Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we very much welcome these amendments. We thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for tabling them and for his excellent and clear introduction on his concerns about the implications of leaving these clauses in the Bill. I will be brief, as he and many other noble Lords made excellent speeches today.

We have made it extremely clear on previous stages of the Bill’s consideration that we are extremely concerned about its intention to make provisions for a power to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, drafted by government. As other noble Lords have said, this would allow political interference in the regulation of our elections and calls into question the independence of the Electoral Commission from government and political control. This simply cannot be allowed to happen. It is a dangerous precedent. If we look at similar democracies such as Canada, New Zealand or Australia, there is always a complete separation between government and the electoral commission. It is essential that our regulatory framework strikes the right balance between upholding the independence of the Electoral Commission and ensuring it is properly scrutinised and held to account. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made some good points about the fact that we need to look at how it operates, but this is absolutely not the way to go about it.

I remind those noble Lords who have said that this is not of any concern that new Section 4B(2) in Clause 15 says that:

“The Commission must have regard to the statement when carrying out their functions”—


“must”, not “may”. That is what really concerns us. We have had many excellent speeches, so I urge the Minister to listen very carefully to what has been said in the defence of our democracy. That is what we are talking about. We fully support these amendments and urge other noble Lords to do the same when this is put to the House.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I have not detected universal enthusiasm for these clauses in the debate, but I will seek to persuade your Lordships that they should remain. Of course, in remaining, one of the things they do is provide a basis for further discussion.

Your Lordships’ House is a revising Chamber, but we do not have here amendments to revise. These amendments would simply remove clauses on the basis of arguments which, in my submission, are exaggerated in their concerns, although I understand and share the concerns for democratic responsibility and respect. We have even heard several threats to kill the whole Bill. I must remind noble Lords that this is a Bill that prevents election fraud and abuse; introduces the first controls on digital campaigning; cracks down in many ways on foreign spending; and improves the integrity of postal voting. These are matters which have wide assent across the Chamber and across both Houses. It would not be wise or proportionate for your Lordships to consider killing those proposals on the basis of this particular issue.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Would my noble friend accept that if the Government withdraw these clauses, on which there is a great deal of opposition, the Bill will go through? Several of us have said that it has many excellent features. We do not want to kill the Bill, but we do want to remove this anti-democratic element from it.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I can only respond to the language I heard in the debate and, of course, that will lie in Hansard. Of course I listen to the range of concerns set out by your Lordships. The main concern that I hear, and understand, is about the potential impact on the independence of the Electoral Commission.

I stated in Committee, and I do so again now, that the Government’s proposals take a proportionate approach to reforming the accountability of the commission to Parliament, which some who have spoken have admitted could be reviewed, while respecting its operational independence. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others that it is vital we have an independent regulator that commands trust across the political spectrum.

By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, asked would I worry if the Labour Party had such powers on the statute book. I remind your Lordships that the Labour Party is a great constitutional party, and I would trust it to use the responsibilities and powers that it had in an appropriate manner.

In previous debates, parliamentarians across both Houses identified areas of concern with the commission’s work. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts spoke to this. Under the existing accountability framework, in practice, parliamentarians are limited in their ability to scrutinise and hold the commission effectively accountable. The report by my noble friend Lord Pickles, whom I am pleased to see in his place, obviously alluded to certain issues that he felt had not been fully addressed. These measures will seek to remedy this by providing guidance, as approved by Parliament, for the commission to consider in the exercise of its functions, and by giving the Speaker’s Committee an enhanced role in holding the commission to account in how it has performed its duties in relation to the proposed statement.

It has been suggested, several times, that the “duty to have regard” to the strategy and policy statement placed on the commission in Clause 15 will weaken its independence and give Ministers the power to direct it. The Government strongly reject this characterisation of the measures. The Electoral Commission will remain operationally independent and governed by its Electoral Commissioners as a result of this measure, after as before. This duty does not allow the Government to direct the work of the commission, nor does it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

I wonder, given what the Minister has just said, whether he could explain the purpose of new Section 13ZA, on the examination of the duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement, which states:

“The Speaker’s Committee may examine the performance by the Commission of the Commission’s duty under section 4B(2) (duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).”


What is the purpose of having the ability to examine the commitment to the policy statement? What would the Government do if it found that “have regard” had not been sufficient?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness that it is not a power to direct. The Speaker’s Committee is not a government institution; it is part of the architecture that is there, and has been there, to oversee the work of the commission. That was inherent in previous legislation; this legislation seeks to improve its ability to do so. What the legislation means is that when carrying out its functions, yes, the commission will be asked to consider the statement, but weigh it up against any other relative considerations.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, knows the respect I have for him. I have enjoyed discussing this matter with him and no doubt may again if he has his way in your Lordships’ House today, which I hope he will not, but our contention is that there are a number of safeguarding provisions around parliamentary approval and consultation built into Clause 15. I outlined that at length in previous debates and will not repeat it here. I believe, notwithstanding the noble and learned Lord’s remarks, that those safeguarding provisions should reassure those who have expressed concerns about strategy and policy statements being drafted by future Governments that may have ill intent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

Can the Minister list which Select Committees have Ministers as members?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the Speaker’s Committee is sui generis. Obviously, it has senior representation from political parties in the House of Commons. I have enormous respect and affection for the noble Lord. It is not reasonable to impugn the integrity of a Speaker’s Committee and I do not think that he was doing so—

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I was not, in any way, impugning the Speaker’s Committee. I was picking up the point that the Minister had just made about the corollary of a Select Committee.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord rose. I had started to make it clear that I was not making any such proposal. The analogy I was using is just a mechanism in terms of the way that the committee will be able to conduct its reviews, effectively holding the commission accountable on a broader range of its activities than is currently allowed in law. As I sought to explain to your Lordships, that remit is currently narrowly restricted.

For the reasons that I have set out, I urge that my noble friends and noble Lords across the House oppose the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, and that Clauses 15 and 16 stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated, including those Members of the House who do not agree with me. It is fun to listen to alternative arguments.

I have just a couple of points to make. The problem with these clauses is that they were inserted without any kind of discussion. When constitutional issues are being addressed, and when, in particular, the independence of the Electoral Commission and its performance are being addressed, surely, of all things, that is something for cross-party discussion, and it is for the cross-parties to make up their minds how to make the Electoral Commission do its job and perform its function better than it has. That is a matter for Parliament: I am not going to advance different solutions to this, but the problem is that nobody has asked anybody else. That is why I describe this proposal as “new minted”. It is “new minted”, and that is one of its problems.

The other problem is with the phrase “must have regard to”. I “must have regard” to everything the Minister says. I am going to listen to it; I am going to be influenced by it. I might not feel quite as strongly as I did against him—I do not know—but the point is that you have to have regard to the statement by the Minister of the Government’s strategies, priorities and guidance, and that would influence any body of people, however independent-minded they are and wish to be. That, surely, is the point of this legislation. The Government want the commission to be influenced by the strategy and priorities paper.

If the Electoral Commission says, “Well, we have seen what the Minister has to say. We have read the statement and we think it’s a load of rubbish”, what happens then? Apart from anything else, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be briefed on a judicial review by the Government that the Electoral Commission was not exercising its powers correctly, and he would probably win. As I have told noble Lords before, he never won a single case in front of me; and as I have also told noble Lords before, on every occasion when he appealed, he won.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

47: Clause 19, page 29, line 24, leave out “a local government election in Scotland or Wales” and insert “an election in Scotland or Wales under the local government Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 10, line 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not have much to add to the noble Lord’s contribution. We support his contention that this is an unnecessary clause. I agree that the principle is one that we should completely reaffirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, did in a previous debate. We need the assurances from the Minister. If he is unable to give the assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, seeks, we will support him if he decides to divide the House.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, Clause 19 is there to clarify the law on benefits in kind and make it clear that candidates need to report only benefits in kind that they have actually used or which they or their election agent have directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf. We had some discussion on this in Committee, as the noble Lord acknowledges. This was already widely understood to be true, prior to the Supreme Court judgment in R v Mackinlay and others. The Supreme Court judgment has led to concerns that candidates and agents could be responsible for spending they had not consented to or were unaware of or not involved in. This is an unacceptable situation and risks a chilling effect on people willing to put themselves forward as candidates and agents.

The noble Lord has been so kind as to refer to the positive engagement we had and I thank him for his continued interest in and engagement on the topic. In response to some of the concerns he raised, including those raised again today, I am happy to provide clarity on the government position. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked two specific questions and I can say to him that the Government are absolutely committed to the long-standing principle of a level playing field for general election campaigns, whether in campaigning being carried out at constituency level or nationally. The noble Lord referred to a statement made by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in 2019 when agreeing with the importance of the principle of a level playing field in relation to spending at elections. The Government maintain the commitment my noble friend gave; nothing in the Bill seeks to undermine that principle.

The proposals in the Bill will not change the fundamental principle that party spending in support of a particular candidate in a local area falls to be recorded as candidate spending against the local limit. Instead, the clauses bring forward changes seeking to maintain the level playing field by ensuring that all candidates and agents across the political spectrum are clear and confident in their legal responsibilities. Clause 19 also makes an equivalent amendment to the same rules for other types of campaigners, such as political parties and third-party campaigners, to ensure that the rules are consistent. We believe that these changes will bring much-needed reassurance and clarity to candidates and their agents on the rules which apply to notional expenditure for reserved elections. In combination with expanded statutory guidance—which we will discuss shortly—from the Electoral Commission on this matter provided for in Clause 20, this measure will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel confident doing so, clear in their obligations.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked a further and very specific question. I can say to him that the Government are not acting in response to the judgment of Southwark Crown Court in 2019 in relation to campaigning in South Thanet in 2015. However, the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2018 related specifically to the consideration of a particular point of law and concluded that there was no requirement for authorisation in Section 90(3) of the 2000 Act, which was contrary to the understanding of many and led to concerns about what expenses could potentially be incurred on a candidate’s behalf even without their knowledge. As a result, there have been calls from across the political spectrum for clarification of those rules. A cross-party committee of MPs, PACAC and the Law Commission have called for clarity on the rules in recent reports. The changes enacted by the Bill will only clarify the law so that it can be commonly understood. As I said, any uncertainty could lead to a democratic chilling effect, with candidates and election agents, who are often volunteers and fearful of their personal circumstances, unwilling to expose themselves to risk.

Finally, it is important to note that Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 already prohibits “local” third-party spending over £700 which has not been “authorised in writing”; therefore, it requires specific authorisation. Where such spending is authorised by a candidate, the candidate must also report on the spending incurred by the third party. If a third party, which could include a political party, spends over that threshold without authorisation, an offence has been committed. The Elections Bill does not alter this. Where a third party, including a political party, has provided property, goods and services free of charge or at a discount, or has made use of property, this must be recorded as a notional expense.

I can assure the noble Lord on those points that we are absolutely committed to the assurance my noble friend gave and that we are not acting in response to the judgment of Southwark Crown Court in 2019 in relation to 2015 and the issues of uncertainty that have arisen. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept those assurances and be ready to withdraw his amendment that would remove this clause from the Bill.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those warm words and his reassurance, and for his engagement and that of his officials on this important issue of election law. We have certainly made great progress on the issue since we began discussing what may happen in relation to notional expenditure and the original Private Member’s Bill, but I take from everything that he says, when he refers to clarification following the Supreme Court judgment, that any court in future would say that nothing in this clause should be taken as a change in the law.

I remain unconvinced that it is necessary but I am pleased that the Minister, in his correspondence, particularly that to all Members of the House on 4 April—if I may paraphrase slightly what he said—made it clear that there is no get out of jail free card for a candidate or agent who encourages excessive spending in a constituency and simply relies on the claim not to have authorised it. The word “encouraging” is quite significant in how that may be taken in a court in future should there be controversy over election expenses. It means that there cannot be a nod and a wink to expenditure in the cause of winning a constituency without accepting that such expenditure must be specifically authorised, to a £700 limit, for a third party. An election agent who told their HQ that they were delivering a leaflet with the local volunteers over the weekend so it would be convenient if two coachloads of paid activists could come on Wednesday and Thursday would certainly be encouraging illegal spending, as would providing them with maps and assisting them with their dining and hotel arrangements when they came to canvass or deliver in the constituency.

In my view, it remains a loophole that we must examine at another time that parties can post huge quantities of direct mail to a constituency aimed at influencing the vote there but claim that it is nothing to do with the local candidate. However, given that the Electoral Commission should retain its independence to advise on such matters, and that such advice could again be evidence in court, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome and support the noble Lord. Throughout the stages of the Bill, I have repeatedly welcomed some of his contributions, particularly in relation to third-party campaigning and creating the certainty and clarity that they need to ensure that the chilling effect does not have a huge impact on our democracy. I very much welcome this, and I welcome the principle that the code of practice provides that necessary parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome these amendments.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, one of the charming aspects of your Lordships’ House is that when a Minister is being chided for not listening to the House it is rammed to the gills but when the Government make a concession there are not quite so many here. None the less, I thank not only my noble friend Lord Hodgson but colleagues in other parts of the House who have made this case, including the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place for perfectly understandable reasons.

The amendment would create a new clause in the Bill which would remove a permissive power that allowed the Electoral Commission to prepare a code of practice, and instead, as your Lordships have asked, replace it with a requirement on the Electoral Commission to produce such a code of conduct. It also specifies the scope of the code, sets out the consultation process and procedure for the code, and creates a defence for third parties who are charged with offences under Part 6 of PPERA. It also makes the necessary consequential amendments to Clauses 20 and 25.

As my noble friend kindly acknowledged, in Committee I promised to consider his suggestions on a code of practice for third-party campaigners. He made his arguments in good faith, on the basis of great experience and genuinely reflecting the opinions of the sector. As he acknowledged, my officials and I have since met him and concluded that these changes are necessary and important for third-party campaigners.

The new statutory guidance—I do not know whether it will come to be called “the Hodgson guidance”—will provide certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules relating to third-party campaigning. The amendment provides for the guidance to be comprehensive, and I say to my noble friend that it is our hope that this will address the term “the public” used in Part 1 of Schedule 8A on qualifying expenses.

The amendment requires the commission to consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, as in our earlier proposals on the strategy document. It also requires the commission to consult such other persons as the commission considers appropriate. As part of the statutory consultation, the Government would certainly expect a cross-section of civil society groups to be consulted; I can give my noble friend that assurance.

I am pleased to confirm that the Government are fully supportive of these three amendments, and I very much hope that your Lordships will support my noble friend.

Amendment 49 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

50: Clause 21, page 31, line 30, leave out “a local government election in Wales” and insert “an election in Wales under the local government Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 10, line 33.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

55: Clause 26, page 36, line 34, at end insert—
“(10) An order under subsection (9)(b) or (c) may be made only where the order gives effect to a recommendation of the Commission.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes the power to remove or vary entries in the list of categories of third party that may be recognised for the purposes of Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 exercisable only on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 26 allows the Secretary of State to lay legislation before Parliament to amend the list of eligible categories of third-party campaigners in PPERA 2000. As we discussed at earlier stages, this is necessary in instances where, for example, legitimate categories not currently on the list emerge in the future. Without it, they would be significantly restricted in their ability to campaign if they could not be added to the list quickly. We consider the power to remove and vary entries equally as necessary in ensuring that the list of categories remains accurate. Any order, regardless of whether it adds, varies or removes categories, will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny by both Houses, via the affirmative resolution procedure.

However, the Government have listened carefully to, and taken note of, concerns raised by noble Lords during debates, by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its recent report and by representatives from civil society organisations in recent meetings. In recognition of the strength of feeling on this issue, which I understand, I have therefore tabled an amendment that would mean that any order to remove or vary the description of a category of third-party campaigner can only—I emphasise “only”—be made where it gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission. This Electoral Commission lock will provide the necessary safeguard against any future Government potentially seeking to misuse this clause. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government are earnestly seeking to reassure those concerned by this clause, and that they will support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

57: Clause 28, leave out Clause 28
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out Clause 28 (joint campaigning by registered parties and third parties).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on this in Committee and I accepted what the noble Baroness the Minister said at the time, that actually the requirements in the current law will be strong enough to ensure that the principle that we all want—greater transparency—will be applied. Certainly, I accepted that and understood it, because I think we all shared the concern that “reasonably practicable to comply” could be a huge loophole and she assured us that that would not be the case. We also discussed in Committee the fact that the industry itself, the online industry, had produced the means to ensure greater transparency. I made reference to the Adobe briefing, which I think is really important. I think we are all at one in terms of what is required.

On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I agree with him completely that it is again providing the means to ensure greater transparency. Certainly, from these Benches, we support his amendment and if he decides to divide the House, we will support him.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Elections Bill, let us not forget, will introduce one of the most comprehensive digital imprint regimes operating in the world today and I submit to your Lordships that whatever shortcomings they may feel, or however much further they want to o’erleap the ambitions of the Government, these proposals are about increasing transparency for voters and empowering them to make informed decisions about the material they see online. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, there is much agreement on that point, but we cannot, I fear, support Amendments 58, 60 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because they do not, in our submission, strike the right balance between increasing transparency and proportionate regulation of campaigning, while Amendments 61 and 65 would be highly difficult to enforce and would risk unduly stifling online campaigning and free speech, although I concede to the noble Lord that this matter will be further debated in the Online Safety Bill.

Regarding Amendment 58, it will not always be practical to display the imprint as part of the digital material itself; for example, as noble Lords have said, in a text-based tweet, where there is a strict character limit. This amendment would not give campaigners the limited, yet crucial, level of flexibility afforded by the Government’s regime and would thus risk unreasonably hampering their ability to campaign on some digital platforms. The above reflects the carefully considered and pragmatic approach we have sought to adopt. I know the noble Lord’s concerns; I appreciated the discussion we had and I understood where he was coming from. The perceived permissiveness of the guidance surrounding the Scottish digital imprints regime, in so far as it created a perceived loophole, was worrying him. I am pleased to confirm on the record here, as I said privately, that our regime will not operate in the same way.

The digital imprint regime that applies at elections in Scotland does not specify requirements regarding the location of the imprint, which is why the Electoral Commission’s guidance in Scotland was not prescriptive in this respect. However, our new regime does provide the necessary specifics on the rules regarding the location of the imprint. Campaigners will be required to ensure that their imprints are displayed as part of the material. Only when this is not reasonably practicable—this touches on my noble friend’s amendment—may the imprint be located elsewhere, but it must still be directly accessible from the campaigning material. Those who do not comply will be committing an offence. Furthermore, the statutory guidance we are proposing as part of our regime will provide practical directions to campaigners on how to follow the rules, including regarding the location of the imprint. This guidance will be subject to parliamentary approval, meaning that parliamentarians will be able to ensure that it provides sufficient clarity for campaigners to comply with the rules. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by those points.

On Amendment 60, candidates and registered campaigners already have to detail their election spending in their returns and provide invoices for payments over a certain amount, including in relation to digital campaigning. These are then made available for public scrutiny. The Government have explained that this requirement on campaigners to submit more detailed invoices or receipts about digital activity would need to be looked at carefully, as the detail provided is determined by the suppliers themselves, not the recipient. It could therefore prove difficult and burdensome for campaigners to comply with these additional requirements.

Similarly, Amendment 62 would require all campaigners promoting paid political advertising, and not the online platforms, to maintain a library of those advertisements, with specified information, for at least 10 years. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but we have explained that in our view this risks adding an unreasonable burden on campaigners, particularly smaller groups that rely on volunteers, or groups that are established only for the lifetime of a particular campaign. It is also not clear that there is a sufficient case for regulation in relation to political advert libraries, given, as the noble Lord acknowledged, that major platforms such as Facebook, Google and YouTube already make available libraries of political advertising that they host.

