Elections Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hayward]

88: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Evidence of full name
In Rule 6 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (nomination of candidates), in paragraph (2)(a) after “full names” insert “, as evidenced by a birth certificate or passport”.”

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, this is a small group of technical amendments, and I will speak to Amendments 88 and 91 first. When I quoted Richard Mawrey of the elections court on Tower Hamlets earlier today, I referred to Mr Kabir Ahmed. He had actually changed the spelling of his name to ensure that it was impossible to trace him from his previous electoral background from one borough to another. It is not a common case. I checked with the AEA, and it said there was no requirement that people should use a standard name. This is a probing amendment to establish how we can go about ensuring that people validly put in genuine nominations and do not try to hide their background.

Equally, Amendment 91 concerns an anomaly which has already been dealt with by the Senedd in Wales—the use of commonly used names. It makes sense as it stands but in this regard I give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, my colleague in room 23. Where somebody uses their given name, as per christening, they are not entitled to use it in terms of nomination papers. For example, Harold Wilson would not have been allowed to give his name as Harold Wilson and James Callaghan would not have been entitled to give his name as James Callaghan, because they were not “commonly known as” names but their middle names, and this is currently illegal. Therefore, all I am trying to do is to set right an anomaly which I am sure was never intended.

Moving on to Amendment 89, as my noble friend the Minister knows, during Covid we reduced the requirement for nomination signatures from 10 to two. I wrote to him on 17 January raising the possibility of extending this allowance—that we stick with two signatures rather than 10. If there are objections based on the fear that there will be large numbers of candidates because you have reduced the required signatures from 10 to two, first, it did not happen last year, and secondly, a better way of imposing a restriction would be to require a deposit rather than 10 signatures. I am dealing with these amendments briefly because I am conscious the House wants to make progress.

Of the two other amendments in this group, one deals with the curious anomaly of incorrect declarations. If, by chance, an inaccurate declaration of a result is made and the wrong person is declared elected, it is necessary to hold a by-election. That happens surprisingly regularly, virtually every year, even though people are aware of it. It is an unnecessary expense, and I am working on the basis that all parties would come to an agreement at the count that there had been a declaration error. I am conscious that even in a general election—as in West Bromwich at the last election, where we came very close to an error—incorrect declarations are regularly made. It is an anomaly that these declarations cannot be corrected at a count where all parties are in agreement. I just wanted to put on record that there ought to be a solution to that.

My final amendment in this group concerns something I touched on at Second Reading: the mess we have in electoral law, in that there are exclusions for police and crime commissioners which do not apply to local councillors, and which do or do not apply to Members of Parliament when standing for election. It seems logical to me that we should have the same exclusions for any election, not just a hotch-potch in terms of the requirements of exclusions.

I have covered the five amendments very quickly, and I hope I have done it sufficiently satisfactorily for people to understand the objectives. As far as I am concerned, most of them are probing amendments, but on Amendment 89, I really do believe that the reduction in the number of signatures from 10 to two for local government elections should continue to apply. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to comment on Amendments 88 and 89 because for me—and I have read quite a lot of the background—I fear they represent solutions in search of a very significant problem.

Amendment 88 requires the production of a birth certificate or a passport to secure nomination as a candidate. It is not clear to me what widespread problem is being solved by this, nor what problems might actually be created by introducing such requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has given one or two specific examples, but it seems to me that a solution which then requires every candidate to produce a birth certificate or a passport when they put in a nomination form is excessive. It is also not clear to me why a passport and a birth certificate have been selected as forms of identification but not a driving licence, which contains a name, or a national insurance number, behind which exists a name. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because it does seem to be a proposed solution to a problem which is not that significant.

Amendment 89 would reduce the number of signatures for local nomination from 10 to two. I understand the circumstances in which, during Covid and the pandemic, the reduction to two was wise, because there were difficulties with people speaking to each other. However, in general terms, reducing the total number of signatures to two seems insufficient for nomination to elected positions that carry substantial responsibilities. I remain of the view that 10 is a better number than two.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his positive replies to a number of the amendments, and I apologise for the fact that, in my need for haste earlier, I did not give credit to both him and his officials for having taken the time to discuss these issues with me. I should therefore put that on the record now. In light of his broadly positive approach to the amendments —as I said, they were primarily probing amendments on technical matters—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 88 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to the secrecy of the ballot. Amendment 97 from my noble friend Lady Hayman would expand the offence to include attempting to communicate the number or other unique identifying mark on the back of a ballot paper sent to a person for voting by post at a relevant election. Amendment 100, meanwhile, expands the offence to include those who obtain or attempt to obtain information or communicate at any time to any other person any information as to whether a person voting by post at a relevant election has spoilt their ballot.

The purpose of these amendments is to draw attention to the various ways that an individual could circumvent the secrecy of the ballot for nefarious purposes. I am sure the Minister would agree that legislation must cover each of the possible intrusions. Given that this is not the only legislation that deals with voting in private, I hope the Minister can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary and that this is already an offence.

Government Amendments 83, 99, 101 and 102, meanwhile, each make minor changes to inserted Section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. These all appear to be technical amendments which I have no intention of opposing, but I look forward to the Minister explaining their purpose in more detail.

Government Amendment 103 ensures that no criminal liability arises where information is sought from, or given by, a postal voter at an election for the purposes of an opinion poll or exit poll. Again, this amendment seems to be a technical clarification which has been rightly introduced.

