Political Parties and Elections Bill

My Lords, the amendment would require a returning officer to keep information on postal votes that have been rejected because the postal-vote identifiers have not been completed, are incomplete, or do not match the records held on the postal-vote application form. The second part of the amendment would require a returning officer to write to all electors whose postal vote was rejected notifying them of the circumstances in which it was rejected. I think Members on all sides of the House are concerned to secure every possible improvement that we can to the postal voting system, and the amendment clearly has very good intentions, seeking as it does to ensure that votes cast may be counted and that the integrity of the system is strengthened. These are aims that the Government of course support, but while we may agree on the general intention, I have some concern about the policy prescription set out by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am not convinced that compelling a returning officer to write to all electors who have had their postal vote ballot rejected due to a mismatch of identifiers is the correct course of action. In some cases, this may well have the effect simply of alerting would-be fraudsters to the failure of their attempt. My inclination would be to grant the returning officer discretion so that, when there has clearly been a simple error such as entering the wrong date on the postal vote application or statement, the returning officer might write; but where the returning officer suspects fraud, he or she might consider that notifying the police to investigate is the correct course of action. This judgment should be made in conjunction with administrators and the Association of Chief Police Officers, rather than leaping to a decision that may hinder rather than help attempts to tackle fraud. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill, I do not consider there to be the time available for us to work through the issues so that we can be confident about making a change of this nature. Another matter for further consideration is the question of those electors who do not respond to the letter issued by the returning officer. It may well be desirable for additional follow-up action to take place in this instance in order that the ERO might establish beyond doubt the identity of the individuals residing at that address with a view to ensuring the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register. However, this is properly a role for the electoral registration officer. Clarifying the powers for returning officers and electoral registration officers to share data for these purposes is another area which would need careful consideration. Rightly, there are clear provisions in law concerned with the safe disposal and secrecy of election documents. It would be all too easy to implement a change in the legislation which sought to provide access to election records for one purpose, but which inadvertently compromised the safety and secrecy of the information that those records contained. On the provisions for dealing with election documents, I should also make it clear that the amendment put forward by the noble Lord is defective. It provides that the proposed list should be regarded as a relevant election document for the purpose of Section 42 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. However, this section provides for access to election documents in relation to elections other than parliamentary elections. Corresponding provision in respect of parliamentary elections is made in rules 55 to 57 of the parliamentary elections rules. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Henley, any answers, but his questions make the point that the Government would make. It is not straightforward. We would need to understand the size of the burden, the implications for a successful criminal prosecution and the implications for the whole area of privacy. To summarise, we agree that there is merit in the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, but we are concerned that the right measures are put in place and we would wish to consult more widely before bringing forward proposals. I note from its briefing that the Electoral Commission supports the intention of the noble Lord. However, I understand that it shares our concerns about moving to legislation without due consideration of the issues at hand. The Government will therefore undertake to consider this issue with the commission, ACPO and other appropriate stakeholders with a view to legislating in the next electoral Bill. On this basis, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.