My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to my Amendment 171 in this group, to which I would like to speak. Before I do, and with the indulgence of the House, I refer to some comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in Committee last week:
“However, given the important concerns that have been raised on the secrecy of voting, Minister Badenoch will be writing to the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police to confirm our common understanding of the position set out in legislation—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 purpose of supporting an elector with health and/or
accessibility issues that need such support. We are confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to respond promptly”.—[Official Report, 21/3/22; cols. 750-1.]
I raise that because the Minister wrote to the Electoral Commission and the police last week in very clear terms, covering the points made by, I think, every Member in the debate, and emphasising that there should be no element of doubt. Noble Lords will note that the Minister said that it was hoped that the Electoral Commission and the police would respond promptly. I quote from the letter the Minister wrote to those two organisations. In the penultimate paragraph, she says:
“I would be grateful for a quick response … to reassure Parliament that the secrecy of the ballot is upheld at those polls”—
that is, in May—or the Government may be minded to
“strengthen the law in this area, given the constitutional importance”.
I hope that the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police will respond promptly, so that this matter does not have to come back at Report, as it may well have to do. I thank the Committee for its indulgence while I dealt with that, but it is important, given the general view that was expressed.
I move on to my Amendment 171. I am sorry here to possibly be raking over bad memories for the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who has said on a number of previous occasions that he was involved in the Tower Hamlets affair several years ago—and this is driven by the issue of Tower Hamlets and Lutfur Rahman. Lutfur Rahman was banned for five years, which may be where the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about five years comes from. That was the maximum penalty available to the election court.
6.30 pm
The issue is current because Lutfur Rahman, having been banned for the maximum time available to an election court, is now in a position to stand at the upcoming local elections for mayor in Tower Hamlets. Lutfur Rahman has issued an election leaflet in which he identifies himself as the potential candidate for mayor, with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin—I did give her notice that I would be referring to her—and Ken Livingstone as prime supporters. That is probably not the ultimate dream team that one could imagine for an election campaign.
The significant thing about this is that Lutfur Rahman can stand again, and he can do so not only because the election court has this maximum but because our election law needs bringing up to date—a matter that I referred to at Second Reading and to which a number of noble Lords have referred on many occasions. Lutfur Rahman is going around Tower Hamlets issuing leaflets that say, in his own words reported recently in East London News:
“I have never acted dishonestly”.
He then goes on to refer to the election tribunal.
Well, Mr Rahman, if you have never acted dishonestly, why is it that in the judgment issued on 23 April 2015 in the High Court of Justice of the Queen’s Bench Division, Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as the judge in the High Court, said—I quote from the formal conclusions in paragraph 672 onwards—
“the First Respondent Mr Rahman was guilty … of corrupt practices”;
then, in paragraph b),
“Mr Rahman was guilty by his agents of illegal practices”;
in paragraph c),
“Mr Rahman was personally guilty”;
in paragraph d),
“Mr Rahman was guilty by his agents”;
in paragraph e),
“Mr Rahman was personally guilty”;
and, in paragraph f),
“Mr Rahman was personally guilty”?
There are seven different offences of which he was found guilty, and two others where he was found guilty with other people. Yet he seems able, despite the fact that he says he has never done anything dishonestly, to go around already for this election saying “I have never been found guilty of anything”.
The judgment by Richard Mawrey is quite interesting and depressing. It shows the lengths to which Lutfur Rahman and others were willing to go. In paragraph 248, Mr Mawrey refers to Mr Rahman’s
“close cronies, some of whom … have little to recommend them beyond blind loyalty to their leader.”
At a later stage, Mr Mawrey says, in paragraphs 295 and 296:
“As a generalisation, politicians … avoid answering the question … Mr Rahman exemplified this trait to an extreme level. Faced with a straight question, he proved himself almost pathologically incapable of giving a straight answer.”
In paragraph 298, he says:
“Sadly, it must also be said that he was not truthful. In one or two crucial matters he was caught out in what were … blatant lies.”
Lutfur Rahman has said, as I quoted earlier, that he has “never acted dishonestly”. This judgment is a series, almost a litany, of offences that we can only imagine. The judgment given by Richard Mawrey was then referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal:
“The matter was heard on 18-20 December 2017. Mr Rahman was Struck Off the Roll.”
So we have somebody who has been not allowed to continue his office as mayor, who has been struck off the solicitors’ roll and who was banned for the maximum available time, yet he is now entitled to stand again for that role. He is also going around issuing messages saying that people claim
“I was found guilty of … corruption … These claims relate to an election tribunal”.
They do not relate to an election tribunal; they relate to an election court. He goes on to say that
“Lord Justice Lloyd-Jones and Mr Justice Supperstone said that the findings ‘did not amount to a finding of criminal guilt’”.
They amounted to breaches of election law in seven different ways.
Lutfur Rahman is appealing for votes in a sectarian manner in Tower Hamlets. He is not appealing for votes in the interests of any broad community. He says in his election broadcast that he “feels the pain” of the community. He does not. He feels the desire to rehold an office from he has been banned and should have been banned for a much longer period. He is not
serving the Bengali community in Tower Hamlets; he is serving himself and, in the words of Richard Mawrey, “his cronies”.
It is on that basis that I believe we have the ultimate example of the need for a ban to apply for more than five years. This man should not have been allowed to contest another election at any point.