My Lords, I first welcome my noble friend the Minister back to his place. He has dealt, as manfully as he possibly could in the circumstances of his ill health, with queries that many of us have had, although I just wish that when he was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, he had not referred to his greatest victories, since that was a dagger fairly close to my heart—but that is another matter.
In Committee, I moved an amendment in relation to secrecy of the ballot, and I identified the serious problems we have with what is called “family voting”. This is not just in relation to Tower Hamlets but elsewhere too. In the response to that amendment, my noble friend Lady Scott was very helpful in saying:
“The current legislation requires that voters should not be accompanied by another person at a polling booth except in specific circumstances, such as being a child of a voter, a formal companion or a member of staff.”
It is fair to say that there was unanimity in the Chamber in relation to that as an understanding of the law. My noble friend then went on to say:
“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”—
that confirms the unanimity within this House—
“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”.—[Official Report, 21/3/22; cols. 750-51.]
My noble friend the Minister has been exemplary in her writing a letter, and it is fair to say that we have had very quick replies from both the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police. One might, therefore, wonder why I am raising this question and this amendment at this stage, but I want briefly to go back over the history of the problems in Tower Hamlets, although it also relates to other parts of the country as well.
While looking at this issue, I turned up a report prepared by the Electoral Commission in 2013, and it said then:
“Without taking steps now to begin rebuilding confidence and trust between the key participants in the election process, we are concerned that the May … elections will again be damaged by allegations of electoral fraud.”
We then had the farce of 2014 in terms of what went to court with Lutfur Rahman. Despite what the Electoral Commission said in that report, Richard Mawrey criticised the commission in paragraph 274 of his judgment:
“All one may say, with the greatest of respect for the Commission, that the enquiries into the structures of”—
Tower Hamlets First—
“cannot have been excessively rigorous.”
We then had the court case and then, in 2018, Democracy Volunteers—to which I referred in the last debate—produced a report citing quite staggering numbers for family voting continuing to take place. Therefore, action is clearly not being taken.
6.15 pm
I have sympathy with the Metropolitan Police here, because the guidance that everybody relies on across the country, not just in terms of the Met, is provided by the Electoral Commission. That is the organisation to which anyone—such as the police forces—would naturally turn. What is the position of the Electoral Commission, and is it absolutely clear in its guidance? The answer to that is no; it has not been clear over a number of years. The net result is that the Metropolitan Police, when it receives complaints in relation to family voting, says, quite staggeringly, that the only people who can complain are those affected—in other words, the wives being accompanied to the polling booth. Is it really credible that complaints will be filed in those circumstance? What should actually be said—clearly, effectively and in writing from the Electoral Commission—is that this is against the law.
I read with interest the response to the Minister both from the Electoral Commission and the Metropolitan Police. The Electoral Commission said in the first paragraph of its letter that it is
“the Commission’s established and consistent position on this important subject”.
“Consistent” would imply over a number of years. However, the Metropolitan Police has had difficulties, as have polling officers, applying the guidance that it has received from the Electoral Commission. The letter goes on to say that:
“The right to vote in secret is set out in UK electoral law. Anyone attempting to steal someone else’s vote, or to influence inappropriately how another person votes, is committing an offence. For this reason, and as stated in your letter”—
namely, the letter from the Minister—
“voters should not be accompanied in the polling booth except in specific defined circumstances.”
Noble Lords might think that that is absolutely clear, but the letter then goes on to say:
“We give Returning Officers and their staff clear guidance that voters should be supported to vote in secret and free from influence.”
It says “supported”—not that someone should be stopped from accompanying another person. So even in the letter which the Electoral Commission has written to the Minister, it is not precise about it. This leaves the Metropolitan Police—and other police forces—in a difficult position. The net result is that the Metropolitan Police, in its letter to Minister, said:
“We have provided additional support to”—
Tower Hamlets—
“Electoral Services to develop improved processes to record incidents of ‘family voting’ to ensure a consistent approach.”
It says “to record”, not to stop. Therefore, the Metropolitan Police clearly believes that its job is to record the incidents. Why can we not just say that it is against the law?
Is the Electoral Commission actually being open in its comments about its consistent understanding? To me, the answer to that is quite clearly, “No”. I say that because I have a letter from the Electoral Commission, dated 9 December 2021, to Councillor Peter Golds in Tower Hamlets, which says, in paragraph 2 and beyond, that,
“whilst every situation will have different details and evidence, someone accompanying another person into a polling booth … would bring into consideration suspicion whether there may have been an offence … These are matters within the remit of the Police and the CPS.”
In effect, the Electoral Commission is passing the buck yet again to other people.
But the problem is highlighted by a note relating to a meeting that took place between Councillor Golds and the Metropolitan Police, dated 21 January 2022—in other words, it was several weeks after that letter was written by Mr Posner, head of the Electoral Commission—which says that
“we have checked with Electoral Commission, and have been informed that just because the voter process was not followed, in terms of secrecy”—
under sections of the RP Act—
“it might not necessarily relate directly to an offence. But as I promised in the meeting Trevor”—
that is, Trevor Normoyle—
“will write to you around secrecy and”
Metropolitan Police findings.
A note a few weeks later from the police to Councillor Golds says—inevitably, with the issues and the obfuscation we have seen:
“I apologise it has taken so long to get a definitive answer … around this”,
but
“having conversations with Electoral Commission”,
the local authority
“and our own Department of Legal Services … to establish exactly what secrecy means”.
In other words, it has taken a long time for the Electoral Commission to establish what secrecy is. This House was absolutely clear; the law has been clear since 1872. But the police, when trying to get clarification from the Electoral Commission, have to write to a councillor in Tower Hamlets and say, “I’m sorry it’s taken so long to establish what ‘secrecy’ means”.
It is for that reason that I have tabled this amendment. I wanted to put on record that, unfortunately, the reply from the Electoral Commission is not clear, because it conflicts with what the Electoral Commission says when asked by other people about family voting. Family voting is a malaise that affects not just Tower Hamlets; that is where the debate is concentrated, but we know that it affects many parts of the country. It should be stopped immediately; it should not need this legislation to pass. It is for that reason that I have raised this debate yet again—because the Electoral Commission will not provide consistent advice as to its approach to family voting. I beg to move.