My response to Amendment 61 will focus on paid-for political advertising, as defined by Clauses 41 and 42, rather than other electronic material, as defined by Clauses 43 and 44, given that other electronic material is relevant only to UK-based entities anyway, with the exception of registered overseas electors who have also registered as third-party campaigners. The Government agree with the principle that there should be strict limitations on ineligible entities overseas spending money campaigning during UK elections, including on digital advertising.

Clause 25 will already remove the scope for any legal spending by foreign or otherwise ineligible third-party campaigners above a £700 de minimis limit. This is a huge reduction, given that those same actors can currently spend up to £20,000 legally during the regulated period in England, or £10,000 in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Further to this, by requiring an imprint on all paid-for electronic campaigning material, regardless of where in the world it comes from, the digital imprint regime will already greatly improve transparency of political advertising from overseas actors. For any material that is published in breach of the imprint rules, the enforcement authorities are able to require the relevant social media platform to take down the material.

Strict controls on spending and clear transparency about origin are essential. But I cannot agree to a fast-considered and potentially disproportionate blanket ban on all political material from foreign actors within scope of the digital imprint regime. We would need again to examine carefully the implications and practicalities of enforcement and restrictions on freedom of speech to avoid any risk of unintended consequences.

I turn to Amendment 65. The Government remain concerned that this amendment includes no reference to intent and that the proposed new clause, as drafted, could criminalise unintentionally false statements. It could, therefore, be very broadly applied. It could also discourage people from raising any legitimate concerns for fear of a statement being considered false. This offence could potentially provide broad powers to clamp down on anyone who expresses genuine concerns about the process of an election. Overall, we believe that this clause could have unintended but potentially severe implications for freedom of speech.

I reassure the noble Lord that the Government take electoral disinformation and misinformation very seriously, but we believe that these are best addressed through non-legislative measures, such as the counter-disinformation unit to which the noble Lord referred and which was explained during our debate in Committee. Any regulation must be balanced with the need to protect freedom of expression and the legitimate public debate which is crucial to a thriving democracy.

The response on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is one of disappointment, but I thank him for his amendments. I hope that I have brought some clarity to the questions raised. I hope he feels able to withdraw Amendment 58, although I acknowledge that he will pursue certain matters on another Bill.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 59, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The Government entirely agree that it is right that third-party groups campaigning at elections should be transparent and clearly identifiable. This is why the digital imprints regime will require recognised third-party campaigners to declare who they are when promoting relevant online campaigning material to the public, including but not limited to their websites. Where third-party campaigners use their websites to campaign, as defined by Clause 43, an imprint will be required. Promoters will be required to ensure that the imprint—or access to it—is retained as part of the material, if it is moved on. Where promoters comply with the digital imprint rules by adding an imprint in material displayed on their website, the imprint will be visible for as long as the material is available to the public online and remains in scope of the rules.

I know that my noble friend is not convinced that it is sufficient that third-party campaigners are already publicly listed on the Electoral Commission’s website. We believe that the current rules, supplemented by the new digital imprint rules, will provide increased transparency and identify recognised third parties. There are specific problems about the construction of this amendment, which I have discussed with my noble friend. As currently drafted, the amendment would create a new offence but does not specify a penalty for its commission or any statutory defences against the charge. Further, and I am sure this is entirely inadvertent, the amendment is drafted such that any website owned and operated by a recognised third-party campaigner—for example, a large charity which might have many different websites—would be captured, even if it were unrelated to the campaigning activities for which the third party is registered. It could lead to a disproportionate application of criminal liability. These proposals would need further discussion with third-party campaigners and potential enforcement authorities. Digital regulation is a complex area. Few have thought about it more than either the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, or my noble friend. But these digital imprint provisions were consulted on publicly—twice.

My noble friend is not entirely enamoured of the letter I wrote to him recently to assure him that the Government will continue to keep the transparency of digital campaigning under review. I underline this commitment. I assure my noble friend and the House that I will ask my officials to engage with the Electoral Commission to consider whether my noble friend’s proposal could be included as best practice for third-party campaigners, which the House has agreed to secure, in the commission’s guidance.

With these assurances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will feel reassured to some degree by the clarifications that I have been able to give and withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I really need to add very little to what he has said. It is very difficult to see why there should be opposition to a requirement that political parties should have

“a reasonable and proportionate risk-based policy for identifying the true source of donations.”

The Government’s answer to this, which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave in Committee, is that there has to be a balance. It is clear, however, that where the balance is now is not satisfactory, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, there have been a series of donations to all political parties that have been not to the credit of the parties, not good for their reputations and not good for the reputation for cleanliness of our politics.

As I understand the position, the Government have not ruled out acting on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but regard this as a complicated matter—perhaps it is—and need more time to work on it. If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, seeks to test the opinion of the House, I will support him. I would be gratefully comforted, however, if not only the Minister but the spokespeople for the other political parties said tonight that they duly take this issue seriously and regard donations from foreign sources and people who want to influence our politics in an unhealthy way as a growing danger to our politics. If the spokespeople for the parties and the Government will say that they take this seriously, and the Government do not rule out acting on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life in due course, I will be very comforted.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I was thinking that others would wish to intervene, but that does not appear to be the case.

These are important amendments, but I shall not encourage anyone to think that the Government will accept them. The context is a shared concern about dirty money, a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, used. I do not think any Government have been stronger in response to the Russian invasion, or in bearing down on oligarchs, than this Government. However, following our robust debate in Committee, I am pleased that we are again returning to this important issue of political donations. I do listen to contributions of noble Lords and these debates will certainly serve as a key reference point for the Government as they keep rules on political donations under review, to ensure that they continue to provide an effective safeguard that protects the integrity of our political system. In that context, the Bill bears down very heavily on foreign donations and makes them much harder.

Turing to the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, Amendment 63 would remove the rights of overseas electors to make political donations. Amendment 69B would place a £7,500 limit on any donation or series of donations from overseas electors. I fear that many will not be surprised when I reiterate that the Government cannot support these amendments, as we intend to uphold the long-standing principle, first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life itself in 1998, that if you are eligible to vote for a party, you are also eligible to donate to that party. These amendments would overturn that principle by removing the right of overseas electors to donate. Overseas electors are British citizens who have the right to vote and, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, the Labour Party has acknowledged that for many years. They are reasonable participants in our democracy. Furthermore, due to the interaction of Amendment 69B and the existing legislation, there would be no provision for either the return of donations exceeding the £7,500 threshold or the reporting of such donations to the Electoral Commission. This leaves a significant gap, which means that the amendment would simply not have the intended impact.

The Government do not support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to which I listened carefully. It was fair for him to set out his case because he wishes to establish an independent committee to report on the creation of a foundation for democracy. The concept here, however, which is where agreement falls away, is that he submits that this body should be responsible for collecting all donations made to registered political parties and mandatorily allocating them based on membership and vote share at certain elections. The Government can find no justification for this amendment and believe it would place unreasonable restrictions on an individual’s freedom to donate to the political party of their choosing. It would go against the fundamental principle of allowing members of the public to get involved in our democracy by giving their support, be it at the ballot box, via a cup of coffee or via donations, to any party or parties that they choose.

Moreover, this proposal would risk disproportionately penalising smaller parties, which may not have such high levels of membership and vote share as the larger parties, but form an integral part of our democracy. Indeed, it is not clear to me how any new parties would emerge under the noble Lord’s system, as they would not be able to fundraise for themselves and would therefore struggle to get their message out to the public to encourage members to join and voters to support them in the future. The Government are therefore simply not convinced that there is a demand or evidence to support the noble Lord’s radical idea; nor do we think it necessary to establish an independent committee to come to this conclusion. Should other parliamentarians share the noble Lord’s view, the existing framework of parliamentary committees obviously provides an ideal place to consider the proposal further, so I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.

Next, I turn to Amendments 66 and 68, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which address a similar theme. Amendment 66 would seek to cap donations that any one individual or organisation can make to a political party to 5% of that party’s maximum campaign expenditure limit at the preceding election. This cap would apply to all donors, whether individuals or organisations, such as trade unions for example. What effect would it have on a large trade union donation?

Amendment 68 would require the Government to publish a report on proposals to establish state funding of political parties and limitations on private donations. In essence, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord are seeking the Government’s views on these two fundamental principles. I will underline our position.

First, fundraising is a legitimate part of the democratic process. Consequently, there is no cap on political donations to parties, candidates and other types of campaigner but, instead, strict limits on what they can spend on regulated campaign activity during elections. These maintain a level playing field in elections. In particular, the noble Baroness’s amendment has the potential to create a very uneven and complicated playing field. Under the proposal, each political party will have different amounts it can fundraise, given that spending limits are calculated according to the number of constituencies it contests. New political parties in particular, again, would be affected and this change could encourage quite unnatural growth, whereby new parties are incentivised to contest seats they have no intention of winning to give them a more competitive funding limit in the next cycle. I will not be drawn on what percentage of a party’s overall donation might be permitted because the Government simply do not accept that there should be such a percentage figure.

Secondly, there is absolutely no public support for expanding the level of public funding already available to political parties. The Government are not going to go down that road.

Finally, I wish to address Amendment 69, retabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. This would introduce requirements, as he said, for registered parties to carry out risk assessments and due-diligence checks on donations. Only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations and there are strict rules requiring companies making donations to be both incorporated and carrying out business in the UK. Parties must check that companies meet these criteria. It is also an offence to circumvent the rules through proxy donors—for example, an impermissible donor seeking to make a donation through a company that is itself a permissible donor. Political parties must already report all donations over a certain value to the Electoral Commission, which are then published online for public scrutiny.

The Government have heard the concerns that donors may seek to evade the rules and, in principle, the point of strengthening the system to provide greater levels of assurance on the sources of donations to ensure they are permissible and legitimate is important. Indeed, the Government recently published, ahead of introducing necessary legislation, the Corporate Transparency and Register Reform White Paper.

Reforms to Companies House will deliver more reliably accurate information on the companies register by introducing mandatory identity verification for people who manage or control companies and other UK-registered entities, providing greater powers for Companies House to query and challenge the information it receives, and introducing more effective investigation and enforcement powers for Companies House. This, in combination with a new power for the Companies House registrar proactively to pass on relevant information to law enforcement and other public and regulatory bodies, including the Electoral Commission, will indirectly support the enforcement of the rules on donations by providing greater confidence in the accuracy of the data held at Companies House, including when seeking information on UK-registered companies and other UK-registered entities that have made political donations.

The Government have not dismissed the fact that this is a significant area, which is why we are instituting these reforms to corporate transparency, but for the reasons I have outlined to the House on various amendments, I urge that noble Lords consider not pressing their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, may I confirm what he said? I wrote down his words: “The Government do not accept that there should be a percentage limit.” On the percentage of contribution from one person or organisation to a political party’s campaign, would the Minister confirm that the Government believe it appropriate for 100% of the funding for a political party’s campaign to come from one source or organisation?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again, I think that is a false question. In our democracy an independent person is entitled to stand in a constituency, for a cause that he or she believes in, and may choose to fund that campaign. Nobody else may want to give any money. That would be an example of 100% funding of a campaign by a small campaign or individual. There are complexities here, and the fundamental position to stand on is that in free democracy, people should be able to make a contribution of whatever sort they choose, provided it is permissible and legal.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been very clear from the debate we have just had and the other amendments that have been discussed, as well as my Amendment 63, that there are some really broad concerns about political donations, electoral finance and the procedures and systems that underpin and manage this. I urge the Government to take away those concerns more broadly and consider how they may be addressed in the future.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, I thought I had made it really clear, both in Committee and in my opening remarks today, that we are very concerned about the potential for dirty money infiltrating and influencing our political system. If I was not clear, I am very happy to confirm that we do have those very deep concerns.

I thank the Minister for his very detailed response, but I disagree with him that the Bill makes it harder to make overseas donations. Instead, our concern is that part of removing the 15-year limit actually makes it easier for people from foreign locations to donate to our political system. We are concerned that often it allows very wealthy donors unlimited access to our democracy, through what we could see to be unprecedentedly large donations. That is our big concern with this and why we have put this amendment forward. To avoid that kind of outside influence in our democracy, the right to make those kinds of donations should be reserved for citizens actually living in this country.

As I say, I thank the Minister for his detailed response, but do not believe he has addressed the real concerns expressed by us and other Members who have taken part in the debate. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 63.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, elections and donations are about choice. People who have non-dom status choose not to pay their tax here and, while they have this status, they live abroad for more than nine months of the year. The fundamental question raised by this amendment is: should they be able to donate the perhaps millions of pounds which they save in taxes by being non-doms to a political party, for example, which might want to preserve that beneficial tax status for them? In other words, we might connect the two principles of being able to give millions to a party and benefit by not paying millions which other people might consider are owed in taxes.

There are a number of occasions in our debates when we say that what we are doing is asking the other place to think again. However, we are not, on this principle, asking the other place or even this House to think again. The legislation which said that non-doms should not be able to donate to political parties was passed by both Houses in 2009. So we are not asking anyone to think again; we are simply asking for the legislation, passed with the approval of both Houses, to be implemented. Since 2010, various excuses have been put forward as to why this has been supposedly difficult or impractical, even though it was approved by Parliament. Essentially, the excuse provided is that the HMRC says, “Well, all tax issues are confidential, so you can’t implement this”. However, a form of declaration accompanying any donation, saying, “I am not a non-dom, so I am entitled to donate”, might well suffice and fit the bill. If you were making a false declaration, that could be an offence.

However, I do not really accept the HMRC’s argument—or rather, the Government’s argument put forward on behalf of the HMRC. For example, when Parliament said that if you are a higher-rate taxpayer, you should not benefit from child benefit—which I think was a fair measure—you needed to sign a declaration to the HMRC saying, “Someone in this household pays a higher rate of tax, so I can’t receive child benefit”. Why, therefore, can you not sign a declaration saying, “Someone in this household is a non-dom and therefore cannot donate to a political party”?

This debate is really about some of the fundamental parts of the Bill. The extension of the right to vote beyond 15 years is not really going to extend voting rights for very many people. For the reasons I outlined at Second Reading and will not go through again, the postal vote system, needed by most people who vote overseas, is so slow that very few votes would count in a general election. However, through this Bill the ability to donate unlimited amounts of money is being extended to a lot of people, including non-doms. A little earlier today, when discussing a technical aspect of the Bill, the Minister kindly confirmed that the Government’s position is very much to maintain a level playing field at local constituency level and nationally. However, I do not believe that this is happening. This extension of the right to vote is more about the right to donate, and should not be applied to non-doms.

In December 2020, the Government said that they wanted to increase the national expenditure limits for political parties in a general election “in line with inflation”. In 2000, Parliament agreed that there should be a level playing field between the main parties in elections. The principle was very much that it had to be a level playing field, not that each of the parties should be able to spend up to £20 million. If we increase that £20 million limit, or thereabouts, by the rate of inflation since 2000, that is a 79% increase. Therefore, the national expenditure limit, if increased in line with inflation since 2000, would go up for the Conservative Party, for example, from almost £20 million to almost £36 million. Where is that extra £16 million going to come from? Much of it will come from overseas donors, many of whom are non-doms. I do not think that this appeals to the British sense of fair play, and it should not happen.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I fear that I am not going to be able to allow the noble Baroness to remain in her seat for the rest of the evening. The Government cannot agree to these provisions, which seek to bring into practice a provision from the 2009 Act regarding donations from non-resident donors. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe replied to the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on this same uncommenced provision.

The Government’s position on the matter remains unchanged, but it is important briefly to place on record the reasons why. The Government have no current plans to bring into force the uncommenced provision, Section 10, regarding donations from non-resident donors. It would be extremely difficult to make the provision work, as the Electoral Commission warned in 2009 when the Bill was going through Parliament. The coalition Government, in which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was influential, did not implement it between 2010 and 2015. The fundamental issue is that it is not workable, given that an individual’s tax status is subject legally to confidentiality. It would therefore be difficult or even impossible for the Electoral Commission, political parties, which would face fines for this, and other campaigners accurately to determine whether a donor met the test set out in Section 10.

I acknowledge that the Labour Party has come forward. I do not wish to get into a debate about the Labour Party’s fiscal proposals—that is slightly outside the scope of the Bill—but I know that Sir Keir will send a thank you letter to the noble Baroness for having raised this issue. Our principle, basically, is that taxation is not the basis of enfranchisement in the UK. As a British citizen is able to vote in an election for a political party, they should be able to donate, subject to requirements for transparency in donations, which we have discussed. There is also a precedent whereby those who do not pay income tax rightly remain entitled to vote. A lot of low-paid people do not pay income tax, but they have a legitimate right to vote. I know that perceptions differ on this issue. I remind the House that on two occasions, in 2009 and 2013, the Electoral Commission warned about the practical implications of the policy. For these reasons, and because of the duty of confidentiality in taxation, which would have to be overridden by other legislation, the Government cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his support and for his excellent speech. I thank the Minister for his response, although I am sure he will not be surprised to hear that it is not a response that I am particularly happy with or happy to accept. This issue has concerned a lot of people in recent weeks and months, and the Government need to take the position of non-dom status very seriously and look at it again. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

69C: Before Clause 61, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of operation of Act
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the review period—(a) prepare a report on the operation of this Act,(b) publish the report, and(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.(2) In subsection (1), “the review period” is the period—(a) beginning with the fourth anniversary of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) ending with the fifth anniversary of that day.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the operation of this legislation, not less than 4 and not more than 5 years after it receives Royal Assent.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 69D. I believe both amendments are significant to the House and I hope it will reflect on their importance, because I know there are aspects of the Bill that have concerned Members on all sides of the House. The amendment establishes a statutory duty for post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, something that has been asked for, certainly by the noble Baroness opposite.

We had believed, and I maintain, that it is standard practice to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, but we have listened to the strength of interest in guaranteeing that scrutiny takes place which will go across the Bill and we have tabled this amendment requiring the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a review of the operation of this legislation, not less than four and not more than five years after it receives Royal Assent—in other words, in good time. We judge that this amendment supports the commonly shared aim of this House, and answers the recommendation made by PACAC, that the impact of the measures be assessed following implementation of the Bill.

The amendment also sets out that a report by the Secretary of State will need to be set before Parliament to allow debate and scrutiny of the operation of the Act, as your Lordships have asked. Amendment 69D is a minor and technical amendment necessary to state the territorial extent of paragraphs 25 and 26 of Schedule 1. I hope the House will understand that I wish to place on record in Hansard that I think this is a significant proposal from the Government which will allow and ensure statutory consideration and examination of the Bill as a whole if it is given Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in Committee I tabled Amendment 205 to ask the Government to include in the Bill a statutory commitment to post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, as recommended by PACAC. I want to say very briefly how much I welcome the amendments that the Minister has just introduced and to thank him very much for listening to my concerns and the concerns of other Members of this House about the lack of pre-legislative consultation or scrutiny. The fact that this has been included in the Bill is extremely welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

69D: Clause 64, page 67, line 18, after “24” insert “, 27”
Member’s explanatory statement
This minor and technical amendment ensures that the territorial extent of amendments to Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 made by Schedule 1 to the Bill is correctly stated.

Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I made quite a lengthy contribution in Committee and I have no intention of repeating it—although I think there are some points that are worth emphasising.

