Clause 61 - Performance of local authorities
Electoral Administration Bill
2:45 pm
Clive Betts (Sheffield, Attercliffe, Labour)
With these amendments, I seek ministerial clarification on two issues. The first issue, which is dealt with in amendment No. 31, is the content of the guidance on standards of performance that the commission is to lay down. I have chosen as an example an area in which guidance might be given, because I have seen a good practice adopted by at least one local council that might usefully be followed by others. It might surprise hon. Members to know that it is Westminster borough council that has adopted that good practice. I know that it has a certain history in electoral matters; we all know of that council's strange record of attempting to manipulate electoral practice through its housing policy, but the matter I raise has nothing to do with that. Indeed, I am sure that if I discussed that matter any further, you would accuse me of straying from the amendment in question, Mr. Conway.
What Westminster does as a matter of good practice is this; each February, when the final register is drawn up, it sends to everyone on the register what is in effect a mock poll card to confirm that they are registered on the electoral list. Well before any local, regional, European or national elections—obviously, it was before the national election recently—everyone on the list in Westminster receives a poll card similar to the one that they will receive at the time of the election. The advantage of that system is that everyone can see whether they are on the list when they still have time to do something about it if they are not, if their registration is wrong or if someone is registered at their address who should not be. In February or March, the individual can go along and correct the registration if it is wrong, ensure that they are registered or get themselves registered in good time for the forthcoming elections. It would be helpful if other local authorities followed that good practice.
I ask Ministers to consider whether they would like the Electoral Commission to include that practice in its standards of performance. I well recollect that when we had the Second Reading debate, the ministerial response to a number of issues was, ''That could be in the standards of performance.'' There is general agreement that a national standard of performance is needed for electoral registration officers. Practice varies so much on so many matters throughout the country. It is important that the register for national elections is drawn up on a common basis, so performance standards are clearly important.
As well as suggesting that one example of good practice, I intended to ask Ministers how far they intend to direct or indicate to the Electoral Commission what should be in the standards of performance. Will Parliament have an opportunity at any time to discuss, consider, reflect on and make suggestions about what should be in those standards, or will the Electoral Commission produce the standards by itself, independently, exclusively and almost secretively, with no elected Members having a chance to comment? The amendment gives us a chance to tease out from Ministers how the standards of good performance will be drawn up, whether that will be done openly, whether there will be consultation and whether Members of Parliament as well as Ministers could have an input.
I hope that Ministers will take up my second amendment in some form, even if it does not use the right form of words. As I understand it, the form of words in the Bill allows the Electoral Commission to require relevant officers—including, most importantly for this purpose, electoral registration officers—to produce reports. My amendment says yes, there should be reports, but there should be a report every year; not that there may be a report, but that there must be an annual report. That is crucial. If we are giving electoral registration officers new powers and responsibilities to ensure that registers are accurate, in that people who are entitled to register are registered and those who are not entitled are not registered, it is crucial that officers be required to produce every year a report indicating the extent to which they believe that they are fulfilling their duties and the extent to which the people who are entitled to register in their areas are registered; the extent to which their register is accurate.
I hope that, as well as providing the basis for a report to the Electoral Commission, that report would form the basis for a report to the local council, which could be referred to the council's scrutiny committee, so that every electoral registration officer was scrutinised every year on their annual report. I also hope that Ministers might consider the Electoral Commission making an annual report to Parliament based on the annual reports from electoral registration officers, so that we have a chance to scrutinise in the House the performance of EROs throughout the country and to consider how they perform one against another. I am sure that there will be big differences and it would be interesting to start asking questions and to get local councils to act and to answer questions, particularly about registration officers whose performance appears to be somewhat worse than that of their colleagues in other authorities.
I have two aims, the first of which is to tease out how we will go about producing national standards. Secondly, can we have an assurance that there will be an annual report from each electoral registration officer and other relevant officers at local councils? That report would form the basis of a report to be referred to the scrutiny committee, with the possibility of an investigation at local level. It would also form the basis of a report to the Electoral Commission, which would report to Parliament. We could then scrutinise the performance of one registration officer against another to see how accurate different local authorities' electoral registers are.