electoral law.

  To buttress the independence of the Commission it will be accountable directly to Parliament. A Speaker's Committee of MPs will be established to scrutinise the Commission's budget. This Committee will perform similar functions in relation to the Electoral Commission as the Public Accounts Commission does in relation to the National Audit Office. In keeping with the NAO model, the draft Bill provides for the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to be an ex officio member of the Speaker's Committee.