This is not a matter of principle. In fact, the Government and Opposition are agreed that people under the settled status scheme should retain the vote they had under the EU membership we had previously. It is just that new entry to the country will stop on 1 January 2022. That is the real issue. What we have been arguing about is the fact that those who put down their roots in this country and have lived here for 25 years—or even 15 years, to use the comparison with others who are going to get the vote—have made their home here, pay their tax here, and in the main pay their council tax here are not going to have the vote if they come here and achieve settled status.

Of course, one of the things about settled status, ILR and ILE is that they all require five years of continuous residence in the UK. Is that not a good basis for offering the vote? Is that not the connection that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned? I am hesitant to quote him, because he says that I sometimes get it wrong, but I heard him say “close connection”. We should surely afford someone who has lived here continuously, made their home here and paid their tax here the right to vote and be part of the local community they live in.

I can hear the Minister say, “They can become British citizens” but, as I said in Committee, there are people who make their home here who may not wish, for many reasons, to take out British citizenship. For some, like my husband, it is because they do not want to give up their Spanish citizenship, for example, where other countries do not afford the right to dual nationality. This country does, but there are many others that do not. These people do not want to break that relationship, particularly if they have family or parents there.

This is not a matter of principle that divides us. It is something that I fear this Government have done on many occasions, which is to say, “We’re not going to give the vote to people who make their home here unless the Governments from the countries they came from give our nationals the vote”. It becomes a bargaining issue. Again, I do not think that is right. It should be a matter of principle, which we have already conceded; under the agreements that we have, EU nationals with settled status will continue to have the vote. If the Government can agree to that, why can they not agree to this amendment?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I regret that we will not be able to agree to these amendments, but I preface my remarks by sending my very best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Green. He ploughs sometimes a lonely furrow in this Chamber, but he is somebody of the most outstanding integrity and is greatly respected in your Lordships’ House. I very much hope that my good wishes are passed on to him. The engagement meeting I had with him when I had Covid was over Zoom, so I do not claim responsibility—but I offer the profoundest sympathy to him.

Amendment 43 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, would require the Government to consult each Commonwealth country and produce a report on how we might confine the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens to citizens of those countries that grant British citizens the right to vote. Each country has the right to determine its own franchise, and the United Kingdom has done this. Qualifying Commonwealth citizens—that is, those persons who have leave to remain in this country or who have status such that they do not require such leave—are entitled to the parliamentary franchise. The rights of Commonwealth citizens are long-standing, and they reflect our unique historic ties to the family of Commonwealth nations and with Her Majesty the Queen.

Historically, while the Commonwealth countries were part of the British Empire, their nationals were subjects of the British Crown, and they were governed directly by the British Parliament. In 1918, the Representation of the People Act provided that only British subjects could register as electors. The term “British subject” then included any person who owed allegiance to the Crown, regardless of the Crown territory in which he or she was born. This recognised in part the contribution of servicemen of so many nations who fought in the Great War.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he take on board the request I made that an appropriate Minister—I see a Minister in the margins of the Chamber from the Northern Ireland Office—from either the Cabinet Office or the Northern Ireland Office meet both commissions to deal with their specific issues? The written correspondence has not resolved the issues for them. A meeting either via Zoom or face-to-face would assist in this particular process because of the delicate issues to do with Article 2.1 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which puts them and this particular issue into a different category.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I said that officials had and will continue to have engagement. I also said that I would make sure the noble Baroness’s comments and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, were referred to colleagues. I hope the noble Baroness will understand that, as I am not a departmental Minister with direct responsibility for the Northern Ireland protocol, I cannot make a specific commitment beyond that which I gave in my speech and I repeat in response to her intervention. I assure her that her comments will be relayed to my appropriate colleagues.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, before I thank my noble friend, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that to characterise the work of Members of my party on these Benches as seeking only to restrict the right of people to vote is an outrageous accusation. All we wish to do—all I wish to do—is to ensure we get the maximum participation in a framework that gives our fellow citizens confidence that the system is well organised, properly disciplined and free from corruption and misdemeanour. That is all.

That having been said, I thank my noble friend. I am disappointed, but I am not surprised either. The takeaway I have from this short debate is that there are quite a lot of loose ends. The noble Lords, Lord Stunell, Lord Shipley, Lord Collins and Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, all have loose ends. My noble friend can say, “Well, yes, it’s too difficult; let’s put it in a drawer, lock it and come back to it in 10 years when we go around this track again” or he could take it away, think about it and say, “Let’s have —outside this Bill—a proper debate about the nature of British citizenship and the rights and responsibilities as they pertain to 2022.” I hope he can find time in his department to do that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

We believe that my Amendment 6 and Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, are compatible with Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. I commend the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts; if he tests the opinion of the House, we will support it.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken. In case I forget it, I will take up right at the start the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about post-legislative scrutiny; she has made it before. As I have said from the Dispatch Box and in our engagement, it is something on which the Government are reflecting.

If the proposition put by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to leave out Clause 1 and Schedule 1 is accepted, your Lordships’ House will be saying to the other place, in striking out the whole proposition, that noble Lords find it perfectly reasonable for photographic identification to be required in our society for travelling, picking up a parcel and being allowed to drive but not for choosing Members of another place. That is the message your Lordships would send to another place, which has sent us this Bill with its approval.

As has been said by a number of those who have spoken, this topic has been discussed exhaustively in both Houses at almost every single stage of the passage of the Bill. This is not the first time that we have seen these amendments so I will keep my speech on the main points short; however, I will answer the detailed amendments that have been put forward.

The Government’s position on this debate has not changed. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, acknowledged, introducing a requirement to show identification to vote in polling stations was a manifesto commitment, was discussed during the election and is an issue in which the Government believe strongly. In our submission, voter identification is part of a series of measures that will help to prevent fraud and abuse taking place at polling stations.

There are issues of climate and balance, both of which were spoken to wisely by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. We have thought carefully about these matters and believe that this is a reasonable and proportionate measure. I want to reassure the Chamber again that everyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to vote.

In an impressive speech that should give food for thought to a number of us, my noble friend Lady Verma asked whether the voter card was only for people without other accepted forms of identification. It is certainly in the interests of accessibility and helping people to vote and intended for those without other accepted ID, but there is no restriction on anyone applying for the free voter card, as long as they are registered or have applied to be. Cards will be available free of charge from each elector’s local authority for any elector who does not have one of the wide range of accepted forms of identification that the Government are already proposing—not unrecognisable identification, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, claimed, but yes, expired identification if it is recognisable.

Similar measures have been in place across the world and in this country; Northern Ireland has had photographic voter identification since 2003, when it was brought in by the Labour Government of the time. As I have said before, we submit that this is part of an essential suite of measures to ensure that our democracy continues to be effectively protected from fraud. The Government therefore cannot support an amendment to remove these propositions.

I will address specifically the various amendments that fall short of the total rejection of the proposition of photo identification. I think the noble Lord, Lord Desai, would fairly acknowledge that his speech was not entirely welcome to some in the House, but he spoke one truth that was picked up by my noble friend Lady Verma. He said he saw no reason why anyone should be put off by having to show photographic identification, and we agree with him on that.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 2 would provide that the Electoral Commission should be responsible for issuing voter cards, rather than individual EROs. Amendment 3 would say that voter cards should be issued automatically to all eligible electors rather than just those who apply for them, and Amendment 4 has specific details that should be on the cards. Collectively, they would make a significant change to our voter identification policy. By including significantly more personal information and mandating that they be issued unilaterally to the entire electorate for relevant elections, the noble Lord’s proposition would in effect become tantamount to a national identity card. He is very happy about that, as indeed is the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, but this is not something that the Government intend in any way in these propositions or have plans to introduce, and therefore—I regret to tell the noble Lord, Lord Desai—not something we can support.

I now turn to Amendments 5 to 7, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, regarding alternative options for voters to prove their identity at polling stations. The Government cannot support these amendments either, as they would open the way to use of documents that are less secure than those in the list we have put before your Lordships.

The first suggestion, in Amendment 6, is that an elector could prove their identity by showing any document issued to them by their local authority or returning officer that shows their name and address, or their poll card. This is not something we can support. Few, if any, such documents will show a photograph of the elector, so they cannot be used simply and easily to prove at the polling station that the bearer of the document is who they say they are. Such documents could easily be intercepted—particularly in places of multiple occupation, for example—and could give false legitimacy to a potential personator.

Allowing any documents issued by local authorities or returning officers would also open significant avenues for forgery, for a forger would simply need to copy the letterhead from correspondence, which would be straightforward to extract from an electronic version emailed to them by their local authority.

Similarly—and I know the noble Baroness feels strongly about this, and I understand her feelings about it—permitting attestation at polling stations is not something this Government can support. Again, all attestation would leave open an avenue for electoral fraud, and potentially expose legitimate electors to a situation which I know from our previous debates everyone in this House wishes to prevent, where an elector could be intimidated or coerced into breaking the law to falsely vouch for a person.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

The Minister mentions attestation, but this Bill specifically introduces at a later stage the allowing of attestation for overseas voters to get on the electoral roll, so I cannot see why he is quite so concerned about this.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am explaining to the House why we are concerned in this particular context. I would have thought the noble Lord, having listened to the speech by my noble friend Lady Verma, might feel there is something in what she said.

I wish to reassure your Lordships that our intention remains to realise our ambition that the last possible point at which electors can apply for a voter card will be 5pm the day ahead of a poll. We consider that this too should reduce the need for attestation. Up to 5pm the day before a poll, the card will be available.

I now turn to Amendment 8 laid by my noble friend Lord Willetts—others have supported it. It suggests an even wider number of new documents that could be used as a form of identification at the polling station. This too is a topic debated at length in both Houses, and the other place settled on the propositions we have before us.

As I have already discussed, the majority of these suggestions do not show a photograph of the elector and so cannot provide the appropriate level of proof that the bearer is who they say they are. Looking further down the list in Amendment 8 at some of the suggestions which do display photographs, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the list of identification was developed with both security and accessibility in mind—this point was addressed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts in his thoughtful speech. Unfortunately, some of the forms of identity listed in my noble friend’s amendment are not sufficiently secure for this purpose.

We cannot permit any workplace ID or student ID card, as we cannot be sure of how rigorous the process is to issue these documents. The 18+ student Oyster photocard and the National Rail card have also been suggested before—unfortunately, currently, the process for applying for these documents is insufficiently secure for the purposes of voting. The final suggestion on the list is the Young Scot National Entitlement Card. This card is accredited by PASS, the National Proof of Age Standards Scheme, and so will already be accepted as proof of identity under the current proposed legislation.

Should further forms of photo identification become available and—I stress this—be sufficiently secure, I reassure the House that the Bill already makes provision, in paragraph 18(4)(1Q) of Schedule 1, for the list to be amended so that additional identification can be added or removed as necessary without the need for further primary legislation.

In summary, taken together, these amendments would weaken the security of our elections and the propositions that we have put before your Lordships. Therefore, they are not something we can support. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I apologise for intervening again, as we are trying to get on with this, but I did ask a specific question. What, if any, estimate have the Government made of the effect of these proposals on turnout in elections? If they have not made any estimate of that, why not?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s objective—as indeed is the objective of anybody who practices the art of politics—is to achieve the highest number going to the polling station. The noble Lord knows well that turnout is not affected by any specific institution or object; turnout varies according to the electors’ very broad perceptions of the state of politics. If the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, were standing as a candidate in the constituency in which I was living, I would flock—if an individual can flock—to the poll to vote for him; I might not for others. Turnout is contingent, but the Government’s desire is to see as many people as possible voting. That is why the photo ID card will be free and why the Electoral Commission will operate a major national publicity campaign from next year to ensure that people are fully aware of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I will be very brief, because we need to make progress. I just say that, clearly, we are aware that there have been issues with postal vote fraud, and it is important the Government do everything they can to tackle this. However, I understand the concerns so clearly laid out by my noble friend Lady Quin, who makes some good points about potential unintended consequences of these changes. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response and his reassurance on these matters.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for her kind remarks, and I apologise that she did not get a response. I assure her that I was horrified when I went into my office this morning and found her letter there, but I did not have a forwarding arrangement to my sick bed, I am afraid. I understand that the purpose of the clause that she wants to remove is to seek to strengthen the current arrangements for applying for a postal vote. It is not intended to in any way attack the principle of the postal vote.

The noble Baroness asked about evidence. The Electoral Commission winter tracker for 2021 found that 21% of people who were asked thought that postal voting was unsafe compared to 68% who thought it was safe. There has been evidence of postal voting fraud reported in Tower Hamlets, Slough, Birmingham and Peterborough among other places, but that does not invalidate the case for postal voting itself. What the Government are proposing is to facilitate online application, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said we are doing. Our intention, as with other elements in this Bill, is to improve safeguards against potential abuse.

As the noble Baroness acknowledged, the set of measures implements recommendations in the report by my noble friend Lord Pickles—he has appeared behind me—into electoral fraud that address weaknesses in the current absent voting arrangements. Also, a 2019 report by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee gave support to the proposed voting reforms. The proposal is to require an elector to reapply at least every three years, and that will enable the electoral registration officer to regularly assess the application and confirm that they are still an eligible elector. Also, it gives an opportunity, as I said at an earlier stage of the Bill, for someone caught in a cycle of coercion, or who is coerced into having a postal vote to enable their vote to be influenced on an ongoing basis, to break out of that situation. It makes it harder to maintain ongoing coercion.

Keeping details more up to date will reduce wasted costs of postal votes being sent to out-of-date addresses where, again, there may be risk of abuse. Under the Bill, there will also be transitional provisions for existing long-term postal voters, and we intend to phase in the measure for them so that they will have advanced notice to enable them to prepare for the administrative change. EROs will be required to send a reminder to existing postal voters in advance of the date they cease to have a postal vote and provide information to them on how to reapply for it, including online. We believe this is an important measure that could strengthen the integrity of postal voting and not undermine it in any way.

I will of course reflect on the points the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made in the debate. I was surprised to hear him accepting responsibility; I thought he accepted responsibility only for defeating Conservative candidates at elections. But I will take that admission as well.

Postal voting remains an important part of our electoral system. We do not believe that moving from five to three years, for reasons including those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would invalidate the position, and I hope the reassurance I have given, and the supporting evidence, plus the reports and recommendations I have cited, will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am still somewhat concerned about the possible effects of these measures, but I am encouraged by the Minister’s words that the Government in no way want to discourage postal voting and they see it as an important part of our electoral processes. I just hope that the Government will look at the evidence as the situation progresses. In the light of what has been said, and in the interests of making progress, I wish to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

10: Clause 7, page 10, line 33, leave out “a local government election in Scotland or Wales” and insert “an election in Scotland or Wales under the local government Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment fixes a minor drafting issue in relation to references to local government elections.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 10 to 18, 20 to 25, 47 and 50 tabled in my name. Apart from Amendments 20 to 25, these are all technical amendments to ensure consistency with the way in which local government elections are currently referred to in the Representation of the People Act 1983. The relevant provisions under Part 2 of the 1983 Act refer to

“an election under the local government Act”

rather than using the term “local government election”, and these proposed amendments therefore reflect the more appropriate terminology to use. They will also ensure that earlier amendments applying these matters to reserved elections only meet that stated aim.

Finally, due to earlier amendments to ensure that the modernised undue influence offence applies only to reserved and excepted elections, amendments in Schedule 5 which currently cross-refer to Section 115 of the 1983 Act should instead refer to the new Section 114A. Technical Amendments 20 to 25 will correct this to ensure that the amendments made by the schedule function as intended. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support those amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment 10 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord True]

11: Clause 7, page 10, line 38, leave out “a local government election in England” and insert “an election in England under the local government Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 10, line 33.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

12: Clause 8, page 11, line 10, leave out “is guilty of undue influence if the person” and insert “(“P”) is guilty of undue influence if P”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor change to the terminology used in new section 114A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (undue influence), consequent on the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 10, line 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. Certainly, this is a matter of concern. I will stress a point he has made: the law is clear, and there is no ambiguity about that. So, if there is an issue, I think it is a matter that the Minister should raise with the Electoral Commission.

Over the many years that I have been campaigning, I have been in no doubt about the authority of the police who patrol around polling stations. It is absolutely clear. One of the things that worries me about the amendment is that it is not necessarily going to clarify something which I think is clear in law. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister to make this clear to the Electoral Commission. The police should have that responsibility; they do not need the advice of the Electoral Commission to apply the law, which, as the noble Lord said, has been there for hundreds of years.

So I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will be very clear that the law needs to be applied and that there is no doubt about it. If there is ambiguity from the Electoral Commission, I hope that the Minister will point it out to it.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing this subject forward again. I know he strikes a chord with all of us on all sides of the House. It is an important issue. There is an important principle which underpins these concerns, and I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the law is clear. Indeed, in the material sent out for the Tower Hamlets elections in May 2022, the guidance to electors states:

“Under no circumstances are family members and/or friends permitted to assist each other when casting their vote in the polling booth”.


That is clearly the position.

A person’s vote is theirs and theirs alone. I have said before in this House that it is completely unacceptable in the 21st century that women—and it is normally women—experience pressures from family members in the way that we have seen. The Government fully share the feelings of Members who have spoken about the importance of ensuring that this is firmly stamped out from our elections. Secrecy of the ballot is fundamental, and I state unequivocally that the current law requires that voters should not be accompanied by another person at a polling booth except in specific circumstances, such as being a formal companion or a member of staff.

The Electoral Commission issues guidance to returning officers and their staff to support them in upholding the integrity of the process. The Electoral Commission guidance specifically advises polling station staff that they should make sure that voters go to polling booths individually, so that their right to a secret vote is protected. The Electoral Commission will update its existing guidance as necessary, in light of new Clause 8 in the Bill, which extends secrecy protections to postal and proxy voting.

As my noble friend asked when we last discussed this, given the important concerns that have been raised on voting secrecy, Minister Badenoch wrote to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police, as my noble friend acknowledged, to confirm our common understanding of the position in law that the only people who should provide assistance at a polling booth are polling station staff and companions who are doing so only for the purposes of supporting an elector with health and/or accessibility issues which need such support. That is the position.

My noble friend spoke about the concerns he still has on the ongoing integrity of elections in Tower Hamlets. However, I hope that having seen the swift commitment of my honourable friend Minister Badenoch to take this issue up, he will be assured that there is and will be a concerted effort to ensure that the integrity of those elections can be upheld and that the law can be upheld everywhere. I know that my noble friend was not satisfied with elements of the Electoral Commission’s response, but I hope very much that the commission will examine what has been said in your Lordships’ House today and reflect on the points put forward. In that light, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

20: Schedule 5, page 113, line 14, leave out “115” and insert “114A”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates a reference to the provision in the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to undue influence in parliamentary elections, in consequence of amendments made to Clause 8 during Committee stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we very much welcome and support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and thank him for so clearly laying out their importance in his introduction. I also congratulate him and my noble friend Lord Blunkett on their continued work and persistence on this matter.

We welcome that these amendments will mean that, for the first time, the Electoral Commission would be tasked by law to create specific guidance to address the needs of blind and partially sighted and other disabled voters at the ballot box. This is long overdue. We strongly urge the Minister to accept these amendments and hope that he will look on them favourably.

However, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the RNIB has raised concerns with some of us, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarification and reassurance on some issues that have not been raised so far. The first question it asks is this: how do the Government anticipate

“such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, relevant persons to vote”

independently being interpreted? How do they see the interpretation of that phrase? The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, mentioned that the RNIB is concerned that we must not go backwards. Its concern on this is that “making it easier” to vote is still weaker than the right to vote “without any assistance”, as in the current wording.

