Clause 23 - Description of independent candidates
Electoral Administration Bill
6:15 pm
Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)
The clause makes amendments enabling independent candidates to include a description on their nomination papers and on the ballot paper. It also allows independent candidates to include a description other than the word ''independent'' on ballot papers. We have concerns about it for a number of reasons, several of which were mentioned in the debate on the amendments to the clause.
The ability to add some words of description on the nomination and ballot papers after a candidate's name was first offered by the Ballot Act 1872, rule 6. The present position was summarised in a 2003 report by the Electoral Commission, ''Standing for election in the United Kingdom'', as follows:
''A person can stand as a candidate for a party only if the nomination paper is submitted with a certificate of authorisation of candidature issued by or on behalf of the Nominating Officer of a registered political party.
Any candidate can include a description on the nomination paper that will be included beside the name on the ballot paper. However, if a candidate is standing independently, he/she can only have 'Independent' inserted beside their name. If the candidate is standing for a registered political party, a description of no more than six words may be included, provided that they have produced a valid certificate of authorisation from their party.''
Independent candidates should be required to sign a declaration along with their nomination papers, confirming that they are not standing on behalf of a collective, a party or a commercial organisation. The clause introduces a new rule 6B into the parliamentary elections rules of the 1983 Act. The rule will allow a six-word description for independent candidates. In Wales, there is provision for six words in English or six words in Welsh. The description must not be the same or confusingly similar to the description of another candidate. The exception is the word ''independent'' or the Welsh equivalent, which may be used by any or all independents.
The clause makes provision for a list of prohibited words or expressions, which are to be specified by the Secretary of State after consulting the Electoral Commission, and that is certainly welcome. The returning officer is to decide on the acceptability of the description, but he must have regard to guidance issued by the Electoral Commission. We welcome that provision, which will go some way towards ensuring consistency of application.
Descriptions must not be obscene, offensive or likely to lead to the commission of an offence. The clause also provides for independent candidates to have an emblem, ''IND'' or ''ANNIB'', next to their name on the ballot paper, and to make a statement that they have not been selected to stand for a registered political party. Nevertheless, if there is to be a description, it would not be a substitute for including the word ''independent'' in that description.
The clause allows independent candidates to include a description other than ''independent'' on ballot papers. We have a problem with that, for various reasons. First, the wording of the clause could be seen as ambiguous; it appears to me that if independents use the word ''independent'' in their description, they would not be limited to a six-word description, but could have a description of unlimited length. Is that correct? That reading of the clause arises from the word ''or'' in subsection (3)(g)(i), and the use of the word ''consists'' in proposed new rule 6B(2). Perhaps the word ''only'' should follow the word ''consists'' in order to remove the ambiguity.
Secondly, as I said earlier, independents are, by their very definition, independent. They are separate and independent from any organisation or pressure group. If candidates wish to run under a banner, they should register as a political party, and they should be subject to the same public scrutiny and accountability that registered parties face under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The non-partisan position of independents is important in our democracy, and is worthy of protection. These proposals could undermine that position, both by giving them certain advantages over candidates standing for political parties and by altering their essential political neutrality. These measures would weaken the long-term position of independents, and open the electoral system to even greater confusion than already exists.
Thirdly, the desire to maximise opportunities for independents to describe themselves in any manner they wish is inconsistent with the Government's other proposal radically to restrict the ability of political parties to do just that. I do not wish to stray into a discussion of another set of amendments, but by contrast—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome identified this—clause 47, relating to the descriptions of political parties, seeks to restrict the ability of registered political parties to use variants of their descriptions. For the first time, parties will be limited to only five different types of description—although the Secretary of State can vary that number. Independents will be able to use any number of potential variations, but political parties will not. The Minister cannot simultaneously advocate simplicity for political parties and diversity for independents. That is both inconsistent and somewhat biased. Therefore, we oppose the proposals.
If we are to accept that the historical position of independents on a ballot paper has to be altered to allow the six-word description, the most viable method is to insist on the word ''independent'' being included in those six words. That would allow the description, but it would limit confusion for the elector and go some way to protect the position of the independent candidate as something distinct and worthy of separate classification—which I suspect that the majority of independents would be anxious to ensure for themselves. Allowing the six-word description with no obvious reference to independent status would maximise confusion, penalise political parties and downgrade independents to becoming little more than one-man political parties by the back door.
We recognise that there may be concerns that current rules governing the registration of political parties control only the Electoral Commission's register of party names, rather than the party names used on ballot papers, which may be variants of those on the register. However, the solution proposed is demonstrably wrong.