Moved by Lord Mott That the draft Regulations laid before the House
on 6 July be approved. Relevant document: 47th Report from the
Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Lord Mott (Con) My Lords,
this statutory instrument is largely technical in nature and makes
updates to the relevant electoral conduct rules to ensure effective
implementation of measures in the Elections Act 2022 and the Ballot
Secrecy Act 2023. Undue influence is an electoral...Request free trial
Moved by
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be
approved.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee
(Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument is largely technical in
nature and makes updates to the relevant electoral conduct rules
to ensure effective implementation of measures in the Elections
Act 2022 and the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
Undue influence is an electoral offence that criminalises
behaviour which seeks, in various ways, to coerce a person to
vote in a certain way or abstain from voting. The 2015 Tower
Hamlets petition demonstrated that protection from undue
influence remains highly relevant and important in 21st-century
Britain. However, the offence originated in the 19th century and
prior to our changes in the Elections Act 2022 was considered
difficult to interpret and enforce.
The Elections Act updated the existing offence of undue influence
for UK parliamentary and local government elections in England
and all elections in Northern Ireland. The revised offence better
protects voters from improper influences to vote in a particular
way or not to vote at all. It also provides clearer legal
drafting to assist authorities in enforcing it. The purpose of
these regulations is to apply the updated offence to police and
crime commissioner elections, recall petitions, local authority
referendums and neighbourhood planning referendums.
Political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society,
which is why Part 5 of the Elections Act introduced a new
disqualification order aimed at offenders who intimidate those
who participate in public life. The order introduces a five-year
ban on standing for or holding public office. The Elections Act
also extended the powers of returning officers to hold a
nomination paper invalid where a candidate is disqualified under
the new order and requires candidates to declare that they are
not disqualified under it. These changes apply to Northern
Ireland and to local and UK parliamentary elections.
The Act also amended the relevant vacancy rules, including for UK
parliamentary elections, to reflect the timing of vacancies
occurring as a result of the new order and ensure that those
disqualified vacate office. This SI replicates these changes for
nomination for police and crime commissioner elections as well as
for local and combined authority mayoral elections, and updates
the vacancy rules for combined authority mayors.
In addition, the Elections Act introduced a new measure to permit
greater flexibility in the use of commonly used names by
candidates on nomination and ballot papers. This change means
that candidates can use their middle name as a commonly used
name—an odd omission from previous legislation on this topic—and
amends the existing rules for UK parliamentary elections,
elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections in
Northern Ireland.
This change clarifies the law for candidates and returning
officers. We know that practice has varied on this at times and
across local authorities. Therefore, clarification will also
provide consistency. This instrument makes the same change to the
conduct rules for local and combined authority mayoral elections
in England and police and crime commissioner elections in England
and Wales. It also amends the nomination paper completed by
candidates at these polls to reflect the new provisions.
I turn to the provisions in the instrument concerning the Ballot
Secrecy Act 2023 and pay tribute to my noble friend for his work on this
important new measure. The Act introduced two new offences:
first, for a person to be with another person at a polling booth
and, secondly, for a person to be near a polling booth while
another person is at that booth, with the intention in both cases
of influencing the other person to vote in a particular way or to
refrain from voting. This Act, which applies to UK parliamentary
elections and local elections in England, as well as elections in
Northern Ireland, aims to provide polling station staff with a
firmer basis on which to challenge suspected inappropriate
behaviour in polling stations. This instrument completes the
implementation of the Act by extending the new offence to police
and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, MP recall
petitions across the UK, and local government, council tax and
neighbourhood planning referendums in England.
It is vital that these rules be updated in relation to the
Elections Act and Ballot Secrecy Act measures to ensure
consistency and fairness across electoral law. Applying these
measures across the relevant election rules will modernise and
strengthen the integrity of voting and offer necessary protection
for electors, candidates, campaigners and elected officeholders.
I commend these regulations to the House.
