Elections Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly from these Benches, most of these probing amendments seem reasonable and we look forward to the response of the Minister on the points that have been raised. I will just raise four points.

First, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. I have listened throughout Committee to his detailed analysis of what has happened in Tower Hamlets. I think it is important as we go through the Bill that we remember what has happened in Tower Hamlets, but we must not use it as the sole basis on which to make the law of the land; we have to listen to what has happened there, but making electoral law has to go much wider than just the Tower Hamlets case.

Having said that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I want to probe why it is five years in particular. Five years is one election cycle, or could be one general election cycle. If somebody has committed quite a serious election fraud, having a five-year, one-term ban seems rather lenient to most people who would be looking in. What analysis was done by the Government in determining that five years was the particular period?

On Amendment 172, it is pleasing that, if the Secretary of State is going to vary, omit or add to the list of offences, it will be done on the affirmative procedure. Can the Minister give an example of what type of variation would be required? One can understand omitting, one can understand adding, but what kind of variation do the Government foresee could be laid by the Secretary of State? With those comments from these Benches, and my omitting when I first spoke to also wish the noble Lord, Lord True, a speedy recovery and wish him back to his place for Report, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

First, I thank my noble friend for bringing the Committee up to date with the letter from the Minister to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan police that we discussed at our previous sitting. The letter is one thing, but I now wait for the responses to it. I will make sure that my noble friend Lord True knows about that so that we can keep the pressure on to get those responses. That is important.

The act of intimidation and those who perpetrate it have no place in our democracy. Clause 28 would create a new disqualification order for offenders who intimidate those who contribute to our public life. This would be a five-year ban on standing for, holding and being elected to public office. It can be imposed on those convicted of intimidating a candidate, elected office holder or campaigner. After all, it is simply not right that those who try to damage political participation through intimidation are allowed to participate in the very same process that they tried to undermine.

There is no single offence of intimidation in criminal law. Therefore, the new sanction would potentially apply to a wide range of existing intimidatory criminal offences, as listed in Schedule 9. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked what more could be added to that, and I will get some suggestions for him.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I did not ask what more could be added but for an example of variation.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will get an answer for the noble Lord and write to him.

The list includes, but is not limited to, stalking, harassment, common assault and threats to kill. By creating a new sanction instead of a new electoral offence, we would enable the protection from intimidation all year round, not just during an election period, and extend protection in law to two additional groups: future candidates and elected office holders.

We understand the noble Baroness’s view on intimidating those not wanting to stand—they just want to intimidate. I will take it back because it is a valid point, but I imagine the answer is that there are other laws for that sort of intimidation that do not affect electoral law. I will ensure that the noble Baroness gets an answer.

For the disqualification order to be imposed, the intimidatory offence must be aggravated by hostility related to the status, or perceived status, of the victim being a candidate, elected office holder or campaigner. This ensures that the disqualification is imposed only in instances where political participation is genuinely at risk. The disqualification order is, of course, in addition to whatever other punishment the court applies to the offender for the underlying criminal offence. I think that is extremely important.

Amendment 160A probes the circumstances of an elected candidate being found guilty of terrorism offences. I can confirm that anyone committing an act of terrorism against a candidate, future candidate, campaigner or holder of elective office would already be subject to the disqualification order as currently drafted in addition to the penalties associated with that specific crime. If the offender was a holder of elective office, their office would be vacated in accordance with Clause 29. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

I heard what my noble friend Lord Hayward said about Amendments 161 and 171, but I am not going to comment on that case because I do not think it would be right to do so. These amendments seek significantly to increase the period of disqualification or incapacity arising from the imposition of the disqualification order or from committing relevant electoral offences, respectively. Changes of this significance require very careful consideration to ensure that these penalties continue to reflect the crime and do not become disproportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Before my noble friend moves off that point, and picking up a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, although I have referred on a number of occasions to Tower Hamlets, I have done so because that is the most extreme example. Does my noble friend agree that there are other examples of election offences around the country which may be considered minor, but are indications of the sort of problems we are facing in a number of areas?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Issues from around the country that we need to take note of have been brought forward in this Committee.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My question was slightly different. I appreciate that the Minister tried to answer, but what assessment has been carried out to see whether five years is still relevant? If it is benchmarked against a five-year period within the Representation of the People Act, was that assessed against the types of crime that we are talking about and was that still seen to be the correct benchmark?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It is considered to be the correct benchmark taking into account proportionality and the fact that many of these crimes will have further consequences because other crimes have been committed.

Amendment 168 seeks to widen the definition of a campaigner in Clause 32 explicitly to include fundraising activity as an activity undertaken by a campaigner for election purposes. I can assure the noble Baroness that fundraising activities for a registered party and a candidate are already implicitly captured, as provided by the broad wording that defines campaigners as engaging in activity to “promote or procure” support. However, we will explore options to clarify this further in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment, but I ask her not to press it.

