Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

The noble Lord was kind to speak to these amendments on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who meant no discourtesy by not being here—he could not have possibly imagined that we would still be in Committee this week when he planned the rest of his diary. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a skilful and interesting amendment. It is also an imaginative amendment, but it raises points that need to be answered, which I shall try to do. The purpose of the amendment is to insert new provisions into Schedule 10 to make provision where there is equality of votes at any stage in the counting process. The proposed approach differs significantly from that provided for in the Bill, which essentially proposes that a tie between candidates will be settled by reference to the number of votes secured by the relevant candidates in previous counting rounds, starting with the number of first preference votes obtained in the first counting round. If at that stage there is a tie, the next stage will be looked at and so on. If that process fails to decide the tie—that is, there is an equality of votes for the respective candidates at all previous counting stages—the tie will be decided by the drawing of lots. Under the Bill, there is no provision for the poll to be abandoned and a fresh election held in the event of a tie between candidates. The Government recognise that it is possible to take different approaches on this issue. However, in developing the AV provisions in the Bill, we have taken into account the legislation and practice in elections to bodies across the UK and in other countries where preferences are used. There is a strong case for referring back to the first preference votes received by candidates and taking those into account in the first instance when deciding a tie, as the first preference votes represent voters’ first choice as to which candidate should be elected. The noble Lord wishes to avoid an election being decided by lot. Under the current rules for UK parliamentary elections—under the first-past-the-post system—in the event of a tie, the returning officer decides the winner by lot. In the AV provisions, we are continuing with that principle that a tied vote can be decided by lot. As my noble friend ably pointed out, the amendment as drafted would result in a fresh election being held in the event of a tie between candidates at any stage of the counting process, regardless of which candidates were involved. We think it would be hard to justify abandoning a poll where, for example, 10 candidates are standing and there is a tie between, say, the ninth and 10th placed candidates in the first round of voting. I know the noble Lord said this was a probing amendment—I understand that—but that is a flaw in the argument. Moreover, the amendment as drafted would seem to require the poll to be abandoned even though a candidate had secured more than 50 per cent of the vote—and would therefore expect to be declared the winner—if two lower-placed candidates had the same number of votes as each other. I do not think that can be right either. More fundamentally, we have some concerns, which we are justified in raising at this time, about the additional public expense that would be incurred in administering a fresh election under the noble Lord’s amendment and the extra time that it would take in returning a representative to the constituency concerned. The second issue was about the names listed in reverse alphabetical order. Under existing parliamentary election rules, the names of the persons standing are arranged on the ballot paper alphabetically in the order of their surnames, not in reverse alphabetical order as provided for under the amendment. The Committee might find some previous research into the impact of alphabetical listing of candidates and parties on ballot papers interesting. For example, the 2003 Electoral Commission report Ballot paper design considered whether candidates higher up the ballot paper could be at an advantage in a multiseat election, but it acknowledged that the information was inconclusive. More recently, the same issue arose in the context of the report by Ron Gould on the 2007 Scottish parliamentary and local elections. Gould made a number of recommendations in respect of ballot paper design, including that the order of parties and candidates on the ballot papers might be determined by lottery. This was intended to allow equal opportunity for all parties and candidates to access the top of the ballot paper rather than always have the order assigned by alphabetical position. However, the then Government indicated that it did not support the proposal. I understand that the consultation carried out by the Scotland Office found strong support among focus groups and others for retaining alphabetical order, on the grounds that electors are used to that and it is easier to find the candidate or party of the voter’s choice. Randomising the ballot paper would also throw up particular problems for those with visual difficulties and may cause problems for voters with poor reading ability. The consultation showed that there was little support for randomising the order of names on the ballot paper and significantly more research would be required. The Electoral Commission’s 2009 document, Making your mark, sets out guidance for government policy-makers on improving the usability and accessibility of voting materials by considering voters’ needs. However, the commission’s report does not recommend the randomisation of names on ballot papers or that candidates should appear in reverse alphabetical order. I apologise for taking up the Committee’s time in giving what I hope is a full reply, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will be satisfied when he reads it and I hope that, on his behalf, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will not press his amendments.