It would also be helpful if the Minister could look at how this would be managed going forward, including availability and the cost of the provision of equipment for returning officers and how that would be supported at local government level. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm the body that he anticipates will fund individual items of equipment provided in polling stations. I am not sure whether the Government currently provide the funding for the tactile template—I am sure other noble Lords know. Again, it would be helpful to know if that is currently the case. Obviously, we need to have certainty in these areas, because the last thing we want to see is a legal challenge if the expected equipment is not provided.

In summary, we welcome these amendments and urge the Minister to accept them. We thank all noble Lords for an important debate and, again, thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for pushing this and bringing it to this stage.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their general welcome and support for the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes. I can tell the House that the Government are very pleased to be able to accept these amendments. I pay tribute to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for their hard endeavours in helping us to improve accessibility measures in the Bill. It has been quite a pleasant operation for me to return to my old office, which I used to share with my noble friend Lord Holmes, and see a couple of my pictures still hanging on the wall—I had forgotten about those. I thank those who have spoken and am grateful for the kind words said by many, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. There was one slightly discordant note from the Green group, but a great effort has been put into working together to find a solution that works for all parties.

We have been clear from the outset that the Government’s intention with these changes is to improve the accessibility of elections. My noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, have understood our policy intentions and introduced welcome changes that complement and improve them. These amendments will introduce specific reference to supporting disabled voters to vote independently and secretly through the provision of assistive equipment by returning officers. While the existing drafting of the duty to support disabled voters would undoubtedly have facilitated the provision of suitable equipment for this purpose, this amendment will underline the importance of equipment to enable or make it easier for voters to vote independently and secretly, where that is practicable.

My noble friend specifically asked me—as, I gather, did the RNIB, which I took great pleasure in meeting in the course of these discussions—to clarify “enable” and “make it easier” in practice. His understanding is precisely right in terms of what the people who drafted this are seeking to achieve. The Government see it as fundamental that we recognise the variations in what people need in order to be able to vote, so that they may access the most appropriate support for each of them. The use of both the terms—“enable” and “make it easier”—reflects the fact that the duty relates to the provision of equipment for those who find it impossible to vote under rule 37 and for those who can do so but find it difficult due to their disability, as per the definition of “relevant person”, which covers both. For those who would otherwise find it impossible to vote independently, appropriate equipment might enable them to do so, but for those who are able but find it difficult to vote due to their disabilities, we also want them to be supported by provision of equipment that would mitigate the difficulties, making it easier. As such, having “make it easier” in the clause does not result in an either/or situation or a dilution. If the amendment said only “enable”, there would be no duty to assist those who find it difficult; if the amendment said only “make it easier”, there would be no duty to assist those who simply find it impossible. The amendment is designed to ensure the widest possible assistance support, greater innovation and accessibility.

As my noble friend has said—this was something on which he was understandably insistent, and I hope it has pleased all those involved—his amendments will put on a strong statutory footing the role that the Electoral Commission will play in providing guidance about meeting this duty, which returning officers will have to have regard to. While these are things that we are confident both the commission and returning officers would have done as a matter of good practice, we welcome that these will be put on a strong and permanent statutory basis. That is why the Government have acceded to these proposals.

As I said, I recently met the RNIB and heard its concerns—which were echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—including around the risk that guidance might not be as strong as statute and might represent the end of a conversation on accessibility that may not have disabled voters at its centre. I can say only that that conversation will continue; that is why the amendments will in fact require the Electoral Commission to consult with relevant organisations, such as the RNIB and other disability charities, in the production of the guidance and to report on the steps that returning officers have taken to assist disabled voters. This will promote accountability in the policy.

I will respond to the concerns that, without a minimum standard, there will be uncertainty about how individual returning officers decide what they deem to be reasonable. First, in requiring provision for what is reasonable, the clause imposes an objective standard rather than a subjective one. Secondly, the role and purpose of the Electoral Commission guidance will be to set out a clear framework, and therefore to promote consistency. Returning officers will have to have regard to this but the guidance will, of course, be more flexible than legislation—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—with a much more responsive capability for adding new equipment that has been developed and identified over time, without having to bring forward primary or secondary legislation each time.

The amendments make provision for a suite of duties that I hope will reassure those with concerns. I am confident that the changes represent a good move away from the limited, prescriptive approach towards more flexibility and innovation. We will look to the Electoral Commission to do its duty in consulting with organisations representing disabled voters, such as the RNIB, in producing its guidance.

I cannot specifically answer the noble Baroness’s point on funding, which, in a sense, is related to what will come out of the ongoing discussions, but I will communicate to her what I am able to on that.

I believe that this has been good work by your Lordships’ House, working in a consensual manner for a common purpose. I hope this will lead us towards a more accessible future for our elections. Again, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling these amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The Government support them and urge the House to do so as well.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, can he say something about what the RNIB has asked for in respect of driving forward trials for innovation? I do not think he mentioned that in his speech. The RNIB is looking for an assurance from the Minister that that will stay on the table.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I infer from the debate that the RNIB has been spreading quite a lot of correspondence around your Lordships’ Chamber on these issues. I have not seen that specific letter myself, but we are acting in good faith here. The RNIB is a trusted and respected partner. I have told the House that there is a duty on the Electoral Commission to consult with it, and I said in my speech that we should move towards a future of more innovation. This was something that we were challenged on, quite rightly, by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his first speech on this matter. That remains the Government’s hope and expectation. This is a conversation that is going to be carried forward, not by me at this Dispatch Box or by your Lordships but under the duties set out in the amendments, hopefully to produce a better and more accessible future for all voters. I repeat that I urge the House to accept these amendments.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this evening’s debate, and particularly my noble friend the Minister for the way in which he has responded to the nine amendments set down in my name.

I believe that legislation is important. Why would we be here if it were not? These amendments put forward a transformation for inclusion, independence and secret voting for blind and partially sighted and all disabled and non-disabled people. But as with all legislation, though it is important to pass it, this is but one step on a journey. If we pass the Bill post the Easter Recess, it will be incumbent upon the Government, the Electoral Commission, the association of EROs and civil society to come together to work to make this not only compliant or of a minimum standard but a positive experience for everybody at the polling booths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

He has had a Covid revelation.

[Lord True (Con)]

No. As the House knows, nothing distresses me more in life than disappointing my erstwhile colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I am afraid that I must. This is a simple disagreement. The Government’s view is that the first past the post system is simple, clear and effective. Reference has been made to our manifesto. It said:

“We will continue to support the first past the post system of voting … both locally and nationally.”


Clause 12 supports the first past the post system for local elections—for elections of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales, and for the Mayor of London, combined authority and local authority mayors. It moves these to the simple majority voting system. In 1998, the referendum question in London was simply:

“Are you in favour of the Government’s proposals for a Greater London Authority, made up of an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly?”


There was no great ringing endorsement of proportional representation.

We had a thorough and invigorating debate in Committee on this matter. I did not agree with all of it and I suspect some of your Lordships did not agree with me. We want to move on. We have a difference of opinion. It is clear that using the first past the post voting system for these elections will displease some Members of your Lordships’ House but we are committed to supporting it. I regret to remind people that, in 2011, the public expressed a clear preference when two-thirds voted in favour of retaining first past the post. I am afraid that I will again disappoint the Green group, but that was a fact. There was support for PR in only 10 of 440 voting areas or, to put it the other way, 430 of 440 voting areas supported first past the post. As such, I do not believe there is any merit in holding—

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

It is so often said that PR was defeated in 2011. The simple fact is that PR was not on the ballot paper. We must not repeat that falsehood about our electoral systems. That was, of course, a vote about Members of Parliament and not about mayoral systems. In relation to the London mayoral system in particular, there was a consultation which showed that most people were against first past the post. The results of that consultation were made known before the referendum vote.

[Lord True (Con)]

I have not read as many volumes on proportional voting systems as the noble Lord. I simply repeat that 430 out of 440 voting areas supported first past the post in 2011.

It is clear from points brought forward in our debate that alternative voting methods can be confusing and not easily understood. In September 2021, the Government responded to the Electoral Commission’s report on the London mayoral elections. The figures are that 114,201 first ballots were rejected and, of second preferences, 265,353 were invalidated. We have heard that this was all because the form was difficult, badly designed and so on and so forth. This is not a system which it is easy for the electorate to understand. We have heard that only 4.3% of votes were rejected—that is one in 23.

First past the post reduces complexity for voters and for electoral administrators. It makes it easier for the public to express a clear preference, providing strong local accountability. It is also cheaper. For example, the complex system in London requires e-counting—a devastatingly boring count that, last time, cost £9 million.

In our contention, these voting systems are a recipe for confusion and for legislative and administrative complexity. We intend to pursue our manifesto commitment to support first past the post both locally and nationally. I acknowledge that there is disagreement on the matter. I do not believe we need to debate it further now. I respectfully urge that the amendments be withdrawn and that this clause to bring simplicity and clarity to these elections should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, what really struck me from the Minister’s responses was that, if the Government felt so strongly about this, why was it not in the Bill originally? If the London elections in particular caused so much of a problem, why was it not a priority? The fundamental issue is not about the principle of PR or the supplementary vote—which is not PR. It does not undermine the position of first past the post. Our concern is that this has been introduced at a late stage without any proper consultation with those most affected. This undermines the Government’s position, especially as they inserted it into the Bill at such a late stage. I beg to test the opinion of the House.

Civil Servants: Reduction of Numbers

Lord True Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the proposals set out by the Minister for Government Efficiency to reduce the number of civil servants by 65,000 will require either (1) a reduction in government functions, or (2) the increased use of outsourcing companies and consultants.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, there was a significant increase in the number of civil servants employed to manage the temporary requirements of Covid-19 and preparations for leaving the EU. Given that the spending review committed departments to reducing Civil Service numbers to pre-pandemic levels, work is under way to ensure that the functions are working as efficiently as possible, to reduce the use of consultants and to manage the use of outsourcing companies.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is a little surreal to have made Jacob Rees-Mogg Minister for Government Efficiency, and that his explicit view that civil servants are time wasters who do not work hard enough does not help morale in the Civil Service or, indeed, Civil Service efficiency? Does he recognise that one of the major areas of government waste over the last three or four years has been the excessive employment of outside consultants? Is there now also a target for a reduction in the use of outside consultants, who cost twice as much or more per head as civil servants?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I reject the first part of the question. I am absolutely delighted that my right honourable friend is bringing his insight to the Cabinet Office and I look forward to working with him. As far as consultants are concerned, yes, the Government are seeking to reduce consultancy spend. Central government and arm’s-length bodies spent approximately £1.5 billion on consultancy in 2021; that is why the consulting hub was set up last year to lead the consultancy reform programme. I can certainly assure the noble Lord and others that much attention will be given to that.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, if the Government wish the central Civil Service to be as effective as possible, whatever size it is, might they give a higher priority to reducing churn through appointments and postings, perhaps leading to greater stability, a retention of expertise and a greater and more effective corporate memory?

[Lord True (Con)]

I think the noble Lord makes a very important point. There is a great deal of churn in the Civil Service and that reflects one of the things that the Government wish to address in order to give greater job satisfaction, to invest in quality training and to enable civil servants to deliver a modern work programme. One of the reasons to seek to squeeze out efficiencies is to enable us to invest in more front-line service and in exactly the kind of support referred to by the noble Lord.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister if he will ask his right honourable friend Jacob Rees-Mogg to direct his efforts to the DVLA where, we read, people are not returning to their desks in sufficient numbers, with terrible economic effects in terms of people having to wait a long time for their driving licences? Being at their desks rather than watching Netflix or on bicycles would be a great contribution to the economy.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am delighted that I am not in a department where I have to defend the DVLA. I take note of what my noble friend says, and I think people will have heard the sentiment on that subject across the House.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister noted reports that the number of Russian speakers in the Foreign Office staff has been reduced quite drastically over the past few years? Is he satisfied that the reductions in funding and staff for the Foreign Office, particularly in eastern Europe, have prepared it for the huge challenges that it now faces?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot claim to be an expert on the linguistic training policies of the foreign service. I would say that we wish to have a Civil Service that is adaptable, nimble and responds to challenge, and that should involve a better awareness of future as well as present challenges, and that is certainly one of the things that the efficiency programme will look at.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, have the Government made any assessment of the relationship between efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy?

[Lord True (Con)]

I would say to the right reverend Prelate that there are two sides to this coin. One is an efficient service that is more capable of delivering quality public service—we all believe profoundly in the ideal of public service—in a satisfying, effective way. The answer is yes, but I would say that that is not only measured in numbers.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the great gifts of 19th century Liberalism to the present day was a Civil Service selected on merit and politically neutral? Is that still the central pillar of the Government’s approach to the Civil Service recruitment, and would such recruitment benefit from a real attempt at greater diversity, backed up by a strengthened Freedom of Information Act which would increase public confidence in governance?

[Lord True (Con)]

There are a lot of questions there. I have great sympathy for the noble Lord’s first sentiment, which is the loss of Gladstonian Liberalism, which I think needs to be rediscovered a little on those Benches. As far as his other points are concerned, independence must be fundamental, and diversity in all its forms is one of the reason the places programme is intended to take the Civil Service into other parts of the country. Thinking outside the Westminster, Whitehall and London bubble is very important, because there are many insights further than a mile from this building.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, is it intended that there will, in the future, be monitoring set up by the efficiency organisation looking at the Civil Service?

[Lord True (Con)]

It is intended that there will be ministerial accountability for the development and progress of the Civil Service. Each department is responsible for managing its employees, but overall central government functions will continue, and there will be central government awareness of the development of the programme, and ministerial attention will be given to it.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell us of any work under way to assess what impact such an efficiency review would have on the Civil Service workforce in our nations and regions? One would hope that this whole review is not just a euphemism to reduce headcount, which may have unforeseen negative consequences for places beyond Whitehall, including those very same places being courted as part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Perhaps the Minister can reassure your Lordships’ House on this point.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, indeed, I am delighted to do so. Devolved Administrations have their own responsibilities, but as I said in response to the good and challenging question from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, we do need to go out into the regions, and we are taking the Civil Service to the north-east, to York—perhaps I should not have mentioned the word “York” in your Lordships’ House—and to various places across the country for precisely the sort of reasons the noble Baroness rightly said. We must have a diverse and national service.

[Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)]

My Lords, as we strive to get value for money for the taxpayer and we move on from the pandemic and exiting the European Union, can my noble friend indicate to the House if there is a cost differential between the peak and the target?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is not a specific target; there are overall financial targets, but as far as numbers are concerned, we are seeking obviously to reduce from what we have now. I think noble Lords need to understand that there are currently 475,020 full-time equivalent civil servants, as of December 2021. That is an increase of 2,350 even on the previous quarter. We now have over half a million civil servants on headcount, and I contend that in those circumstances it is possible to make reductions.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s emphasis on the importance of science and technology, as proved by his establishment of the new Council for Science and Technology, chaired by the Prime Minister, what is being done to increase the number of people with a scientific background in the Civil Service? We need an informed customer.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think that is another important challenge from those Benches. We do need to raise the quality of specialism within the Civil Service—though that is not to disparage the traditional humanities-led approach—and not only in the scientific area but in the business of handling data and other modern approaches. This is inherent in the programme, and I can assure the noble Baroness that I will take away her point on science.

Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

121: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Addresses of candidates at parliamentary electionsHome address form: statement of local authority area
(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (Parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.(2) In rule 6 (nomination of candidates)—(a) in paragraph (5)(b), for the words from “state” to the end substitute “—(i) where the candidate’s home address is in the United Kingdom, state the constituency or the relevant area within which that address is situated;(ii) where the candidate’s home address is outside the United Kingdom, state the country within which that address is situated.”;(b) after paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In paragraph (5)(b)(i), “relevant area” means—(a) in relation to a home address in England— (i) if the address is within a district for which there is a district council, that district; (ii) if the address is within a county in which there are no districts with councils, that county;(iii) if the address is within a London borough, that London borough;(iv) if the address is within the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples), the City of London;(v) if the address is within the Isles of Scilly, the Isles of Scilly;(b) in relation to a home address in Wales—(i) if the address is within a county, that county;(ii) if the address is within a county borough, that county borough;(c) in relation to a home address in Scotland, the local government area in which the address is situated;(d) in relation to a home address in Northern Ireland, the local government district in which the address is situated.”(3) In the Appendix of forms, in the Form of Front of Ballot Paper, for the address after “Catherine Angelina Smith” substitute “(address in [relevant area])”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to give candidates at parliamentary elections the option of stating the name of the local authority area in which their home address is located on the home address form required by rule 6(4) of that Schedule.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, government Amendment 121 concerns the details about candidates that appear on ballot papers at parliamentary elections. We are bringing forward this amendment in response to concerns raised by Members in the other place.

Currently, candidates at parliamentary elections are required to disclose on the ballot paper either their home address in full or the name of the constituency in which the home address is located. The original purpose of requiring candidates to provide information about their address was so that electors could identify them as specific individuals. Given that MPs are elected on an individual basis, they need to be identifiable, even if many electors may make choices by party affiliation. The current requirements were introduced by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and give candidates the option of having just the constituency they reside in recited on the ballot paper instead of their home address. This was intended to provide security and privacy for candidates, while still ensuring electors can see if a candidate has a local connection to where they are standing.

We have listened to concerns raised in the other House that there should be a further option for candidates who wish to indicate in a more commonly understood description where they live, without sharing their full address, so that their security can be better protected. The amendment intends to enable candidates to use the local authority area in which their home address is located as the address they give. We consider that the local authority will be a familiar and comprehensible indication of locality to most people. I beg to move.

Amendment 121A (to Amendment 121)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

I am grateful to those who have spoken, and I will think about the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Khan. This is a balanced proposal which has come from concerns from Members in another place; we all know of recent sad events. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, says about people seeking to pass off where they live. This is a democracy, and I have been in politics for quite a long time, and if someone does not live very close to their ward or constituency, a leaflet comes pretty fast through the door—usually from the Liberal Democrats—with lots of big arrows over it, claiming, not always correctly, that they live somewhere on Mars. I think that democratic challenge would offer a control. The Government hope that there would not be unintended consequences.

We are suggesting a further option and, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said, sometimes the local authority’s name is closer to people’s understanding than the name of the constituency. While I understand what the noble Lords are saying, one would not want this to be abused in any way to deceive electors. I point out to your Lordships that it is an option already available to candidates at local and mayoral elections, so we consider it appropriate to extend the option to candidates at parliamentary elections. Although I listened carefully to what was said by both noble Lords, the Government believe on balance that this is an appropriate move to make in present circumstances, and in light of this I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will withdraw his amendment and the House will be able to support this very small change, which brings parliamentary elections into line with local and mayoral elections.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that response. I am now perplexed but not confused, so at least he has helped with the confusion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan, for reiterating the issue of unintended consequences. Having listened to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

123: Schedule 6, page 116, line 30, leave out from “to” to end of line 40 and insert “a relevant provision.
(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), “relevant provision” means—(a) where the person is or will be registered in a register of local electors in Northern Ireland, section 10(4A)(b), 10A(1A)(b) or 13A(2A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as applied by Schedule 1 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989), and(b) where the person is or will be registered in a register of local government electors in Great Britain and does not also fall within sub-paragraph (a), paragraph 9(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the requirement relating to preparation of date of birth lists for polling stations in Northern Ireland, so far as that requirement relates to date of birth lists for proxy voters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

How very wise the noble Lord was to miss that particular commitment, is all I can say. A number of his colleagues were blessed by that promise.