Amendment 170 to Clause 33 would require a Minister of the Crown to publish a statement outlining the details of the disqualification order in the event that a person were to be elected to the House of Commons while subject to a disqualification order. Further, we note the noble Baroness’s opposition to Clause 33 more generally. As explained, the new disqualification order disqualifies offenders from being elected to various offices. Clause 33 would ensure that this disqualification applies to membership of the House of Commons. To clarify, while the other relevant elected offices already have provisions which state that an election is void because of disqualification, there is currently no equivalent provision in relation to the election of a Member to the House of Commons.

Therefore, Clause 33 has an important role to play in ensuring that the new intimidation disqualification order operates as intended and as I suggest the electorate would expect it to operate. There is no reason why those elected to the House of Commons should be treated as a special case or held to a lower standard than any other elected office in this country. Anyone convicted of a politically motivated criminal intimidation-related offence should not be sitting in the other place for the duration of the disqualification period.

Turning specifically to Amendment 170, I reassure the noble Baroness that it would not be necessary. Although there is no notice requirement in Section 7 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in the event that a seat becomes vacant, there will be a Motion for the Speaker to issue their warrant to make out a new writ for the election of a new Member to fill that vacancy. The writ would then be issued, and Members of the House of Commons would be made aware that a vacancy has occurred. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

I now turn to Amendment 172, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which proposes to limit the regulation-making powers to amend Schedule 9, which lists the existing criminal offences of an intimidatory nature in respect of which the intimidation sanction can be made. The purpose of Clause 34 is to future-proof the new intimidation sanction so that it remains relevant and can continue to apply to offences of an intimidatory nature, recognising that the nature of intimidation and abuse can shift, and indeed is currently shifting, particularly online. A relevant example of this is the online safety Bill, introduced earlier this month: it proposes new communication offences originally recommended by the Law Commission last year.

In addition to enabling Ministers to respond to and add new offences, the clause ensures that the list provided in Schedule 9 remains accurate through powers to omit offences from the list and vary the description of offences already included in it, if and when any of the listed offences are amended or repealed in law. These provisions will require that any statutory instrument laid using these powers is subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative resolution procedure. This will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise and decide whether to accept any proposed changes to Schedule 9. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press Amendment 172.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the clarification she has provided, particularly around my amendment seeking to include fundraising. It would be extremely helpful if that could be added to the Explanatory Notes. She also explained that the Government want to future-proof intimidation sanctions, particularly online. When the Minister talked about varying the offences, did she mean just varying the descriptions of offences as things change to make sure they are always up to date? It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No—we are talking about ensuring that the list provided in Schedule 9 remains accurate through powers to omit offences from the list and vary the description. So it is varying or omitting.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

So the “varying” bit is just to do with the description of the offence. I thank the Minister.

As the amendments I have tabled show, my main concern is the fixed five-year period. Other noble Lords have raised that issue too—the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, rightly said that that is only one parliamentary term—so it would be good if the Government could look at that again. I will make another suggestion. If the Government are going to stick with the fixed five-year period, what would happen if there were a repeat offence? Would there be another five-year period, or is there an option to look at a greater sanction if such an offence were committed again? Otherwise, it is not a deterrent if the people just miss out every now and again. It would be good if the Government could have another think about that; otherwise, this issue will come back on Report, because there are clearly concerns about it.

I thank the Minister for her comments on the intimidation of candidates’ agents and campaigners. I am aware that she rightly said that other offences are available for people to be convicted of if they are found to have behaved like that. I know that this is not part of the Bill, but often the effectiveness of the police’s response to such intimidation varies greatly across the country. It would be good if the Government could also consider that in some form or other. For the moment, I withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his excellent introduction to a range of amendments. We should not simply think that negative campaigning and threats to our election process are new things as a result of new technology. These sorts of things have been going on for many years. Certainly, I have seen a political party put one leaflet down one street saying one thing and then another down another street saying the complete opposite.

All of these things are addressed effectively through effective transparency, with people knowing exactly where this information comes from. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is right there. That is why it is important that the Minister specifically addresses the point in Amendment 180A. I am worried that we spot a problem, understand the issue, say we are addressing it in legislation but then create a loophole where everyone can escape.

I am grateful for Adobe sending me its briefing on this issue. It basically says that we have the technology and there is a standard being developed for content authenticity initiatives—CAI—which, if adopted, and it is being adopted, can address this issue. I do not understand why we have this loophole. Technology can ensure that the imprint of who has created and published the content is there. I do not see the circumstances where it is not possible. Even if it is not possible on the face, they now have the technology to point out easily how you find it. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones says, I do not see why we have this wording of “not reasonably practicable”. I am not even sure I would agree that it is not possible. It is possible—the technology is there so we should do it.

Noble Lords have referred to the Russia report. We said at the beginning of Second Reading—and I am not going to make a Second Reading speech—that the Bill is a missed opportunity. It could have embraced a lot more and the issues identified in that report will need to be addressed in future legislation as they have not been addressed here.