5.00pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, , for his helpful and detailed
introduction. Paragraph 2.1 on page 1 of the Explanatory
Memorandum reflects the complexities of modern democratic
citizenship. Its last sentence must be welcomed; it is a definite
no to undue influence. Likewise, it is interesting to note in the
Explanatory Note
“the amended candidacy rights for EU citizens introduced by
section 15 of the Act”—
for example, form 2A on page 14.
Concerning the police and crime commissioner elections, I draw
attention most positively to Schedule 5. There are four pages in
the language of heaven—the Welsh language from the lovely land of
Wales, which is my homeland. You rarely see Welsh on official
Whitehall and Westminster papers, and pages 47 to 50 are
distinctive; this is good. Were these pages prepared by the
department, was it subcontracted to the Senedd or was it entirely
the work of the translation service?
Our North Wales Police force is well regarded. It has major
challenges and overcomes them. Its terrain is mountainous,
coastal and estuarial and exhibits the great earthworks of the
early medieval warlords Offa and Wat. They were not specifically
dug to keep us warrior Welsh out of Saxon territory, and today
they are notable for the Welsh place names on the western side of
the earthworks and for the Saxon on the eastern—the Saxon -tons,
for example, Commissioner Dunbobbin is excellent, and for ever
amidst the far-flung citizenry. I had the honour of teaching his
mother, and observe and know him well. Our recently appointed
chief constable is on the Welsh speakers course, and I suggest
that the noble Lord visits our constabulary; he would be warmly
welcomed by a hospitable chief constable and by our diligent
commissioner.
I note that Regulation 11 applies to Wales only. The mayoralty of
London is fast becoming a great office of state and sometimes
appears to rival our premiership: the City, money, influence,
Heathrow’s runways and the Met—it is quite a list. The mayoralty
of Manchester has been made a great success; a former Cabinet
Minister just knows how.
Has former Cottonopolis, now the home of magical graphene, edged
ahead of Chamberlain’s second city, Birmingham? For certain, the
mayor, the former head of the ubiquitous John Lewis, has brought
further fame to Birmingham and—intentionally or otherwise—allied
his HS2 thinking to that of Manchester’s mayor. That is quite a
local government alliance. The mayoralty of Teesside appears
talismanic to His Majesty’s Government, and its noble presence is
in your Lordships’ House. Is it appropriate to describe a group
of elected mayors as a “clutch” or a “gathering”? Perhaps the
pressured PM of the day would deploy the description of a “gang”.
Concerning mayoralties, there do seem to be constant, strong,
hitherto unforeseen challenges to Downing Street. However, they
are all constitutional, democratic and buttressed by the secret
ballot of regional citizens.
Lastly, referendums have edged big time into British
parliamentary life. Some 53 years ago, when one entered
Westminster, they were not there; now, the unforeseen
consequences of devolved Governments in Cardiff, Belfast and
Edinburgh have manifested themselves over nearly a quarter of a
century. For example, in the Covid emergency, central government
was occasionally embarrassed by First Ministers who knew how to
deploy well-timed televised press conferences. It really can be a
challenge when central government is of one political complexion
and the other Governments of Britain are of the opposite—so very
obviously critical, angry and ambitious, yet legitimate and
constitutional.
I am very proud of the Wales Assembly, now the Senedd. It powers
on some 25 years; it is but an eye-blink in the great history of
Wales, a sort of infinitesimal timeline. Government is messy and
always challenging. Constitutional change is often a step in the
dark. A referendum on a British scale is truly an “historic
midwife”, but it is constitutional of course. I end again by
thanking the noble Lord for his helpful introduction.
(LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, , who I think entered the other
place at a point when my role in elections was counting the
posters as I walked to my primary school, wondering what on earth
this was all about.