To return to the substance of Clause 11 and the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord True, I remind the Committee that the Law Commission said that there should be a comprehensive overhaul of election legislation brought forward in a proper Bill. The Committee on Standards in Public Life produced 47 recommendations for change. Both those ideas have been rejected by the Government on the grounds that there has not been enough time, it needs more consideration and there would have to be wide consultation before they could be brought in. Finding that this proposition has been dumped into the Bill is inconsistent with that view against having a comprehensive reform of electoral law, along the basis that independent sources strongly recommend.

I was impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about the views of the Mayor of Greater Manchester and his reasoning. That struck me, as someone who lives in the area over which the mayor casts his eye, more powerfully than it probably did other noble Lords. There is no element of self-interest in what the Mayor of Greater Manchester said. It grieves me to say that in the May mayoral election, Andy Burnham, the mayor, won a plurality of votes in every ward in every borough in Greater Manchester, including all those which at the same time returned Tory, Liberal Democrat and, in one or two cases, independent councillors. There was a clear view from the electorate that they wanted this personality as the Mayor of Greater Manchester. Whether we like to believe it or not, it clearly transcended people’s normal political convictions to say, “In this case, I am voting for this person.” That characteristic of the mayoral election frankly surprised me, because I am not a supporter of mayoral systems, but I must admit there was a powerful advert for it in that election.

There is also a powerful advert there for the retention of a first and second choice. It was not called into play in Greater Manchester so we do not know what the figures would have been, but we know the result in those places where it has been called into play, and people have quite easily adopted the idea that they have a preferred candidate but, if it cannot be that one, there is another who would do as their second best. That development of an overall mandate is a powerful benefit of the present system, whatever its authorship might be. It might well be the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and I have been on the same side of any discussion.

I strongly support the view that we should delete Clause 11 and retain the current system of electing our mayors in the big cities.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a lengthy debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that I have not presented any amendment. I am presenting to your Lordships’ House a Bill which has been passed by the elected House, and your Lordships are expressing opinions on it. It is certainly not the Government who have sought to Christmas-tree the Bill with a generalised debate on proportional representation. The actors in that are elsewhere than at the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment which was introduced in the Commons and is now Clause 11 was a Christmas-tree addition to the Bill by the Government.

[Lord True (Con)]

I will come to that, my Lords. If the Committee will be indulgent, I think it has heard quite a lot of debate on this subject and I will try to come to the point. As I see it, this very lengthy debate boiled down to two things. First, do we like first past the post? Regrettably, a lot of your Lordships who spoke do not seem to like it, although, like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, having fought a few elections myself, it seems pretty simple and clear for electors to stick a cross on a piece of paper and get a result. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was not impressed by that, but the simplicity and clarity of first past the post has a lot to say for it. The second issue in the debate was: should we do this now, in this Bill and in these particular elections? I shall seek to address both of them.

It is irresistible to contemplate the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, poring over his opinion polls about how popular PR is. I remind him that, before the referendum in 2011—you can look it up on Wikipedia if you like—the opinion polls said how rapturously enthusiastic the majority of the British public were about PR. When the actual argument came along and it was put, they voted for first past the post by—I cannot remember the figure, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said it was 68%. I would not advise the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to put too much faith in his opinion polls, although it is a characteristic of that party.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I just make one point of clarification. It is not an opinion poll but a tracker of opinion over time. If the public should be asked about changing the system, will the Government ask the people in the areas with police and crime commissioners and metro mayors to have a referendum to see whether we want to change the system that we already have?

[Lord True]

My Lords, whether it is a poll or a tracker, the noble Lord is welcome to look at it. I will persist with my remarks, which will address the point he just made.

Another argument put by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was that new parties could not arise. A very great new party arose under the present system: it is called the Labour Party. It supplanted the other party, and it did so because it was popular. As we will see on a later group, one problem is that the parties that want to make the change are those that are not popular, or generally less popular.

That is what the debate was about. I listened with great respect and persistence to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake —he spoke for nearly 20 minutes. It could have boiled down to one sentence: he did not like first past the post and he wanted your Lordships to stop this proposition. I will now try to address both those points.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord True]

If I may say so, the noble Lord had a good go. I will give him one go.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

If you make a comment about what somebody said, you need them to be able to come back and say you have got it wrong. The precise point I was making in my speech was not that I favoured PR—although I happen to—but that, irrespective of whether you support PR, the way the Government are doing this and what they are doing is wrong. That is exactly the argument I am making. It is really important not to distort what people are saying in their speeches.

[Lord True (Con)]

One might have thought, listening to the noble Lord, that he was talking about his liking for PR, but I will read very carefully what he said in those 17 minutes.

There is one specific amendment that I should like to address, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mann. Although he is not in his place, a specific question was asked on Amendment 144D. That amendment would allow returning officers to establish polling stations for five days ahead of the day of a poll. Although advance in-person voting is not available in the UK, voters are already able to cast their vote in advance of the poll by post. The amendment would pose significant logistical challenges for returning officers, including the need to prevent double voting, and could create an inconsistency across the country as to when and where people were able to vote in person, so I would not be able to accept that amendment in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The noble Lord is characterising my vote. It was against the alternative vote system and not for first past the post. We voted on an alternative vote system. That is not what the Minister is suggesting the vote was on.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord has been here all through the debate, but I maintain the position that the Electoral Commission has reported. I have given the facts to the Committee on the problems that arose under the supplementary vote system.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, with respect, the Minister partially reported what the Electoral Commission said. It pointed to the fact that the level of rejections in the 2016 election was 1.9%. It said the single biggest issue in the 2021 election was the design of the form. Those are critical factors in forming a judgment about the voting system.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord says let us have a look at 2016. The noble Lord also said not to pay any attention to the 2017 Conservative Party manifesto which is explicit on this point before the Committee. He wants to go back to 2016 for one thing and not back to 2017 for another. I think the noble Lord is rather picking and choosing his arguments. I wish to make progress—

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

The Minister made an important point in his argument about the 2011 referendum. That was on first past the post for Westminster elections. Is the Government’s contention that they want to see first past the post for all elections in the UK, including the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and the London Assembly? If that is so, why have they not introduced that in this Bill? Why pick on this particular electoral choice?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking to what is before the Committee at the moment. As far as the Scottish and Welsh elections are concerned, the noble Lord knows very well that there is devolution, which this Government respect.

I will respond to what the noble Lord said about the London Assembly. It involves rather more complex issues in terms of the Assembly’s potential make-up. We will be considering further how these principles could be applied to the London Assembly and perhaps promoting the use of first past the post, but we are open to representations on how that could be implemented. For the moment, the proposition is on these specific elections, against the background I have described: the Government committed to first past the post, the Elections Bill and the evidence of problems in 2021.

I turn to the broader amendments—which I must because they are before the Committee—from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is always the less popular parties which clamour for PR. They want to introduce a new clause abolishing the use of first past the post at parliamentary general elections held more than six months after the passage of the Bill. For the reasons I have already discussed, we cannot accept that. First past the post ensures a clear link between elected representatives and constituents in a manner that other voting systems do not. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, was compelling on that point.

The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is not clear even on what sort of electoral system he wants to introduce—that is the most bizarre thing about the amendment that he is asking your Lordships to agree with. He wants to get rid of the present system within two years, but he does not say what would happen if an election came along before that or in the period where there was uncertainty because a new system would require further primary legislation to enact it. There is a real risk, if we went down the road proposed by the noble Lord, that we might not have an established legal method as to how Members of the other place were elected. To be confronted with this question mark of an amendment when the Government are charged with being frivolous—I think the proponents of this amendment are frivolous. All we know from the noble Lord’s amendment is that he wants a system that would have had, over the past five parliamentary general elections, a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10—that will get them jumping around in the pubs in Saltaire and Moulsecoomb, I am sure.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am sure that the Minister knows that this is copied from the SNP amendment in the Commons. One may talk about umpteen different proportional systems—and no electoral system is perfect, of course—but there is a choice to be made, putting it simply, between the Irish and the Scottish and Welsh systems. I prefer the Irish, but I think it would be appropriate to have some consultation among parties before a decision was finally taken. The point that a number of us have been making throughout the Bill is that, on constitutional matters such as this, it would be appropriate to aim for some consensus among the parties, rather than have each party—as in our aggressive two-party system—changing the rules to favour itself.

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord has completely failed to answer the core question. He has thought about this amendment and tabled it, it is here on the list and in it he says:

“The simple majority system must not be used for any Parliamentary general election after the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.”


Who knows when the end of the Session will be, but let us say that this Act is fortunate enough to get on to the statute book, that means that for any election in 2023 or 2024, we would not be allowed to use first past the post—if your Lordships agreed to the amendment that the Liberal Democrats have put before the Committee, supported by the Green group—but would have to flounder around to find some other system, which the noble Lord will not specify, which would have a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10.

I am accused—the Government are accused—of coming to this Dispatch Box arguing for first past the post, which people understand, while the people on the other side come forward with a kind of canard of nonsense, such as in the noble Lord’s amendment. We are also asked for citizens’ assemblies, but I can only repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Grocott said, with much greater eloquence than mine, that we did have a big citizens’ assembly of nearly 20 million people who decided this in 2011.

I am not convinced by the arguments that I have heard on proportional representation; I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill in which to try to change our system from first past the post within six months, as is proposed. But, returning to the core of the question, I do believe that it is reasonable to have a simpler system than the system that proved so confusing and led to so many wasted votes in the London elections and that we should go for first past the post, as the Government have maintained very clearly. I ask the House to reject the amendments that have been tabled.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to get into any discussion at all about what sort of electoral system is best because, to me, that is not what this clause is about. It is about changing the system without any consultation at all. Much of this Bill has had no consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny. Our concern—my big concern—is that lack of consultation, working with local people about the proposals. With the changes to the mayoral system and the PCCs, but the mayoral system in particular, it is extremely disappointing that the Government decided to bring these in—very, very late and after they had been told originally that it was out of scope. That, to me, is the big problem with Clause 11. I am disappointed that the Minister did not address my concerns around the fact that it was disrespectful to the House and that an Elections Bill should have more consideration.

[Lord True (Con)]

I am sorry that the noble Baroness—for whom I have the greatest possible respect, as she knows—feels that way. The House of Commons did not seem to regard it as disrespectful. I have submitted that there is nothing novel or unusual about first past the post. It is not one of the kinds of systems that is suggested. The Government have made it clear to the electorate that they wish to maintain and support first past the post. We have an Elections Bill, we have the evidence of the difficulties caused in the London mayoral elections, and I think it is reasonable for the Government to seek to address that. Others may have different opinions, but I think Parliament would be remiss in not considering whether there is a better system than that which led to hundreds of thousands of wasted votes in the London elections last spring.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I have the greatest respect for the Minister but—with the greatest respect—that really did not address the issue. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, there you go. I am still below the average age—just. The important point is that they are not mutually exclusive. This is about how we encourage people to participate in democracy and, as the noble Lord said, participation is not simply about voting. We want people to properly engage in civic society. That includes other groups which campaign and organise, because that is what influences our politics. Young people are certainly doing that, which is why we are very strongly in favour of this.

Of course, we have the evidence. Scotland and Wales now have a lower voting age, but they are not the only places. The Isle of Man and Jersey have it, as do Guernsey, Brazil and Austria, and it applies to some elections in Germany, Malta and Norway. There is strong evidence of how it can encourage participation and build this in, because when people start voting at a young age, they continue to vote. That is a really important point.

Picking up the point that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made, the noble Baroness, Lady Davidson of Lundin Links, changed her mind through her experience in the referendum campaign. I read an article that she wrote for the Tory Reform Group as a consequence of that experience in 2016. She said:

“Those in favour of the status quo argue that while the referendum offered a clear, unambiguous choice, parliamentary elections present a more muddied, multi-layered decision which require a more mature electorate.


But having watched and debated in front of 16 and 17-year-olds throughout the referendum, I have found myself unable to agree. My position has changed. We deem 16-year-olds adult enough to join the army, to have sex, get married, leave home and work full-time. The evidence of the referendum suggests that, clearly, they are old enough to vote too.”


I agree with her. We should do this.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I fear I cannot accept these amendments, although, having been mildly disobliging on the previous group about those against first past the post, I will open with an area of agreement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, my noble friend Lord Lexden and the party opposite that we must do more—as much as we can—to engage young people in civic education and understanding what it is to be a future citizen. We are also having other discussions on trying, we hope, to persuade more young people to vote. There is strong agreement there.

We cannot accept these amendments because the Government, having reflected on the matter, simply do not believe that a reduction to 16 is the correct course. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made a very strong speech on this. There are many difficult questions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, about what constitutes full adulthood, which society has to wrestle with. We think, in common with most countries in the world—although not, I acknowledge, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales—that the current position is correct.

We made that very clear to the electorate; we were not trying to hide it, because it was and is a subject of discussion between the parties. We have been criticised for our manifesto not being clear, but it was absolutely clear on this point:

“We will maintain the voting age at 18—the age at which one gains full citizenship.”


That was very explicitly stated. You may not agree with that, but it is the position. I hope the Committee will respect that. Eighteen is widely recognised in the vast majority of democratic countries as the right age at which to enfranchise young people.

There are difficulties. For example, the very radical proposal by the Liberal Democrats to legalise cannabis was not for people below 18 because they were not mature before that age. In 2010, the party opposite raised the age for using sunbeds to 18. Other examples have been given on some more fundamental and difficult questions of peace and war. With respect to the arguments I have heard, the Government believe that the settled, present position is correct, in common with most other democratic countries.

My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s amendment seeks to lower the voting age to 16 and 17 year-olds by linking the franchise to taxation. I fear I must disappoint him; taxation has never been the basis of democratic representation in this country. For example, an American citizen of voting age who works and pays taxes in the United Kingdom does not have the right to vote in parliamentary elections simply by virtue of tax. However, a British citizen of voting age who pays no income tax, such as a student, rightly retains the right to vote, as do those earning less than the tax-free allowance. In council tax there is a class S exemption—I think it is called that; it was in my day—for households of 16 and 17 year-olds precisely so that they should not pay council tax. The mixing of taxation and voting rights raises difficult problems. It would also potentially disfranchise people who could, for a range of reasons, be unable to work or find work or who may be working but not earning enough to pay taxes.

With respect to those who have a different opinion, the Government have reflected on this. Engagement is important; I was very proud when I was leader of a local authority—I know many other local authorities do the same—of the UK Youth Parliament and youth engagement through schools. I have similar recollections to the noble Lord opposite. These things are important. Let us work together across parties to try to do that, but I cannot recommend that the House adopts this principle in the Bill. I forecast to the Committee that, if it were proposed, because it was a manifesto commitment by the Government to maintain the present position, it would not find favour in the other place. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in withdrawing this amendment, I point out that, if we are saying that there is a problem—which the Minister has admitted, but has said that this is not the answer—then the question of how we manage to get more young people on the register, which we will come to on automatic voter registration, is important. The very near collapse of citizenship education in our state schools is an urgent matter, which we should all address on a cross-party basis. I look forward to the Minister returning to that. I hope he will take back to his colleagues in the Department for Education how important many of us feel this to be.

I merely remark to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the extensive coverage in this Bill of the extension of overseas voting is there because Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Conservatives Abroad and the Conservative Party’s international office decided that this would be to the Conservatives’ advantage. Surveys in the mid-2000s suggested that 68% of those voting overseas were voting for the Conservative Party. I was suggesting earlier that a little bit of balance and cross-party agreement on how one extends the electorate might be desirable. Sadly, I do not think this Government are in the mood for that. That is one of the many things I regret about the way this Bill has been introduced and is being handled. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I heard all the contributions from all sides of the House, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his introduction, which quite accurately set out the history. I have read the parliamentary Commons briefing as well. The reality is that the position of the Labour Party has not changed, and we do not support this amendment.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. Amendment 139, as has been said, seeks to extend the franchise for parliamentary elections to prisoners serving a term of 12 months or less. This Government believe, in common with the party opposite, that when a citizen commits a crime that is sufficiently serious to detain them in prison, they have broken their contract with society. In addition, the Government have made their position clear. We said openly in our manifesto:

“We will maintain the ban on prisoners voting from jail.”


Prison means the loss of a number of rights and freedoms, not least the right to liberty and freedom of association. The Government believe that the loss of voting rights while in prison is a proportionate curtailment of such civic rights. As such, we cannot support this amendment.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

I thank those who have supported me in this amendment. I am particularly grateful to those on the Labour Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who have spoken in favour.

I just wonder about the Labour Party. In Cardiff, it moved to bring about voting for prisoners, seeing it as an important part of its remit from the people of Wales. Here, however, it is dismissed in a sentence: “We haven’t changed”. The Labour Party is a little bit split. I am not sure what it said in Scotland; I will have to look that up after this and investigate.

This is the way the world is going. You can stand in the way if you like, but ultimately the vote will be given to prisoners, just as it is in most democracies around the world. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, but there are many reasons for a deposit. It is a well-established practice and I do not accept that it is necessarily a barrier, bearing in mind the facilities that being a registered candidate gives you—not least free postage for an election communication to every elector. There are certainly a lot of things you can already benefit from as a properly accredited, validly nominated candidate. There are lots of responsibilities to that, so I do not see grounds for change.

However, that does not mean I am opposed to some sort of examination of precisely how the deposit system impacts on candidates. The noble Baroness said that an argument might be made that it acts as a barrier to participation, but then she said that, when you look at general elections, a lot of candidates are thrown in, particularly in high-profile seats. It is a form of registration; you get your money back if you get sufficient support, so I do not see the grounds for changing.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that, having been able to be reasonably accommodating on the previous amendment, I cannot meet the noble Baroness on this one for very similar reasons to those argued by the noble Lord opposite. The reality is that candidates have to provide a deposit of £500, which is lost if they get less than 5% of the vote. It is designed, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that, normally, only those who are serious about seeking public office will put themselves forward for election. However, it does not seem to have deterred Lord Buckethead over the years I have been following elections, although I suspect the figure under the bucket may have changed—he has been around a long time.

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, candidates at parliamentary elections are entitled to have an item of election material sent to electors free of charge by the Royal Mail. Paying the deposit gives candidates access to over £20,000 of public money for this purpose in a typical case. This is a factor in the level of deposit required from candidates.

The noble Baroness proposes that, at a general election where a candidate standing wins one seat for a party, all other candidates standing for that party would be entitled to have their deposit returned regardless of the level of vote they receive. At a general election, there are a series of individual contests in individual constituencies across the country, as the Green Party knows very well from its successes. We submit that it would be a significant change for a result in one constituency to have any impact on contests in others. You can have very different results down the road; that is germane to a general election. While candidates can be members of parties, they stand for election on an individual basis and the law views them as such in terms of deposits.

As the noble Baroness sees it, this would help her party, which secured a little more than 2.5% of the vote nationally. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said it might help other parties. However, the reality is that, as she acknowledged, the Greens were not so popular, because they lost their deposit in 465 constituencies, which was up from 456 lost deposits in the previous election—they actually lost more. This amendment would require, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, nearly £250,000 of taxpayers’ money to be returned to Green candidates who had been rejected by taxpayers at the polls.

We would also need to consider very carefully the implication the proposal would have in individual constituencies. It could unfairly and, in my submission, inequitably disadvantage single, local independent candidates—we all know them, people who have strong issues in a local constituency, who put themselves on the line. They may get more of a share in a particular constituency than this national party, and then find someone they had beaten gets their deposit back, but they do not. A level playing field for elections is essential for our democratic processes, so I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that this would need a lot more consideration before we could go near this. The Government constantly review electoral activity, but I regret to say that we cannot support this change, and I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in this short debate and thank the Minister for his response. I would perhaps question the classification of general elections as measures of popularity; they are reflections of popularity, since people have to deal with the first past the post voting system. If we look at the last election, it might have been taken as a measure of popularity where votes more or less matched seats, and people knew that their votes counted. It was the last European election where the Green Party got 11% of the vote and finished ahead of the Conservative Party in that particular measure of popularity under a different voting system.

