Clause 23 - Description of independent candidates
Electoral Administration Bill
5:45 pm
David Cairns (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Inverclyde, Labour)
That will be so only if the candidates for the political parties choose to describe themselves as, for example ''The Labour party candidate''. They choose to do that, but they do not have to. They can use another message if they want to. That is the point. Independent candidates cannot include a description, but we can. The current position is that we tell them that what is good enough for us is not good enough for them. I am not entirely sure that the change is a particularly big step forward.
Clause 23 provides additional protection for political parties, ensuring that, when using a description, independent candidates cannot do so misleadingly. It sets out the requirements to which an independent candidate must adhere, when providing a description at nomination. That was not the case under the previous regime for candidates' descriptions, before 2001, when independent candidates could use any description they wanted. We are not returning to the free-for-all of the past; the matter has been clearly prescribed.
Clause 23 states that it would be a matter for the returning officer, having regard to any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission, to decide whether a description proposed by an independent candidate would be permissible. We are laying down guidelines in statute. Some will be issued by the Electoral Commission, and the returning officer will have some discretion. We are including significant safeguards.
Amendment No. 6 would remove the provision allowing independent candidates to use a description on their nomination paper. The Electoral Commission consulted widely on that. There was genuine, widespread support among local authorities, political parties and others for liberalisation with respect to the candidates' descriptions. However, numerous responses pointed out that, if more than one independent candidate stood for election in the same constituency, the candidates and the electorate would be disadvantaged by the confusion arising from the general use of the term ''independent''.
There are, then, good arguments for allowing an independent candidate to use a description on the nomination paper and the ballot paper. In many cases, more than one independent candidate will stand in a constituency, and the use of a description will enable voters to distinguish between the candidates. Effectively, that will mean that they will not be able to use the same description as another, apart from the word ''independent''. Nor will they be able to use a description likely to confuse an elector, lead an elector to associate the candidate with a registered political party, or mislead an elector as to the effect of their vote. For example—to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Southport—no independent candidate would be able to adopt a description like ''Literal Democrat'' as happened in the past.
As I have said, we are trying to create the right balance between avoiding confusion for voters and facilitating the participation of all candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to a registered political party—and registered political parties do not own democracy; we may all belong to them, and view them as the best vehicle for achieving change in society, but we should not think of them as the only route into the democratic process.
Independents have a long-standing place in the political system and have traditionally been an important force in local politics and elections. I see no good reason for an independent candidate not to enjoy the same privileges as those afforded to candidates who represent political parties with respect to the inclusion of a description on a nomination form.
Amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 50 would change the requirements by which the validity of an independent candidate's description is determined. Those requirements are set out in clause 23(2). They state that the description should not be likely to confuse an elector by being so similar to a registered description or the description of another candidate as to be likely to confuse an elector. The description should also not be likely to lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party. Moreover, the description should not be likely to mislead a voter as to the effect of their vote, or to contradict or hinder an elector's understanding.
I fully understand the position of the hon. Member for Huntingdon as to the word ''likely'' introducing a subjective element. However, I am struggling to understand how else the objective can be accomplished because one cannot prove definitively, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the stage that the nomination papers are introduced, that the description will mislead. The only way one could discover whether it would mislead would be to hold the election and to find out afterwards whether people were misled or not. That would be quite a risk to take with as important a process as voting.
On balance, it is best to allow a degree of subjectivity, subject to the guidelines that I mentioned, the provisos in the Bill and the guidelines from the Electoral Commission. That will allow a degree of discretion to the local returning officer to say, ''I am sorry, but I think that that is likely to mislead.'' I take the hon. Gentleman's point: at that stage it will be impossible to prove one way or another. The only way to prove that definitively would be to wait until someone had been misled, by which time the damage would have been done. People will have the opportunity under the provision of other clauses to come up with another name and submit a form that will pass muster.
Amendment No. 51 is modelled on the provision in clause 23(4), which requires the returning officer to make a decision as soon as practicable after the submission of a nomination paper if it is misleadingly similar to that of another independent candidate. That would have the effect of allowing an independent candidate to resubmit their nomination form, which is a good thing.
Clause 22(7) amends parliamentary elections rule 12(3A) to specify that if a returning officer decides that a candidate's description is likely to confuse or wrongly lead electors to associate the candidate with a registered political party, and is so invalid, the returning officer shall make a decision as soon as possible after the delivery of the nomination paper. The candidate would, therefore, be able to resubmit a nomination paper, assuming, of course, that there was enough time. The serious matter raised by the tabling of amendment No. 51 is addressed by a previous measure. However, we fully sympathise with the spirit behind the amendment.