After our extensive debates on the Elections Act, I do not think
we need to spend a lot of time dwelling on these various measures
which are necessary following the changes made by that Act, and
by the Ballot Secrecy Act that was steered through so skilfully
by the noble Lord, , who I am pleased to see in
his place. I will not dwell on any of these measures, except to
say that I think they again really illustrate the need to
properly codify all of our electoral legislation, as recommended
by the Law Commission some years ago. I would be grateful if the
Minister, who I can see is nodding, might confirm that the
Government are interested in this idea in principle.
I will, however, say today that the Ballot Secrecy Act was
necessary, as shown by the legal advice obtained by the Electoral
Commission, and that it provides greater clarity for presiding
officers. It is clearly right, therefore, that the provisions of
the Ballot Secrecy Act apply to all other elections, to
referendums and to recall petitions.
(Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, , for his kind comments. As he
knows, and as I think many others in the Chamber also know, he
played a prime role in progressing the idea that we should seek
counsel’s opinion from the Electoral Commission to establish
clarity in relation to the law, to which I shall return in a
moment.
In relation to the noble Lord, , I am reminded that in fact, the
first time I ever cast a vote in person—I can say it in Welsh,
but I am not sure I could spell it if Hansard asked me to check
it—I voted in favour of Sunday opening. This was a referendum in
Pembrokeshire at the time that I lived there. I will not go down
the Welsh language route.
(Lab)
The first referendum was lost; the second was won. In the Marcher
area on Sundays, you would see thirsty men queuing for a bus from
Wales to Chester.
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention—it saved me from my
attempt to speak Welsh.
Before I move on to one or two aspects of this, I seek
clarification on what my noble friend the Minister said as he
opened the debate: that is, that on page 51, the note refers to a
series of different elections with regard to the application of
the Ballot Secrecy Act. There is no reference to parliamentary
elections but, as I understood it, he was confirming that the
Ballot Secrecy Act would be included when it comes to the general
parliamentary elections—I note that he is nodding in response to
that, and I appreciate it.
As the noble Lord, , said, the Ballot Secrecy Act
was intended to establish free and fair elections, cover aspects
of equality and give power to presiding officers to intervene
where actions were inappropriate. In my time of progressing what
was the first Private Member’s Bill from this House in four years
to complete its passage and only the third in 15 years, I learned
a lot about the processes that Private Members’ Bills go through
in the House. It is tortuous, unnecessarily long and in some
cases distinctly disadvantageous to the proposer of the
legislation as regards the manner in which amendments from
government are considered and the like. I suggest that either the
effective second Chamber group of the noble Lord, , should look at the way we
operate, or some committee should do so. Even having navigated
the way through the difficulties in the House, Bills from this
House go to the bottom of the queue in the House of Commons,
whereas Bills from the House of Commons go to the top of the
queue in the House of Lords. It seems an unacceptable variation
in the process; therefore there are several needs for change in
relation to this.
The noble Lord, , touched on the question of
whether the Bill was necessary. As I indicated in the debate on
15 July last year, in which others here participated, it was
unclear whether the officials’ advice that it was not necessary
to pass my Bill or the Electoral Commission’s broad advice that
it was necessary at that stage was a matter for question.
Counsel’s opinion came down quite clearly in favour of a need to
change the law. However, out of curiosity I would just like to
know whether the Minister can say, now or at a later stage, at
which point the officials in the department received the
Electoral Commission’s guidance. It is relevant to the process of
the Bill and the views expressed to Ministers, to officials and
to others on the ministerial write-round. I will not go into
great detail at this point about my concerns about the handling
of that; I put them in writing to the Minister and have received
a reply. I have been offered a meeting, which, as yet, has not
been taken up. I understand, given the ill health of the noble
Baroness, Lady Scott, and the circumstances of these SIs and so
on, that things are necessarily delayed. However, I am concerned
about the aspect not of the decision-making process but of the
accuracy and consistency of the advice that has been given to
Ministers on the ministerial write-round.