I wish to pick up on a couple of points. Both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, picked up the point about the one seat issue. I take their points, but the fact is that, with Short money, there is already a legal situation that says one seat means you will be regarded as a national party. I am interested in the Minister’s comments, with his strong stress on each seat being an individual contest, which does not really seem to be the way the Conservative Party has been fighting recent elections, or the way recent elections have been treated by the media.

On the Minister’s point about disadvantaging single local candidates, around the country at a local council level we are seeing groups of candidates representing their local area—I am thinking of Herefordshire, but there are other areas where significant groups of councillors have come together as representatives of their local area, and they might want to run in a number of seats where they represent the council, and that is a very large sum of money.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, said it is not a barrier to participation because you get your money back if you get sufficient support, but that implies you are able essentially to gamble £500. While there are many people in our society who can say, “Well, here is £500—I will get it back or I will not”, there are an awful lot of people for whom that is not a financially viable situation, who do not have access to that £500 to start off with.

I think this has been the start of a conversation. I took encouragement from the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, that the idea of a review might be of interest to the Labour Party. I think that is something that I might look to take forward in the future, and I hope we might be able to work on that. This has been very much the start of a conversation which has a long way to run, but at least it has been started. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord True]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the dissolution of Parliament should be subject to a vote in the Commons.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will briefly remind your Lordships of where we find ourselves. Your Lordships’ House amended the Bill, which had been passed by the other place, to give the Commons the right to a veto on dissolution and invited the other place to reconsider its decision. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, told us, the amendment would offer the House of Commons an opportunity to reflect again on this highly important constitutional Bill.

It has now been considered by the other place again, and the Commons unsurprisingly maintained its previous decision. During the discussion in the other place, Members noted the flaws of a prescriptive system and feared that it would recreate the paralysis of the 2019 Parliament—something that the manifestos of both major parties at the last general election said they wished to avoid. Furthermore, the importance of retaining the flexible nature of the constitution was emphasised.

Your Lordships asked the other place to consider its role, as is your Lordships’ right. For a second time it has done so, and it has decisively rejected a Commons veto, placing its trust, as do the Government, in the constitutional practices that served this country well for generations before the failed experiment of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. The Government agree with the view of the other place: the amendment would undermine the rationale of the Bill.

We are now within reach of securing important and historic legislation and delivering the manifesto commitment of two political parties—and notably, from my point of view, of the Government. The Bill returns us to the status quo ante, revives the prerogative powers for the Dissolution and calling of Parliament, and preserves the long-standing position on the non-justiciability of these powers.

I thank all noble Lords for their important engagement in the passage of this Bill, which was valued by me and the Government. It deepened reflection on the Bill and the principles behind it. However, I would be grateful if your Lordships now accepted the clear decision of the other place, which, as the reason before us today notes, is that

“the Commons do not consider it appropriate that the dissolution of Parliament should be subject to a vote in the Commons.”

That is a very clear message from the other House, and I urge your Lordships not to insist on their amendment.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, after a short debate in the other place, the amendment proposed by this House was disagreed, and here we are today. There is still an issue: we believe the Dissolution of Parliament should not be based on the revival of the prerogative, but the other place takes a different view. The other place is the elected Chamber. As I made clear during the debate, this issue was to be decided not by Parliament as a whole but by the other place because that is the elected Chamber. It has spoken. I stand by the undertaking I gave during the debate, and therefore this must be carried.

In doing so—I think I am allowed to say this—I very much hope that, in the long march of the future, it will turn out that the decision of the House of Commons is vindicated. I really do hope that. I would like to think that I will be right, but I still do not have confidence that we can be sure that no future Prime Minister will misuse or abuse this power. We will therefore have to wait for the future to decide who, in truth, was right on the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we laugh, and in some ways, it is amusing. It is also extraordinary—I am not sure that it is amusing. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was an Act of its time whose main purpose was to protect the coalition Government, and it succeeded in that to a degree. I was very disappointed to read the response of Ministers in the other place. It seemed to focus on the argument that because all parties agreed that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act must go, there was only one way of doing it. That seemed an extraordinary proposition to make. On the points made by my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this House had no vested interest whatever in the amendment that it passed. It sought to do so in the interests of the democratic system. The Government’s preferred option was one that we found quite extraordinary.

We enjoy in our Parliament a system of checks and balances in the democratic system. For those of us who do not consider that the Prime Minister alone should decide on the election, there seem to be three alternatives: first, that the courts intervene, which the majority of your Lordships’ House found unacceptable, although I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Butler; secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that the monarchy would be drawn into that decision-making process, which we would all seek to avoid—I was glad that he quoted both Jackie Doyle-Price and Kevin Brennan, because I thought the points they made in the House of Commons were very pertinent; finally, that Parliament should have an opportunity to be engaged in that decision.

Those of my age who remember Wolfie Smith in “Citizen Smith” will have heard “Power to the people”; the Minister said, “Let us hand power back to the people”, but the Government are actually handing power back to the Prime Minister. There was never any difficulty in the election process—there was always going to be a general election—it is about who decides on the election. The Minister probably watched too much bad TV in his younger days. I find it extraordinary that the House of Commons was prepared to give up that power so easily.

I agree that, as the other place—albeit its majority being the Government’s majority—does not wish to pursue this, there is little point in our asking it to reconsider. However, I repeat a question that my noble friend Lord Collins asked the Minister in Oral Questions yesterday, which he sort of answered in the affirmative. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was a prime example of legislation being passed for one particular purpose without a great deal of thought, and it has had to be undone for all the reasons we know. Legislation made too quickly for a specific circumstance does not protect the constitution in any way. I hope the Minister will agree with me that constitutional change needs much more careful examination of long-term and unintended consequences. We have got ourselves into a right pickle over this one. Does he accept that, when looking at any significant constitutional change, a period of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation would provide for better legislation at the end of the day?

But for now, bizarre as the decision made by the other place may seem, we do not intend to pursue this further.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I say to the noble Baroness that this Bill did receive detailed pre-legislative scrutiny; it was considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses and Ministers were scrutinised by committees in both Houses. Ministers in both Houses—I have had some small endeavour in this—have engaged actively with interested Members during the Bill. That is a contrast—perhaps this was the point the noble Baroness was making—to what happened in 2011 when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was cobbled together in back rooms, as we learn about in the memoirs of Mr David Laws.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Just to help the Minister, that is exactly the point I was making about the Fixed-term Parliaments Act not having proper scrutiny and getting us into the position we are in now.

[Lord True (Con)]

I was agreeing with the noble Baroness on that. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was an aberration from 2011 to 2022. Some noble Lords have expressed shock that the House of Commons would wish to return to an arrangement which endured for generations. I do not share that shock.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who was a ferocious opponent of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—I agreed with him profoundly on this—said he was surprised that the House of Commons responded in the way it did. I read out to the House its reason in my opening remarks. Your Lordships asked the Commons a specific question on the Dissolution Bill: did it want a veto on this Dissolution measure? The House of Commons has replied specifically to that question in its reason. That does not in any way detract from the powers of the House of Commons either to bring down a Government through withdrawing confidence or to sustain one. That remains one of its fundamental powers, which can promote a Dissolution and a general election.

I agree with those who said there is an abiding need to avoid the sovereign being drawn into politics. That principle is accepted by all people, I think, at every level of politics; it has been and will remain the case, as was set out in the Dissolution principles.

It was proposed that the Commons should have a vote, and the Commons has clearly rejected the proposal. I am grateful that noble Lords—albeit it in a mildly chiding way in some cases—have accepted that. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for not pressing his amendment. I did not chide the House in any way on the role it played—I respect that role—but I think we should show respect for the decision of the Commons in our words and deeds now.

I thank noble Lords for all the points made in the debate. I hope we can now proceed, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Constitutional Reform

Lord True Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for constitutional reform.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, the Judicial Review and Courts Bill and the Elections Bill are in the advanced stages of their passage through Parliament. The Government have consulted on proposals to overhaul the Human Rights Act and replace it with a Bill of Rights. The Government also remain focused on working with devolved Administrations to make sure our system of devolution works effectively for all citizens.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that response, but may we take it from the absence of any reference to a presidential system that the suggestion made on 22 January by Mr Rees-Mogg on the “Newsnight” programme will not now be pursued? If so, does the Minister understand that that will come as a great relief since given the verbal damage caused by the Prime Minister over the weekend, think just how much he would cause were he the President.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think I answered on the first point a few weeks ago in the House. We do not have a presidential system in this country—thank God. We have a constitutional monarchy and our present monarch.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, when will the Government realise that the SNP is not interested in making devolution work effectively but only in the break up of Britain? Are the Government aware that in Scotland—on the right as well as the left—there is growing concern at improper expenditure by the Scottish Government on areas for which they have no responsibility, particularly in preparing for a referendum that no one wants? Why do the British Government not step in and make sure taxpayers’ money is spent properly?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, this is slightly outside my direct brief. Obviously, the Government’s intention is to work with the Administrations that we have and that is why we have pushed forward the work on intergovernmental relations, which has been welcomed in your Lordships’ House. As to the political comments of the noble Lord, I might well agree with some of the things he said. Certainly, a federal approach does not guarantee good government.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, have my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, had a chance to read the latest report from the Constitution Committee called Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21^st Century? I declare an interest as a member of that committee. The very positive message of that report was that with our very flexible, uncodified and evolving constitution, we can devise a far better and stronger United Kingdom, possibly more amenable to all the sensible views in Scotland, as well as the other devolved nations, in a way that does not involve getting into the deep quagmire of full constitutional reform, which could take years and achieve little.

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, my Lords, I think your Lordships’ Constitution Committee makes outstanding contributions to all thinking on constitutional matters. As I indicated in my previous answer, we are seeking approaches to always create good relations—as far as we can—between the different Administrations of these islands. That means good will, and every party has to show that good will.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)]

My Lords, the measures that the Minister referred to were for the most part unilateral initiatives on the part of the Government. What has happened to the proposal in the Conservative Party manifesto—and of other parties—for a commission on the constitution, which would involve much wider consultation?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have indicated previously to your Lordships’ House that the Government are determined to take the various aspects of constitutional consideration forward; I gave the House examples of the different workstreams. I simply do not agree with the noble Lord that there is not cross-party agreement on certain things. For example, the removal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was agreed across the House and the principle of it was subject to very extensive consultation and examination.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister is aware, there is currently a parliamentary by-election taking place in this House, the result of which is to be declared a week on Wednesday. I have the documents here: we now know that all nine candidates and all 46 voters are Conservatives. If the Minister was an election observer at this election, would he describe it as free and fair?

[Lord True (Con)]

It is certainly a secret ballot. The noble Lord is well known in the House for his assiduous pressing of this point—he almost qualifies as the elder Cato on Carthage—but the system remains enacted by Parliament, and it will remain until Parliament decides otherwise.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister tell us who is responsible as Minister for the Constitution? I looked it up this morning on the government website, and it said that Chloe Smith had been the Minister for the Constitution in 2020-21 but gave no successor. She was responsible to a Cabinet Minister, Michael Gove, who was then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He is now, in whatever his department is called, also Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, and one of his junior Ministers, Kemi Badenoch, is handling the Elections Bill in the Commons, but I cannot quite see who is in charge of the constitution. Perhaps it is the noble Lord, Lord True, himself—in which case, I congratulate him. If so, to which Cabinet Minister does he think he is responsible for discussions and policy on constitutional matters?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, so far as the elements of constitutional policy that remain within the Cabinet Office, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the responsible Cabinet Minister—and, yes, I report to him as Minister of State. Other aspects of the constitutional brief—for example, policy in relation to the union, elections and local government—lie with my right honourable friend Mr Michael Gove and DLUHC.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government carry out meaningful consultations with the devolved Governments to reduce conflict in dealing with such matters as the pandemic, and recognise the inadequacy of the Barnett formula for providing for Welsh finances?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat that we seek ongoing friendly and close relations with the devolved Administrations. Indeed, even in this regard, I know that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution met with the commission set up by the Welsh Government on constitutional matters. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that these contacts will continue.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, given that under the Barnett formula, Scotland receives very substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money from the rest of the United Kingdom, why are we not allowed to ask Questions in the Table Office about the huge losses—in ferries, airports and all kinds of weird and wonderful schemes—of hundreds of millions of pounds by the SNP Government? Why are they not accountable for taxpayers’ money in this House?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot answer that question: it is a matter of procedure. As to the Table Office, that is a matter for the House authorities. I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the politics of the current Administration in Scotland leave a lot to be desired. It is notable that the Scottish nationalists do not send Members to your Lordships’ House, so we cannot hold them accountable in this Chamber, which is regrettable.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That Act is a prime example of how, when legislation is made in haste, it creates more problems than it seeks to solve. Does the Minister accept that any further reform of, or changes to, the constitution would benefit from a period of pre-legislative scrutiny? That would at least have the benefit of fully examining both the intended and the unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I certainly think that scrutiny, consideration and listening are important in our affairs—I gave the example of the Human Rights Act and its potential replacement, on which the Government have issued a consultation. Sometimes, it is an exaggeration to say that the Government do not listen or ask.

Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but it will not stop me—because in the argument about proportionality the question is, “What is the most important problem that we seek to address?” At the end of the day, we are focusing on this issue of voter ID to address a concern over fraud. As we have heard from the debate, it is not the evidence of fraud that we should be concerned about but the concern about concern, which actually undermines the argument completely.

I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. What evidence do we have? Of course, we have heard about the pilot schemes in the local elections of 2019. What the noble Lord highlighted well was that the Electoral Commission noted that between 3% and 7% of those who engaged in the election were turned away because they did not have the right form of voter ID, including non-photographic ID. As the noble Lord said, those small pilot schemes were not reflective of a general election. If you extrapolate that to a general election, the Electoral Commission and others have suggested that between 50,000 and 400,000 people could show up at a general election and then be turned away. What is that going to do to confidence in our electoral system? Not much, I would suggest. It is pretty appalling that we are focusing on that issue, when there is a desperate need to focus, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, on civic engagement, how to encourage young people to participate and to register, and how to get that understanding of the need to vote.

I was sorely tempted to intervene on the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. Of course, I am fully aware of the rights and responsibilities of membership organisations, having had the responsibility of ensuring that the rules of the Labour Party were properly upheld. But that is not the same as what the right reverend Prelate was talking about: the universal right to vote. I have to pay for my Labour Party membership, and I have responsibilities to abide by its rules. That includes a whole host of requirements that the noble Lord has not mentioned—but what has that got to do with the universal right to vote? Not much, I beg to argue.

It has to come back to this whole point about what problem it is that we are seeking to address. It is a very, very small issue that we seek to address here, and we are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I support all noble Lords who seek for this clause not to stand part.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

Well, my Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in what has been quite a lengthy debate—but why not? It is an important issue.

I will try to answer the various points which have been made. The proposition in Clause 1, which is before us, is part of a whole series of measures which this Government are putting in the Bill to strengthen the security and integrity of elections. These include matters we are coming on to in relation to postal votes, the handling of postal votes and so on. There is a consistent overall desire in the Government to ensure that votes are cast, and cast with integrity. I submit to the Committee that there is no distinction—no “one or the other”—between wanting more people to vote and trying to secure the integrity of the vote. This is a false antithesis that has run through the debate. All of us should want to do both things: to ensure that all votes are honest and honestly handled, and that as many people vote as possible. We are able to do both; it is not one or the other.

Last week, on the first technical amendment in what was a lengthy series of amendments relating to voter identification, we had a wide-ranging clause stand part-style debate on many aspects of Clause 1, and on the assessments done on costs for voter identification and its potential impacts. I acknowledge that, as has happened again today, the Benches opposite have made it abundantly clear that they do not support this policy—or Clause 1 or Schedule 1 of the Bill. The Government disagree. In our submission, this policy is necessary and proportionate. It also implements the Government’s manifesto commitment to voter identification to protect the security and integrity of our ballot, so that our elections will remain secure well into the future.

The idea floated by some, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that this was not a manifesto commitment because the word “photo” was not in the manifesto, is wide of the mark. As I said in our last session, the Government clearly declared their policy in the Queen’s Speech in October 2019, set out in detail in the briefing what that would mean, and referenced that in the manifesto. Manifestos briefly often reference established policy. Indeed, there was much debate at the time about the proposition that the Government had put on the table, including the photographic aspect.

I must tell the House that the Government regard this proposal as fully covered by the conventions of your Lordships’ House on manifesto commitments—as they would apply under the Government of any party. The process for voting in polling stations—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry, but can the Minister clarify why the Government chose not to put the word “photo” into the manifesto? No one is disputing that there was a manifesto commitment; what we are disputing is whether that commitment was for photo ID.

[Lord True (Con)]

The Government had an established and declared policy on voter identification which was referenced in the manifesto. Not every aspect of every policy goes into a manifesto. We do not normally put 177 pages—or whatever it was that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned—into a manifesto. However, the specific details—not only the photo identification, but also the fact that we would offer, as part of this, a free card to anyone who is not covered by any of the aspects of the policy—were declared public policy. That, too, remains the Government’s policy.

My noble friend Lady Noakes said that the process for voting in polling stations in Great Britain has seen no significant changes in its security since the Ballot Act 1872. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned another Gladstonian reform. None the less, the system used in the Victorian era, in a confined franchise in smaller communities, is in our submission simply not fit for the 21st century. There are undeniable vulnerabilities in our system—covered not only in this Clause 1 measure but in others as we track through the Bill—which let people down because they can lead, and have led, to votes being stolen by unscrupulous individuals. The introduction of photographic voter identification as a solution to such vulnerabilities is supported by the independent Electoral Commission. As we have heard, it is also backed—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt. I do not want to delay proceedings any more, but the noble Lord just referred to the Electoral Commission. It suggested in its briefing to noble Lords that the Government should also consider options on polling day for those people who have lost their ID and have not received their voter card to ensure that no one loses the opportunity to vote. This could include using a vouching system as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to, which applies in Canada. Is the Electoral Commission’s recommendation going to be considered by the Government when they introduce voter ID?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, applications for the free card will be available up to 5 pm on the day before, as has been said. I note what the noble Lord has said, and I will take away what he and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, have said but our submission is that the time to apply for the card is satisfactory at the moment and anyone who is turned away initially on the day of vote can return. As a matter of fact, at the last election in which I took part, which certainly was not a general election, I was turned away. The returning officer said: “We are too busy at the moment. We have a technical problem, can you come back later?” I went back later in the day. People can return, and I did.

It was also pointed out, and this is correct, that the provision is backed by leading international election observers such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. It has repeatedly called for its introduction, saying its absence is a security risk. Many people would question why it is not already the case. In fact, as my noble friend said last week, the 2021 Electoral Commission winter tracker report was clear that the majority of the public—66%—say that a requirement to show identification at polling stations would make them more confident in the security of the voting system.

The choice of photographic identification as the model has been questioned by noble Lords. Put simply, it is the most secure and familiar way of confirming that someone is who they say they are. It is true that a number of different models of voter identification were trialled as part of the pilots undertaken by the Government in 2018 and 2019. However, when evaluating the security strengths and weaknesses of each pilot model, the Electoral Commission found that

“the photo ID only model has the greatest security strengths compared with the other models.”

On the basis of those evaluations, it was clear that the most secure and appropriate approach was photographic identification.