I hope the Minister can specifically address the issue in Amendment 180A; I particularly hope she has seen the briefing from Adobe and the industry which says that this is possible. They have created a standard which they expect everyone to adopt—in fact, Facebook, Twitter and others are all adopting it. If they are adopting it, can we not use the legislation to ensure that it becomes compulsory for all political actors to comply with this legislation and that we do not have a loophole?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for a very thorough piece of scrutiny of this part of the Bill. I think it would be useful if between now and Report we had a meeting with him and other interested parties to discuss this further and also address some of his very in-depth speech that I will not answer this evening because we might be here all night. We will get answers to him very quickly so that we can discuss them when we have that meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and many others are right: this is fast moving. What we see today is probably not what we will see in five years’ time, and we need to future- proof. I think we all understand that.

There were some very specific questions that I will answer upfront because that will give some context to what else I am going to say. First, on digital imprints, it is important that “reasonably practicable” is understood. It should be read as commonly understood; “reasonably practicable” is commonly understood. The Electoral Commission and the police will need to interpret this phrase in context in the course of their enforcement of the Bill. The statutory guidance will provide further details on the location of this imprint and what is required. There will be further guidance on this.

A number of noble Lords spoke about the Intelligence and Security Committee and said that political adverts should include an imprint. The Government’s digital imprint regime delivers the ICS’s recommendation to introduce a requirement to add an imprint on digital paid-for political advertising. As digital campaigning is not confined to election periods or geographical boundaries, the regime is intended to apply all year round, UK-wide, and regardless of where in the world content is promoted from. Following a conviction or a civil sanction, the courts can make an order or the Electoral Commission may issue a notice to anyone, including social media companies, requiring them to remove or disable access to infringed content. Failure to comply with a notice or order would be a criminal offence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, brought up the issue of targeting messages. Targeting messages at voters is a legitimate activity that allows campaigners to maximise their resources and target their message at the right audience. All campaigners must comply with direct marketing and data protection laws when using personal data in their campaigning, but it is a legal activity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

This is about transparency, so that the public can know that somebody is saying different things in different places—that is all.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Understood. Listening to the debate, two words have come out, and we will reflect those. One is “safeguarding”, and one is “transparency”, as the noble Baroness has just said. Those two things are important as we move forward with the Bill.

The provisions in Part 6 of the Elections Bill will introduce one of the most comprehensive “digital imprint” regimes operating in the world today; that is the positive thing. However, it is crucial to take a proportionate approach to the scope and application of the regime to ensure that it is enforceable and to avoid stifling political debate. It is for this reason that the Government do not support the noble Lord’s amendments, as we consider that they would introduce unreasonable burdens on campaigners and therefore risk restricting freedom of expression.

Due to the way some digital platforms are designed, it will not always be practical to display the imprint as part of the material itself—for example, in a text- based tweet where there is a strict character limit. Amendment 180A would not give campaigners the much-needed level of flexibility and therefore risks unreasonably hampering their ability to campaign on particular digital platforms. I have listened to the points made about new technology coming out; it is important that we keep an eye on that, so that if that is possible in the future—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am not asking my noble friend to reply this evening, because this is a complicated question, but I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, say that the digital material would not have to have an imprint on itself and that it could refer you by a link to another page. If that is the case, we could have a situation where if you are retweeting things, you may get even further away from the reality of what is happening. It was also not clear to me, because of the Government’s reaction to an earlier amendment, whether a third-party campaigner had to disclose on their home page that they were registered as a third-party campaigner. I am not sure that I have the links quite right here. If the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was correct, perhaps my noble friend could unpick that when she writes to us after today. I am not asking her to reply to that now.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I take note of that and will make sure that my noble friend understands the unpicking of all of that.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this flexibility does not amount to allowing campaigners to place the imprint wherever they want. Under our regime, campaigners would be required to ensure that their imprint is displayed as part of the material and only when this is not reasonably practical may the imprint be located elsewhere—as my noble friend said—but it must still be directly accessible from the campaigning material. Those who do not comply will be committing an offence.

Turning now to Amendment 194A, the Government are mindful that transparency requirements on campaigners remain proportionate and that they are not unduly discouraged from participating in public life. Candidates and registered campaigners already have to detail their electoral spending in their returns to returning officers and the Electoral Commission and provide invoices for payments over a certain amount. Invoices provided to the Electoral Commission are then made available for public scrutiny. The practicality and impact on campaigners of requiring them to submit more detailed invoices or receipts about digital activity would need to be looked at very carefully, as the detail provided is determined by the suppliers themselves and not necessarily by the recipient.

Similarly, in relation to Amendment 196A, the Government welcome the steps already taken by many social media companies in this area. We continue to keep transparency rules under review, but given the steps taken already by platforms such as Facebook, we do not propose to mandate centralised libraries of digital political content. Requiring all campaigners promoting paid political advertising to themselves maintain a library of those adverts with specified information for at least 10 years risks adding a significant and unreasonable administrative burden on campaigners, particularly smaller groups that rely on volunteers or groups that are established only for the lifetime of a particular election campaign. We know that some small campaigns happen and, in our opinion, keeping a library for 10 years would be unreasonable.