Finally, Amendment 109 from the noble lord, Lord Hayward, allows for a more general debate on the secrecy of the ballot. It would mean that the Secretary of State could issue guidance on steps that presiding officers or clerks should take to ensure the secrecy of the ballot in polling stations, including debarring anyone accompanying the elector into the polling booth, unless on grounds of infirmity. This raises issues similar to those raised in earlier amendments from my noble friend Lady Hayman regarding how we can ensure that votes remain private. The noble Lord is right to table this amendment and to draw attention to further ways that this principle could be compromised. I hope the Minister can allay the House’s concerns ahead of Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made reference to the original secret ballot of the 19th century. To a large extent, what we have seen over the last 150 years is what should happen: a ballot should be secret, in that one person goes into the polling booth alone, marks their vote and then casts it in the ballot box. Unfortunately, because of a series of interventions, with the Electoral Commission and others denying who is interpreting the legislation in whichever way, this issue has been called into question. I am going to cite Tower Hamlets again, but I know that this problem is broader than that. Too regularly, presiding officers in polling stations are faced with a problem whereby people attempt to accompany somebody else into the polling booth, effectively to influence the casting of that ballot.

I can do no better than to quote research undertaken in 2018 by Democracy Volunteers, an organisation of lawyers who operate a system of reviewing the processes of elections, within Tower Hamlets and other similar locations. I make no apologies for quoting the research in full:

“QUESTION 9. Was there evidence of ‘family voting’ in the polling station? … In 58% of polling stations our observer teams identified so-called ‘family voting’. OSCE … describes ‘family voting’ as an ‘unacceptable practice’. It occurs where, generally, husband and wife vote together. It can be normalised and women, especially, are unable to choose for themselves who they wish to cast their votes for and/or this is actually done by another individual entirely. It is a breach of the secret ballot. We identified this in 58% of polling stations (74 separate occasions). As family voting, by definition, includes more than one person this means that we observed this 74 times in the 764 voters we observed. This means that over 19% of all the voters who we observed were either engaged in, or affected by, this practice.”


This is the key qualification:

“We would, however, like to add that the vast majority of cases of this were prevented, or attempts were made to prevent it. However, we believe that this constitutes an unacceptably high level of family voting in an advanced democracy and further steps should be taken to discourage and prevent it. However, this activity is generally not the fault of polling staff, in fact we commend the staff for being so active in their attempts to prevent it.”


As one of the observer teams said:

“Family voting is a definite concern in Tower Hamlets. At the best-run polling stations, the Presiding Officers kept an active watch for potential cases and took steps to prevent it happening. They took care to issue ballot papers to family members one at a time, and then direct them to polling booths in different parts of the room. With three members of polling staff, this meant that while two clerks checked the register and issued papers, the”


polling officer

“could remain vigilant for possible family voting or other problems. All the observed cases of family voting took place when the”

polling officer

“was absent or distracted, or their attention was elsewhere.”

There is no criticism here of the polling staff; they try to do their best. But I am afraid, as this report from Democracy Volunteers identifies, that this is a far too pervasive problem, and we need clear guidance. Most people believed that we had clear guidance for a century and a half, but because of varying interpretations, my amendment is an attempt to ensure that we move away from this practice and back to what was originally intended.

As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, identified, I have tried to allow for those people who need accompaniment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in a previous debate, there may be other people in similar circumstances who need assistance. Generally, the assistance will come from a polling officer, but there may be special reasons why somebody needs accompaniment from a member of the family. However, these should be virtually unique occasions, not—as the report from Democracy Volunteers identified—a pervasive problem. I therefore believe that my amendment is attempting to tackle a problem which is quite widespread and needs clarification, and that it is in the best interests of conducting elections across the country.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. As an aside on families and secrecy of the ballot, I have had to ask somebody to be a proxy only once: during the very fraught referendum on Brexit, I had to ask my husband. I can tell your Lordships that, to this day, I still do not know which way I voted. I think I know which way I voted, but the secrecy of the ballot is absolutely sacrosanct, and I do not know.

On a more serious point, these Benches support the raft of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and those in the name of the Minister that support the secrecy of the ballot. The only difference we have with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward—this has been an ongoing issue with him—is that if guidance has to be given on such issues, it probably would be better coming from the independent Electoral Commission rather than the Secretary of State, although we do not dispute that such guidance would be helpful. However, we understand from previous discussions and debates with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, why he seeks the Secretary of State giving such guidance, but if it was to come, we feel that it should come from the Electoral Commission. With those points, we support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I will follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on undue influence. I think that a large part of this stems from Richard Mawrey’s judgments in the Tower Hamlets case. Anybody who has not experienced what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has clearly seen in places such as Bradford and Kirklees and I witnessed in Tower Hamlets will not appreciate what one is talking about, which is a serious problem. The first time I went to an election in Tower Hamlets a friend of mine, Councillor Peter Golds, to whom my noble friend Lord True referred, identified this: “See those people there? See that person there?” We are talking about people standing 100 metres to 150 metres away from a polling station. They walk alongside people going to vote. They stop people going into the polling station. When complaints are made to the police, the police feel that they are powerless to intervene. Anybody who has not experienced that sort of undue influence cannot appreciate the intimidation involved. I welcome the clause and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because it is an important change to electoral law.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the underlying issue here clearly might lead to concern in certain circumstances, but the point I took the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, to be making is that this is a very new category of injury. I have never seen in legislation before the concept of “spiritual injury” or individuals being placed under “spiritual pressure”. Could the Minister give us any precedents for these terms in legislation so that we can get some idea as to what other matters they have referred and how they might actually be applied?

Although we can understand the issue, how do we define what counts as spiritual pressure? If, for example, a religious group put out literature supporting one candidate or another, as often happens, would that count as undue spiritual pressure? There could be a freedom of speech issue here, which I do not think we want to get into, so it would be useful if the Minister could explain to us other contexts in which this has been used so that we can get some idea of what a proportionate judgment on “spiritual injury” and “undue spiritual pressure” might be.