Many noble Lords in the debate raised questions about the practical implications of selecting this model. Obviously, as we go forward in co-operation into the face of implementation, the Government will carefully consider all the points that have been raised. The Government understand this and want to prepare the system as well as possible. This is why we considered the absolute maximum range of identifications that could be accepted for the policy. Using the Government’s Verify security scale, we opted for level 2 and then considered this against the widest possible range of documents which would meet that assessment. Should other forms of photographic identification meet that level of security in the future, the Government will be able to add them through the power inserted into Rule 37 by paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. This will ensure that the list remains up to date and is as accessible as possible going forward.

We commissioned a nationally representative survey of over 8,500 electors in Great Britain. This found that 98% of people have access to an accepted form of photographic identification, including 99% of people from ethnic minorities and young people aged 18 to 29. We need to reach all those others, which is why a free card is being offered and the Electoral Commission will be entering into a publicity process to ensure, with the Government, that that is known. Some 94% of the people surveyed felt that having to present a photo identification at the polling station would either make it easier to vote or make no difference.

Voter identification is a proven approach and although I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, in addition to the provision made for Northern Ireland by the last Labour Government, it is in place in most European countries and also in countries such as Canada which do not have compulsory national identity cards. Whether noble Lords like it or not, Northern Ireland is a comprehensive empirical example of the introduction of photographic identification in the UK. We know that it operates there with ease. It has brought real benefit to the democratic process, and Northern Ireland consistently reports high rates of confidence in the outcome of elections. The 2019 Electoral Commission post-election questionnaire reported that 83% of voters in Northern Ireland found it

“very easy to participate in the elections”

as opposed to 78% in Great Britain.

I trust that that sets out some of the underlying principles, but when developing this policy we of course completed all the required impact and equality impact assessments. A team of analysts produced detailed cost and benefit modelling, published in the impact assessment, as is typical for such a government programme. They incorporated high and low ranges to account for uncertainty and conducted sensitivity analysis to test the most sensitive and impactful assumptions, such as the percentage of the electorate requiring a voter card. If any noble Lord would like to explore details of the impact assessment with officials who have been involved in doing it—I know the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is interested in that—I would be very happy to arrange for them to meet the Bill team to discuss it.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I do not need to meet the Bill team. The impact assessment that the Minister signed off on 20 January this year says very clearly on page 30, paragraph 18, on this specific policy, on Clause 1 on mandatory photo ID:

“The analysis does not assess the impact of the policy on voter turnout.”


There has been no assessment in the impact assessment of the voter turnout and this clause.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord does not wish to meet members of the Bill team and I am very happy to repeat that offer.

So far as the noble Lord’s point is concerned, my noble friend answered that point explicitly—indeed, the noble Lord referred to it. An impact assessment is an economic assessment. It did not deal with turnout. As the noble Lord well knows—he has campaigned often enough, as I have—turnout is affected by a very large range of factors. I will give way once more to the noble Lord.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I think it is important for the Committee to understand this because the noble Lord has said something at the Dispatch Box which they will find is slightly different when they look at the impact assessment. The impact assessment looks at non-monetary and non-economic issues to do with policies all over this Bill. It specifically says about this policy that it has not looked at voter turnout. This is not just an economic assessment—it is an assessment of the monetary and non-monetary effects of the Bill, including voter turnout.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, it covers economic, equality and other assessments. If I misspoke, I apologise. I say for the third time what my noble friend said last week and I have said—the Government did not cover turnout. I have not sought to hide that fact because the factors that affect turnout are very wide and cannot be distinguished. Of course, analysis should not remain static, and I take that point. As we move towards implementation, I say to the Committee that we will continue to make sure that the evidence base remains up to date in terms of costings and will refine the modelling and assumptions. This is standard practice and will address the economic points.

I repeat that year-on-year turnout comparisons cannot be accurately estimated due to the volatility of the electoral cycle. As I have said, a huge variety of disparate factors play a part in whether someone chooses to vote in any particular election, from the appeal of candidates standing to personal circumstances on the day. An attempt to draw conclusions would be difficult.

In this vein, I note Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on post-legislative scrutiny, which has not been addressed in this group yet. I appreciate that she has not had the opportunity to speak to it, but I will reply to the amendment. The Bill already provides for an evaluation of the impacts of voter identification at the first two general elections to which it applies and the first stand-alone set of local council elections. I am pleased to say that we intend to go further and produce a process and impact evaluation of the programme and its implementation across all policy measures. I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness that our aims on this are aligned. However, I repeat what I said in an earlier group: I remain open to further conversations on this point in relation to post-legislative scrutiny. I give that undertaking to the Committee.

Finally, in the same spirit of increasing participation in our democracy and empowering those eligible to vote to do so in a secure and effective way, Clause 2 introduces an online absent vote application service and an online voter card application service. As it stands, there is no facility for electors to make an online application to get a postal vote or proxy vote. Electors must have a paper form which they complete and submit to the electoral registration officer. Here the Government are seeking to encourage participation, because in an increasingly digital world, providing an online service for applications must increase accessibility. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that his fears are unfounded. It will certainly be possible to apply for the voter card and the registration at the same time, just as one can in applying for a postal vote.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Does the Minister therefore intend to accept my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock’s Amendment 64, which says that explicitly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

No—we do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but the noble Lord is anticipating the next group. I am replying to noble Lords and assuring the Committee that I am advised that the noble Lord’s fears are entirely unfounded and that voters will be able to apply for both at the same time.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

That is very well and good but coming back to the impact assessment, on applying for absent votes, paragraph 117 says:

“The requirement for identity verification as a part of the online application process for absent votes could deter some voters from voting … This may impact the integrity of the elections as it may lead to lower turnout”.


Why would such a policy be implemented, with that in the impact assessment?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat that we believe that, in an increasingly digital world, where the introduction of digital services can be done securely, providing an online service for applications increases accessibility. That is our submission, and I think that would be regarded as logically correct by most people who turn on their internet in the morning.

These powers will enable the identity of applicants using the new services to be verified, as well as identity checking for other absent voter applications.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

There is a fundamental issue. The Minister has said that it will be possible to apply for the two at the same time, but paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 1 says:

“Regulations may make provision … about the timing of an application for an electoral identity document”.


Is the Minister saying to the Committee that those regulations will provide that applications for the electoral identity document can be made at the same time and as part of the same form or digital process as electoral registration itself?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether it is under that specific rubric. Obviously, a lot of this material will come forward in regulation, including precisely the last hour at which you can make an application, et cetera. I will say to the noble Lord only that his comments were heard and I have been advised that they are not founded. There is a later group during which we can come back to this point, if we must. I can write to the noble Lord, but I think it would be helpful if I was in a position to give that assurance to the Committee, in public, on the next group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

I wrote one yesterday.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I make no comment about that, but people increasingly use debit and credit cards. They carry them around on their person. In fact, some people now use their phones for everything. People are paperless even in relation to their statements and so on. I wonder whether that was something the noble Lord considered, because I am so with him in the thrust of what he is trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Desai (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall make a very short point about Amendment 80. The noble Lord should look carefully at whether many of these indicators are male-oriented. Women do not have their names on documents such as mortgage statements and utility bills. It would make more sense to have one particular card, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, suggested. It would be personal, in the name of the man or woman.

I want to add that I have my Freedom Pass in London. It is a very good thing. I could show it around.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, again I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, outside what he imagined to be the walls of Jericho, sounded a very loud trumpet call to lead his Front Bench into a battle over the Salisbury convention. I will not pursue this. It is for everybody in the House to decide to what extent the opinion of the other place and the Government’s manifesto should be respected or not. I made a statement about that at the beginning of our proceedings.

I was asked about the card and the words “is or has”. I shall come to this shortly because it is important. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that any voter who does not have one of the forms of identification listed in the Bill will be able to apply for a voter card. There is a wide range. I know that my noble friend Lord Willetts wants to extend it. The card is supplementary. All the other types of identification are listed. Expired identification will also be permitted. Not every elector will be required to have the voter card. People will be able to apply for it at the same time as they register to vote, so the process will be as easy and accessible as possible. If they are already registered and need a voter card, they will be able to apply online, on paper or in person. It is our ambition that they will be able to do so until 5 pm on the day before polling day. That was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I will come back to it. The Government would regard that as unnecessarily restrictive.

I am not a parliamentary draftsman, but I am advised that the wording,

“is or has applied to be”

is there because, on the wording of Amendment 64, it could be construed that someone who is applying should be able to get it. You obviously have to be on the register to get the voter card. Either you are on it, or you have applied to register. You send your letter or your online application in. With both applications, the process will be that the registration officer will check the correctness of the application to register. When someone is on the register, they will be able to have the voter card. It is sequential, but the application can be done at the same time. This is the purport of why these words are there.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

The Minister has been extremely helpful on this point. An extremely important statement has been made from the Front Bench. To close the point completely, in the regulations that the Government are going to produce, will the Minister undertake that this will be made an explicit requirement of all electoral registration officers? Making available the facility to apply for both at the same time is not just something that they can do; it is something that they must do.

[Lord True (Con)]

Certainly, I would hope and intend for that to be the case. I am not writing the regulations personally. I am not the Minister in DLUHC which administers this. I shall certainly pass on the views of the Committee. I reassure the Committee that this is absolutely in the spirit of making life simpler for registration officers. It is certainly the Government’s wish that people should be able to do this. It is not necessarily their intention that everyone should get a voter card—only those who need one. All the other types of identification currently listed in the Bill will be accepted.

Of course, we have undertaken extensive engagement with the electoral sector about this, including with Solace, with civil society organisations, and with those representing the kind of groups to which the right reverend Prelate referred. This is a rolling engagement in order to inform them of the proposals, to gather feedback on the plans and to identify ways to ensure our implementation plans are clear, comprehensive and inclusive for all electors. This engagement continues as officials refine implementation plans. They will be listening to what is said in your Lordships’ House, with a focus on exploring many of the aspects that noble Lords have raised, such as the needs of particular groups and the best ways of communicating.

New Section 13BD is worded specifically so that a person does not have to wait until a registration application has been determined before applying for the card. They can do both at the same time, but they have to be on the register first. In practice, this means that the applications can be put in at the same time.

I turn to the specific amendments. I have partly addressed Amendment 64. I understand precisely where the noble Baroness is coming from. I fully accept that she was quite right to raise that point. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance.

We do not believe that Amendments 65 to 69 are necessary. They provide for powers that are already in the Bill and make suggestions that are already part of the policy, although not ones requiring legislative definition. I set out some of the policy intentions earlier. They were clearly stated in the voter identification policy statement, published on 6 January.

On Amendment 65, new Section 13BD(10)(a) enables the Government to make provision about the form of a document, including digital. I note that this probing amendment says that it should be in digital form.

On Amendment 66, new Section 13BD(4)(b) enables the Government to make regulations about how cards will be issued, including by post and so on and so forth. We will make sure that this is in the record. I fully accept that these things need to be covered.

Amendment 67 asks about date of issue. The card would have a date. New Section 13BD(9) is about the power to make regulations on what information will be on the document. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is not in her place. The additional kinds of information referred to in that section of the schedule is precisely to allow for something like the date or name of the issuing local authority. They will have different local authority names, so one cannot have a single card. These are the kinds of additional points. In reply to Amendment 68, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, it is certainly envisaged that the date of issue of the card will be on it.

I thank the noble Baroness again for putting forward Amendments 70 to 73. For noble Lords who are not sure which amendments I am talking about, these are probing amendments concerning the arrangements that will be in place for anonymous electors. I can certainly confirm that officials have carried out extensive engagement with various civil society groups that highlighted their interest in anonymous voting arrangements. This is important. In developing the clauses, an extensive consultation has also been carried out with the AEA on how we could make the provision work effectively for anonymous voters.

I assure the noble Baroness that we share a joint aim. There may be a relatively small number of people here but they are very vulnerable, important people. We share a joint aim that those who rely on anonymity—including some people who have been subjected to the most vile abuse and violence imaginable—will not be negatively impacted by the changes. The Government recognise that there are electors who need to register and vote anonymously for a variety of reasons; I have referred to the kinds of circumstances in which other vulnerable electors may not wish for their name or location to be available on the register.

Anonymous electors who wish to vote in person at a polling station will be able to apply for an anonymous elector document, which will enable effective verification of identity while also protecting the voter’s anonymity. We believe that the changes proposed by Amendments 70 and 71 might undermine the objectives of the voter identification policy. Removing the photograph from the anonymous elector document, for instance, would make anonymous electors, often some of the most vulnerable members of society, potentially an easier target for anyone seeking to commit fraud.

Amendments 72 and 73 propose regulation-making powers relating to the application process for anonymous elector documents and to the exact materials used in the manufacture of those documents. The powers that Amendment 72 provides for are already in the Bill. I have not been advised on which particular clause but I will let the noble Baroness know; I did say to my faithful team, who are absolutely wonderful, that it would be helpful to the House if I were able to give details of clauses when responding. For the reason I have given, the Government do not think that taking an inflexible approach to the production of documents, as set out in Amendment 73, is desirable. With those assurances, I ask that those amendments are not pressed.

Amendment 78 would introduce an attestation process for those without necessary identification. This was given very considerable thought by my colleagues during policy development. However, there is a risk that, if someone brings another elector to the poll, these provisions could be exploited by unscrupulous individuals and might allow a ballot paper to be issued to a person who claims to be somebody else, or who is ineligible to vote in an election. The issues are balanced but we have concluded that any form of attestation would be an unacceptable avenue for this kind of fraud, undermining the core aim of promoting electoral integrity; so, after reflection, it is not something that the Government can support.

As I said earlier, photographic voter identification is, in our submission—and as agreed by the Electoral Commission—the most secure way to prove that someone is who they say they are. On Amendment 66A from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, our aim is that electors without accepted photographic identification will, as he says, be able to apply for a voter card from their local authority until 5 pm the day before polling day. The noble Lord wishes to have a cut-off date four and a half days earlier. We do not, on the basis of our discussions, think that that is desirable or necessary. Given the great importance that the Committee rightly attaches to the ability to vote, we would like to be more liberal in our approach to making the voter card more readily available. Agreeing to restrict the amount of time for which it was available would not be a step forward; I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press that amendment.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Will the Minister clarify one issue? Why is the provision to allow an application up until 5 pm on the day before the election considered to be consistent with Northern Ireland? It is not consistent with Northern Ireland. when speaking to electoral officers, what factors suggested that having those extra four days would make it practical to deliver this in the way that the Government are suggesting?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we believe on the basis of our discussions that it is, and should be, practical. Whether or not you agree with the policy, it should surely be desirable that the card be made available up to the latest possible moment.

Amendments 79 to 81 relate to the range of identity documents; my noble friend Lord Willetts came out with a very long list. As I said on the previous group, the list of acceptable documents in the Bill was drawn up against the widest possible range of documents that would meet strong standards of security. That is the conclusion that we have reached. The Electoral Commission said that photo-only identification had the greatest security value but, as I said on the previous group—and it is there on page 81, lines 24 and 25 of the Bill—other documents may be added. However, for the reasons of security that I gave on the previous group and give again, we do not believe that the list should be extended in the way that my noble friend suggests, and we therefore cannot support this amendment.

We also see little merit in Amendment 63—which I should have referred to—proposing an annual statement from the Secretary of State on numbers of documents issued. Only individual local authorities will have the complete set of cards issued, as they will not be issued centrally. When the Electoral Commission does the post-operative examination of what happened, I am sure that it will consider those figures.

On Amendments 83 and 84, I am pleased to say that, as set out in paragraph 22 of Schedule 1, we already intend that returning officers, through their polling station staff, will record and collate information on anyone who applies for the issue of a ballot paper and is refused. This will be set out in secondary legislation, and we are working on the details with the Electoral Commission and returning officers. Of course, the polling station will already have informed the person concerned that they have been refused a ballot paper and why, so we think that a letter is an unnecessary further step. As I said, secondary legislation will cover this point.

In the light of this, these amendments would ultimately either duplicate or extend processes which are provided for in the Bill—making them either unnecessary or unacceptable to the Government—while only increasing the administrative burden on the electoral sector; for example, an enormous list of documents might do that in itself. For this reason and the other reasons mentioned, I beg that these amendments are not pressed.

I gave a long response, as this is quite a large group. I hope that I have managed to address at least the main points that were made.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

The Minister is making important new points in his closing remarks that are of significance to the Committee. He has drawn our attention to new paragraph (IQ), inserted by paragraph 18 of Schedule 1, on page 81, which says:

“Regulations may make provisions varying paragraph (1H), (1I) or (1J)”,


which give the list of acceptable documents,

“by … adding a reference to a document to any of those paragraphs”.

He has just said to the Committee that that could allow the Government to extend it to any other documents. My reading of that is that it could allow for the extension to a document which is not a photo ID document. Have I correctly construed that new paragraph?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s policy position is clear. I will probably get wrapped over the knuckles as I may not have construed the Bill correctly because of feeling hungry at 7.29 pm. If I did not then, once we come back, I will correct the record. Certainly, the provision is there. As I said in my speech on the previous group, if the Government consider that there are other documents which can meet the security standards required—some photographic documents currently do not and are therefore excluded—then that is why we were taking that potential power in the Bill. Regarding the type of document, the Government’s policy remains as stated. We are for photographic identification.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to labour the point, but can the Minister write to us on this? It is one thing for him to say what the Government’s policy is but what the law says is another. The issue here is whether that power would require documents which are added to be photo ID documents or whether they could be any other item on the list by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in his Amendment 80. I am offering the Minister a possible way out in due course for accepting the noble Lord’s amendment by the back door.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

74: Schedule 1, page 72, line 12, leave out from “to” to end of line 19 and insert “a relevant provision.
(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), “relevant provision” means— (a) where the person is or will be registered in a register of parliamentary electors in Northern Ireland, section 10(4A)(b), 10A(1A)(b) or 13A(2A)(b), and(b) where the person is or will be registered in a register of parliamentary electors in Great Britain and does not also fall within sub-paragraph (a), section 8(7A) of the Representation of the People Act 1985.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the requirement relating to preparation of date of birth lists for polling stations in Northern Ireland, so far as that requirement relates to date of birth lists for proxy voters.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

82: Schedule 1, page 80, line 37, leave out “current”
Member’s explanatory statement
The definition of “electoral number” in the inserted paragraph (1L) of rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 means that the word “current”, in the inserted paragraph (1K), is not needed. This amendment therefore leaves it out.

Elections Bill

Lord True Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 85 is about providing legislation in draft to any committee of either House of Parliament which is deemed relevant by the Secretary of State. The reason for tabling this amendment is the same as in previous debates: with very little pre-legislative scrutiny, we really need to see the detail of the legislation ahead of debate. So, this is about seeing that legislation in good time so that we all know exactly what the expectations are and what detail is going to be provided.

The other two amendments are about private renters and private tenants. I briefly draw the House’s attention to some analysis published by the Mayor of London’s office in 2019 which demonstrates that private renters are less likely to register to vote and so are missing the opportunity for their voice to be heard at national and local level. City Hall analysis of the electoral roll and housing in London found that boroughs with the highest number of private renters had some of the capital’s lowest levels of voter registration.

That analysis is backed up by national estimates from the Electoral Commission which show that 94% of owner-occupiers are registered to vote, compared to just 63% of private renters. The reason for this seems to be that many private renters move home frequently, often due to insecure tenancies. Across London as a whole, 25% of households were privately renting at the time of the most recent census and only 86% were registered to vote, which is a lower rate than other areas. One of the reasons for this is the stability of people in private rented accommodation.

