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 However, the complexity and outdated terminology of the current offence makes it difficult for the police or prosecutors to apply it, leaving electors and proxies without necessary protection.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.
10 pm
The drafting of the clarified offence was subject to a targeted consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and others. None of the stakeholders raised any concerns about the proposed modernised offence that is before your Lordships.
We have redrafted the offence to capture three overarching categories of activity—harm, deception in relation to the administration of an election, and intimidation—where these activities are carried out with the intention to induce, compel or cause
“an elector or proxy … to vote in a particular way or to refrain from voting, or otherwise”
impede or prevent
“the free exercise of the franchise of an elector”,
or on account of an electoral proxy having, or having been perceived to have, voted in a particular way, or refrained from voting.
As per the recommendation from the Pickles review, we retain reference to “undue spiritual influence”—a term previously there within the category of “harm”. New subsection (4)(e), as inserted by Clause 8, would replace the current wording of
“spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss”
with “spiritual injury” and “undue spiritual pressure”, on which noble Lords are asking questions. To elaborate, “spiritual injury” is intended to cover the potential detrimental impact to an individual’s spiritual well-being that could be directly caused by another individual. This could include, for example, excluding a person from the membership of an organised belief system or banning them from attending a place of worship.
Paragraph 289 of the Explanatory Notes provides examples of activities that would be captured under “undue spiritual pressure”, although ultimately that is a matter for the courts. To summarise, these would include actions to suggest that to vote or not vote for a particular candidate or party is a duty arising from a person’s spiritual or religious beliefs and it would improve or reduce a person’s spiritual standing, or would lead to specific spiritual consequences such as going to heaven or hell.
This clarified “undue spiritual pressure” was drafted with the intention of drawing more clearly the line between legitimate spiritual influence, which the Government recognise is inherent in all positions of spiritual authority in all religions, and improper or inappropriate pressure that amounts to undue spiritual influence. The provision was constructed to strike a balance to ensure the protection of electors while, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, quite rightly said, preventing encroachment on freedoms of thought, belief or expression. This would not stop, for example, a religious leader expressing their opinion on political or other matters that have implications for the principles of
that religion, or the behaviour of religious groups for whom not voting is an established doctrine. This is about ensuring that all electors and proxies are able to cast their vote free from intimidation and malicious interference. Therefore, the Government cannot support this amendment.
Amendment 106ZA seeks to include reference to a “political party” in new subsection (4)(d) under the undue influence offence. That would mean that the activity of causing or threatening to cause financial loss to a person would explicitly include causing or threatening to cause financial loss to a political party, as proposed by the noble Baroness opposite. Legally, the reference in new subsection (4)(d) to a “person” already captures both a natural person and a legal person, such as a company, organisation or indeed political party, where it has a corporate personality. The effect that the noble Baroness seeks is already achieved by the term in the Bill through the clause as currently drafted. Therefore, while well-intentioned, this amendment is unnecessary. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment on the basis of that clarification.
I hope that these explanations are helpful to your Lordships. I repeat that the balance has to be articulated, and has always been articulated, in case law, alongside more recent protections provided through the European Convention on Human Rights.