5.15pm
I am completely in favour of the regulations as drafted in the
SI. I am pleased to see that we are making progress on aspects of
the Elections Act, as well as the Ballot Secrecy Act. I share the
concern that the noble Lord, , expressed that we really need
some form of consolidation of election law. The fact that one has
to have a document of this size, which is only one of a series,
to implement the legislation because we have to confirm it in
relation to each of the different elections that we have in this
country, also acknowledging that there are varied systems in
Wales and Scotland, shows that, at some stage very soon, the
Government should get around to consolidating all the elections
law. It would be in the interests not only of us but of those who
are obliged to administer the multitudinous elements of law so
that we can all vote freely and fairly at any given appropriate
time.
(Lab)
My Lords, this instrument applies measures relating to undue
influence to police and crime commissioner elections, as well
recall petitions and local referenda in England. These provisions
seek to provide greater clarity on this offence, including by
specifically covering intimidation.
Undue influence and any practice involving intimidation have no
place in our voting system. If we want to call our elections free
and fair, we must act proactively to stop those who seek to
unfairly influence how others vote. It is right that we update
the definition of undue influence to accommodate a modern
understanding of the phrase in the statute book. The current law
was brought into force 40 years ago, and 100% of the respondents
to the Protecting the Debate White Paper agreed that a clear
definition should be adopted. We welcome this update of the
definition of undue influence. It is clear language—not quite the
heavenly language my noble friend referred to—and this point was
well supported by the noble Lord, , who has been a great
champion and campaigner in this area.
In addition, we welcome provisions to ensure that
disqualification orders are effectively enforced and that those
served with them cannot stand in relevant elections. We also
support the implementation of the Ballot Secrecy Act to the
elections covered in this regulation. Alongside that, we welcome
clarity on whether a commonly used name can be used on nomination
papers.
I want to press the Minister, given that these regulations
include provisions relating to influencing individuals to sign
petitions: can he explain how these will be applied to
e-petitions and can he provide an update on the application of
the broader intimidation offences under the Elections Act? Have
any charges resulted from these new offences? I look forward to
the Minister’s response.
(Con)
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have
participated in what is turning out to be a relatively short
debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, , for his invitation to Wales; I
would be more than happy to visit at any time, and look forward
to the very warm welcome which he described. With regard to
translation, which I think was the core point of what he asked,
as per our existing practice, Welsh forms have been translated by
Welsh translation services.
On the comments from the noble Lord, , I guess that, a few years
ago, we would have been in a very different place today, on the
eve of two parliamentary by-elections. I think the point he made
is incredibly important. It would be wrong for me to do anything
other than say that I will come back to him, which I am very
happy to do in writing.
My noble friend also commented on the need to
bring election law all together and update it. From a personal
point of view, I am very much with him on that. Having had more
than three decades in front-line politics, I am aware that there
may well be a need for change going forward. I will come back to
him in writing, because that is the right thing to do.
My noble friend asked for clarification on
there being no reference to general elections in this SI. For the
record, let me make it very clear that the Ballot Secrecy Act
2023 applied the new offences to UK parliamentary elections and
local elections in England, as well as to elections in Northern
Ireland. These regulations ensure the effective implementation of
the Act by extending ballot secrecy offences to police and crime
commissioner elections in England and Wales, recall petitions,
and local government council tax and neighbourhood planning
referenda in England. This is why the Explanatory Notes for the
SI do not reference UK parliamentary elections.
Regarding the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Khan, I have
not got that information in front of me, but I am more than happy
to write to him with an explanation.
In conclusion, these regulations are vital to ensure that the
changes already agreed in primary legislation are applied to the
relevant electoral conduct rules as intended. Failure to do so
would create divergence across reserved electoral law, creating
confusion instead of clarity. It would be a negative outcome for
electors, as well as for candidates, campaigners and elected
office holders, as applying these measures to the relevant
election rules will strengthen the integrity of voting and offer
further protection to those who wish to take part in public life.
I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these
regulations.
Motion agreed.
|