I come back to the point that there is nothing in the Bill to help increase the number of people on the electoral register, which I think will be a theme throughout its passage. I know that this Bill is not about housing, but housing is in the same department—both areas are covered by DLUHC—so it would be good if the Minister could point out to his department that private renting could be reformed to increase stability for tenants, so that they are not constantly on the move. In that way, we could increase the number of people registered to vote and try to keep that more stable. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 85 in this group would require the Secretary of State to publish any secondary legislation under Schedule 2 of the Elections Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. My officials are working at pace on the secondary legislation and it will be shared with Parliament in due course. Any legislation under Schedule 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore will have to be laid in draft, debated and approved by each House of Parliament, thus giving opportunity for sufficient scrutiny.

Amendments 86 and 87 seek to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish reports and hold a public consultation on measures to increase registration levels among private tenants. I agree with the noble Baroness opposite that the high turnover in this type of accommodation sometimes raises questions. She will know that the Government are seeking to improve the position of private tenants in other legislation, but I certainly take note of her point.

Registering to vote is extremely easy and it takes about five minutes to complete an online application. Since its introduction the register to vote website has revolutionised the ability of electors to participate, with over 60 million applications to register since 2014. In the last election a record number of people registered to vote—47 million. The Government are pleased that the register to vote service has the highest available accessibility rating for a website—a triple A rating—under the web content accessibility guidelines, for those noble Lords who are particularly interested.

I should add that it is for EROs to ensure that their registers are as complete and accurate as possible. It is the Electoral Commission’s duty to promote electors’ participation in our country’s electoral events. The commission runs an annual voter registration campaign encouraging those eligible to take the short time to make an application to register. I am sure it will have taken note of what the noble Baroness has said. Supporting registration in this way is a responsibility of the commission at national level and of local authority EROs at local level. It is our role to ensure that the EROs and the EC have the tools necessary to fulfil these functions.

Therefore, it is not clear to the Government that any specific strategy to increase the registration levels of private tenants is necessary. I acknowledge the points the noble Baroness has made, and I beg her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hayward seek to make a number of changes concerning aspects of the electoral process. I thank my noble friend for his continuing engagement on and interest in electoral matters, which is respected across the House. I will address his amendments in turn. I recognise the intention behind them; the Government share his interest in clarifying and streamlining electoral regulation, but we must be mindful of the length of the changes already contained in the Bill, which has been subject to consideration. In that context, I hope he will understand if they are not all changes we can take forward in this legislative vehicle, but we will continue to work with him and others to undertake the consideration needed for the changes to electoral law separately where appropriate and where there is an opportunity to do so.

Amendments 81 and 91 concern the naming aspect of nomination rules. I understand the noble Lord’s intention to ensure there is no room for confusion for voters on the personal identity of a candidate standing for election. However, in relation to Amendment 88, I am advised that candidates are already required to state their full name in their nomination paper. I can confirm also that it is already an offence for a person to give a name in their nomination paper that they know to be false. This includes giving a name with a different spelling. We do not therefore consider it necessary to make the changes set out in the amendment. I hope my noble friend is reassured that the law already includes appropriate safeguards against candidates providing false information.

On Amendment 91, under the current law, a person who is nominated as a candidate must give their full name but may also provide a commonly used forename or surname, which must be different from any of the names already given, which they would like to have included on the ballot paper. However, this does not facilitate the use of a middle name where someone is commonly known by such a name. The suggestion of my noble friend that a middle name might be allowed as the “commonly known as” name has some merit and I remain open to further discussions on it.

Similarly, I and the Government remain open to further discussion and collaboration on the proposal in Amendment 89 for the numbers of subscribers for local election nominations to be reduced from the 10 currently required. Minister Badenoch has written to my noble friend to set out the Government’s position; we are supportive in principle, but we must remember that the decision to reduce temporarily the number of signatures required to stand for certain polls for May 2021 was taken in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was only ever intended to be a temporary solution and the Government have not yet consulted on or conducted research into the impact of making the change last year.

As signatures are presently seen as a necessary check—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about this—to ensure that candidates have some level of support within the local electorate, and the policy seeks to avoid having candidates with no real hope of being elected on ballot papers, which can increase the burden on administrators and cost to the public purse, the Government wish to consult further with the Parliamentary Parties Panel and others to identify views and issues. As I say, we heard dissent from the Liberal Democrat Benches on that. This is not to undermine in any way the statement in principle made by the Minister to my noble friend, but to ensure there is careful consideration of the consequences of such a change. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, we will look to start the necessary work to put any new arrangement in place for elections in May 2023. I have asked my officials to keep my noble friend updated on progress.

Amendment 90 proposes to reform the process around incorrect declaration of results. Once a result is declared and made public, the result stands and can be undone, as my noble friend explained, only through a formal election petition process, a court process which serves as a safeguard against elections being improperly run or adversely affected by illegal activity. The law purposefully sets clear requirements and a short timeline in which to bring a challenge. I recognise that this has led to issues in the past where an incorrect name has been called out as winning a seat and then a petition was required to resolve it. Fortunately, in recent years such a problem has been addressed by the returning officer, with the agreement of candidates, correcting the initial mistake before they have finalised their declaration process, although that does not cover all the instances my noble friend was talking about. While we are sympathetic to the issues he has raised, any statutory changes in procedures for the certification and declaration of results have the capacity to have an impact on the outcome of elections. This requires careful consideration. We will consider it further, but there is no time to complete such consideration effectively within the time allowed for passage of the Bill.

Finally in this group, Amendment 208 would require the Government to consult on the variations in criteria to stand at different polls. We hold elections to a wide variety of offices and bodies in this country, which necessarily perform a wide variety of functions. Consideration is given to the criteria for disqualification of candidates on a case-by-case basis to suit the functions of the role for which the person seeks election.

There are good reasons for having different disqualification rules for different offices. For example, the rules governing who can be a candidate in police and crime commissioner elections and hold the office of a police and crime commissioner are the strictest of all those for elected roles in Great Britain, because the role is focused on direct oversight of the police, and because of the need for public trust in the management of police forces.

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend on this, but the Government’s view is that a consultation on the requirements for standing at different elections and on disqualification rules is not an immediate priority. For this reason we cannot accept the amendment, but I can assure my noble friend that—as he knows from the engagement we have had—he has put these points on the table for consideration, and they will not be lost for consideration even if they cannot be addressed in the Bill. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to the amendments in my name in this group, namely Amendments 96A, 96B, 96C and 96D. The Government have proposed limiting the number of postal votes a voter can hand into polling stations or to the returning officer to two. This would be specified in secondary legislation and is not on the face of the Bill in Clause 5. Secondary legislation could also require that the person must complete a form if handing in a postal vote. While we on these Benches recognise that there have been cases of postal vote fraud reported at some elections, the rationale for the limit of two has not been set out. In any case, whatever limit is specified may be easily circumvented.

Clause 5 ultimately derives from the recommendation in the report from Sir Eric Pickles—as he then was; now he is the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—on securing the ballot in 2016. It said:

“Completed postal ballot packs should only be handed in at a polling station by the voter or a family member/designated carer acting on their behalf—a limit of two should be applied for any one person handing in completed ballots and require an explanation as to why they are being handed in and signature provided.”


The justification offered in the report, that postal votes handed in on the day might be subject to less scrutiny and checking than postal votes arriving sooner, is simply inaccurate. All returning officers perform the same checks on postal votes regardless of when they are received. Placing a limit on the number of postal votes that could be handed into a polling station might be an effective tool in deterring people from turning up at polling stations with a higher number of postal votes. However, it would not stop industrial-scale vote harvesting. This is because, under the Government’s proposals, a person could still collect any number of postal votes and post them prior to polling day, although any political campaigner who did so would certainly commit an offence under the new Section 112A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 inserted by Clause 4.

It is unclear how the secondary legislation will be cast in respect of council offices, where returning officers are usually based. For example, does using a postal box in the wall of the office constitute returning by hand to the returning officer? If it does, it would mean posting boxes at council offices would have to be sealed during the election period, or a member of staff would have to be stationed at said postal box 24 hours a day in order to prevent people returning more than the prescribed number of postal votes. This would create unnecessary difficulty in delivering other items to a council. Perhaps legislation is intended to capture only the handling of postal votes, at a reception desk for example. Moreover, there seems to be no reason why someone who posts a voting pack back in a posting box at council offices should face any additional hurdle compared with a person posting in a post box elsewhere.

So Clause 5 will not prevent postal vote harvesting and could easily be circumvented. Yet the Government’s proposal will cause additional complexity and delay, for example if a form has not been filled in, or a voter turns up at an office or a polling station with too many postal votes. Potential lengthy or adversarial discussions about the fact that the postal vote would be rejected could take place.

The reason I am asking for an amendment to Clause 5 to include a limit of five and not two, notwithstanding the problems I outlined, is that it would enable family households to hand in votes more easily, as there are fewer households with more than five adult members. I also think that any limit should be set out in the Bill, rather than the Secretary of State being able to determine it in secondary legislation. I ask the Minister to clarify how these provisions will operate at council offices, where returning officers are based, and to give a justification for the limit of two, particularly in light of the fact that many households have more than two adults living there.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments investigate some of the safeguards for postal ballots introduced in the Bill. I welcome the underlying sense of the comments made: the Committee recognises that, as we move through the suite of arrangements which the Government suggest to protect electoral integrity, there is more support here than there was for the first measure.

Clauses 3 to 7 require voters to apply more frequently for a postal ballot, ban political campaigners from handling postal ballots, introduce, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just explained, new limits on the number of postal ballots that can be handed in, limit the number of electors for whom someone can act as proxy and increase secrecy protections for absent voters. As has been said, all these changes implement recommendations in the report by my noble friend Lord Pickles into electoral fraud, which suggested addressing weaknesses in the current system. We submit that they are sensible safeguards against known vulnerabilities and, taken together, they will reduce the opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to exploit the process and steal votes, as we have seen in Tower Hamlets—often referred to in your Lordships’ House—but also in other locations mentioned during debates in the other place, such as Peterborough, Birmingham and Slough.

I noted the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her amendments and her amendment probing the expiration period of postal votes, in which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also expressed an interest. Currently, an elector may have a postal vote on an indefinite basis as long as they provide a signature sample every five years. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, has benefited from this.

The Pickles report recommended that voters should reapply for a postal vote at least every three years as a safeguard to prevent postal voter fraud. More frequent applications would not only enable EROs to regularly assess a person’s application and confirm whether they are still an eligible elector but give an opportunity for someone who was initially pressurised—that is obviously not the case for the noble Lord—into having a postal vote to break out of that situation and thus not have their vote influenced on an ongoing basis. Additionally, ensuring that electors’ details are kept up to date and that each postal voter’s signature is refreshed more frequently will reduce the likelihood that their postal vote is rejected should their handwriting change over time. You have only to ask my wife to hear how illegible mine has become in recent years.

The Government consider that the timeframe of three years still enables a person to have a postal vote for a reasonable length of time, while ensuring the person normally replies during every Parliament.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand the logic he is setting out. Do the Government intend that that this three-year renewal process will also apply to overseas voters added to the list to assess their eligibility and so on?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, had the noble Lord not made a very legitimate intervention, I would have read the next sentence. While an indefinite postal vote presents a significant security concern, we must also recognise that annual applications for overseas electors goes too far in the other direction and creates an excessive burden for administrators. That was perhaps the implication of his intervention.

Therefore, in order to ensure that arrangements remain harmonious across domestic and overseas electors, we will extend the registration period for overseas electors from one up to three years and tie the three-year postal vote cycle in with the new three-year cycle for renewal of overseas electors’ declarations. Overseas electors will be able to reapply or refresh their absent vote arrangements as appropriate at the same time as renewing their declaration. This alignment between absent vote and renewal arrangements will encourage overseas electors to remain on the register.

We recognise that this means more time spent on processing by electoral administrators. To balance that, we are working to introduce an online application process. This will benefit electors and is very much welcomed by administrators in reducing handling of paper and enabling automation.

Of course, the Government recognise the importance of having transitional provisions in place for existing long-term postal voters, so under the Bill those voters will continue to be able to vote by post until either the 31 January following the commencement of the provision or, if this is sooner, the 31 January following the commencement date by which the postal voter would normally be expected to provide a fresh signature. These arrangements will ensure that the change is phased in over a reasonable period of time. Electoral registration officers will be required to send a reminder to existing postal voters in advance of the date they cease to have a postal vote and provide information on how to reapply for a postal vote.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, to Clause 5 seek to prevent the powers of the clause to limit the number of postal votes that can be handed in from being used to impose any limitations on handing in via a council posting box and set a minimum of five for any limitation imposed in secondary legislation. There is significant concern that permitting a high number of postal votes to be handed in could facilitate electoral fraud and undermine the integrity of elections. This has been a long-standing issue in elections and has undermined confidence in the system. It does a disservice to many legitimate electors who make use of postal votes for valid reasons. Setting a limit on the number of postal votes that can be handed in is therefore necessary in our judgment. This clause will allow regulations to require persons handing in postal votes to complete a form giving details of the numbers they have handed in, which will help promote compliance with the new requirements and aid investigations into allegations of fraud.

However, I heard the point the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made about the number, and his suggestion of five. We will keep his suggestion in mind as we continue to work with the Electoral Commission and electoral stakeholders on the issue as we develop the legislation. However, we will maintain the position that the permitted number should be confirmed in secondary legislation, giving time for further consultation. This is the right place for such details and allows flexibility for change should it be needed later if the figure initially established does not prove to be right in practice. I hope that with those assurances noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. In light of those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

98: Clause 7, page 9, leave out lines 21 to 24
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out paragraph (c) from inserted section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

101: Clause 7, page 9, line 33, leave out “any of paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)” and insert “paragraph (a) or (d)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment updates cross-references in consequence of the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 9, lines 21 to 24.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

106: Clause 8, page 10, leave out line 30 and insert—
“(1) After section 114 of RPA 1983 insert—“114A Undue influence(1) A person is guilty of a corrupt practice if the person is guilty of undue influence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts section 114A into the Representation of the People Act 1983, which contains a new undue influence provision that applies in relation to parliamentary elections and in relation to local government elections in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

This is unexpectedly lively, but the focus really is on new sub-paragraph (3)(e). I think most of us would say that there is, if you like, a simple lay person’s interpretation of new sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b), (c), (d) and, for that matter, the catch-all of new sub-paragraph (3)(f), which is

“any other act designed to intimidate a person”.

In the light of new sub-paragraph (3)(f), it may be that the difficulties of new sub-paragraph (3)(e) are best avoided by their omission, because if such spiritual injury was demonstrated, it would come under new sub-paragraph (3)(f).

I just point out that the preceding activities have “using or threatening”, “damaging or threatening”, “causing or threatening”, but new sub-paragraph (3)(e) has “causing spiritual injury”; not “threatening” to cause spiritual injury. Obviously, it depends on one’s personal understanding of what spiritual injury might consist of, but the threat is surely going to be offered far more often than the reality will be delivered, if I may put it in those terms, although it does not mean that it is not effective. There are some problems in the straightforward interpretation of what new sub-paragraph (3)(e) really says, why it does not say “threatening” to cause, as does new sub-paragraph (3)(c) and (d), for instance, and why it is necessary, separate from the catch-all of new sub-paragraph (3)(f):

“doing any other act designed to intimidate a person”.

I want to bring a little bit of local colour to new sub-paragraph (4)(e). In 1992, I stood for the Liberal Democrats in Hazel Grove. On the Sunday before polling day, every Catholic church in the constituency had a letter read out from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which clearly expressed the view that a vote for me would be a major spiritual error. I failed to win that seat by 923 votes. I do not attribute the result to that letter, but noble Lords will understand that I had a sense of grievance for some time afterwards that this letter had been read out.

This brings me to my second critique of new sub-paragraph (4)(e)—it is a little bit in the eye of the beholder. If that provision had been there in 1992, I would have gone straight to the returning officer to say that this was a clear case. It would be an invitation for people to complain about things which were in fact simply within the bounds of free speech, fair comment, and so on—even if it was unfair in the opinion of the recipient.

There is a double problem. First, what is “spiritual injury”? Secondly, do we mean causing it, or threatening to cause it? Do we think that the injury is to the voter who is deterred from voting for a candidate, or to the candidate by virtue of the voter not supporting them? I suggest that we are not very clear what we are trying to pin down. The Minister might like to carefully consider what the disbenefit would be of removing new sub-paragraph (4)(e) and simply relying on new sub-paragraph (4)(f) to deal with cases where “spiritual injury”—or threats of it—was part of the reason there had been intimidation.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in Christian teaching, the alpha comes before omega, so I was a bit puzzled, like others, that Z comes before A. I was set up to answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, first, and I hope that the noble Baroness will not be offended if I do that.

In any case, both are seeking to probe the reference to “spiritual injury” and “undue spiritual pressure” in the clarified offence of “undue influence” of “an elector or proxy”. The “undue influence” offence is intended to ensure that all electors and proxies are able to cast their vote free from intimation and malicious interference. It is true that the 2015 Tower Hamlets petition, about which my noble friend Lord Hayward spoke eloquently, demonstrated that protection from undue influence remains highly relevant and important in 21st-century Britain. However, the existing offence of undue influence dates back to the 19th century. Indeed, the freedoms of religious authorities and priests to hold and express political views were first set out in a judgment in 1870, and those freedoms remain. However, the complexity and outdated terminology of the current offence makes it difficult for the police or prosecutors to apply it, leaving electors and proxies without necessary protection.

I was asked about convictions. According to our data, between 81% and 86% of allegations of undue influence lead to no further action at all, with only one court case initiated in the last eight years. While the defendant was found guilty of undue spiritual influence in the Tower Hamlets petition, Commissioner Mawrey highlighted insufficient clarity in the law, as well as the high bar which was required to convict someone of intimidation. The commissioner recommended that the offence of

“undue spiritual influence … be more clearly articulated”

and brought in line with 21st-century language and society, to ensure that it remains enforceable. The Law Commission, in its 2016 report into electoral law, similarly called for the offence to be restated more clearly. All respondents in the Government’s public consultation in 2018, entitled Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information, agreed that the offence required greater clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not absolutely clear from what the Minister said whether the phrase “undue spiritual pressure” exists in existing legislation. He may not have the answer to that, but could he write to us about it?

[Lord True (Con)]

Yes, I had better write at this hour. I had it somewhere, but I have lost it in the folder. I will certainly write to the noble Lord. I tried to answer the question. If I have not, I will write; sorry.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I think it is the sense of quite a few of us that it might be wiser to remove the phrase “causing spiritual injury to” because that is, I think, the most difficult element of it. I think most of us would understand

“placing undue spiritual pressure on”.

I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, might be a useful person to consult on this. Some of us may remember the occasion when, as Lord Chancellor, he attended a requiem mass for a Catholic judge in Glasgow and was threatened with exclusion from his own church, very clearly threatening to use spiritual pressure. He has presumably thought all of this through extremely well.

I thank the Minister for explaining the efforts that have gone into defining “undue influence” rather better. I still feel that we are looking at something which we all know is there but we are not at all sure that the police, let alone the Crown Prosecution Service, are going to want to take on very much. This is an area involving the boundaries between campaigning, free speech, improper behaviour and downright offences which we will probably have to live with, unsatisfactorily, because that is part of the nature of democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

107: Clause 8, page 11, line 23, at end insert—
“(7) This section does not have effect in relation to a local government election in Scotland or Wales.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the inserted section 114A does not apply in relation to local government elections in Scotland or Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord True]

110: Schedule 5, page 109, leave out lines 23 to 32
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the amendment to section 80(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 so that it does not cover incapacity where the holder of a devolved office in Scotland or Wales is reported guilty or convicted of undue influence.