(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Baroness makes a really important point. Sadly, many people out there seek to stop the widest possible engagement in our political process. We have seen that through harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, and particularly women Members of Parliament, and what we have seen has been shocking. That intimidation, which is not just restricted to women, has a huge impact on the willingness of people to seek public office. That is why we are taking specific action, making plans to extend the disqualification order to protect electoral staff, empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse those who uphold our democratic traditions, and removing the requirements for candidates’ home addresses to be published. It is a sad indictment of where we are, but those are important protections for our political process.
My Lords, given the failure of the Labour Party to find any female leader as yet—a full party leader; my apologies to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—will the requirements of this section apply when the Labour Party next seeks a new leader?
I think the noble Lord knows full well that we should not judge our ability for representation on one person. He referred to my noble friend the Leader of this House, and I am a protected characteristic as a gay Deputy Leader of this House. It is important to see Section 106 not in terms of the headlines but in terms of the whole of our political activity and the people involved in it. Councillors at a local level are just as important as Members of this House.
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberThe noble Lord intervenes at a highly apposite time. I said at the start of my contribution that I was conflicted. All I wanted to do was set the record straight in relation to the Electoral Commission as I and others have experienced it. A number of noble Lords have said that these clauses do not solve the problems that might arise from any behaviour of the Electoral Commission. That is why I am conflicted. I do not believe these clauses solve the problem. I believe there are problems with the Electoral Commission and that Mr Pullinger and his new organisation will tackle them, but I do not believe that these clauses solve the problem.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, regularly reminds us of Henry VIII clauses. I regard this as a Henry II clause: “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?”—or, in this case, this troublesome regulatory body. I am sorry, but I cannot read those clauses without thinking that in some malevolent hands they will be misinterpreted by some Government or another.
I was an electoral observer in 2018 in a country I know well because I completed the whole of my university career there—Zimbabwe. I met the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission and challenged it on the way it operated that election. I would like to be in a position to suggest that it use and operate our law. Could I honestly do that with these two clauses as they stand?
I come back to the position on which I opened. I am conflicted. I would like to see what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, identified: the clear operation of an electoral commission that produces independent, fair, free elections. That I could commend to the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission. I hope that, when it comes back, this legislation will be something that I could recommend. As it stands, with these clauses, I could not.
I am very conscious of that. I did not necessarily say that the Lords to whom I was referring were present in the Chamber; I gesticulated towards the Bench opposite. I hope I did not offend the noble Lord in saying that.