My Lords, the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hayward seek to make a number of changes concerning aspects of the electoral process. I thank my noble friend for his continuing engagement on and interest in electoral matters, which is respected across the House. I will address his amendments in turn. I recognise the intention behind them; the Government share his interest in clarifying and streamlining electoral regulation, but we must be mindful of the length of the changes already contained in the Bill, which has been subject to consideration. In that context, I hope he will understand if they are not all changes we can take forward in this legislative vehicle, but we will continue to work with him and others to undertake the consideration needed for the changes to electoral law separately where appropriate and where there is an opportunity to do so.
Amendments 81 and 91 concern the naming aspect of nomination rules. I understand the noble Lord’s intention to ensure there is no room for confusion for voters on the personal identity of a candidate standing for election. However, in relation to Amendment 88, I am advised that candidates are already required to state their full name in their nomination paper. I can confirm also that it is already an offence for a person to give a name in their nomination paper that they know to be false. This includes giving a name with a different spelling. We do not therefore consider it necessary to make the changes set out in the amendment. I hope my noble friend is reassured that the law already includes appropriate safeguards against candidates providing false information.
On Amendment 91, under the current law, a person who is nominated as a candidate must give their full name but may also provide a commonly used forename or surname, which must be different from any of the names already given, which they would like to have included on the ballot paper. However, this does not facilitate the use of a middle name where someone is commonly known by such a name. The suggestion of my noble friend that a middle name might be allowed as the “commonly known as” name has some merit and I remain open to further discussions on it.
Similarly, I and the Government remain open to further discussion and collaboration on the proposal in Amendment 89 for the numbers of subscribers for local election nominations to be reduced from the 10 currently required. Minister Badenoch has written to my noble friend to set out the Government’s position; we are supportive in principle, but we must remember that the decision to reduce temporarily the number of signatures required to stand for certain polls for May 2021 was taken in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was only ever intended to be a temporary solution and the Government have not yet consulted on or conducted research into the impact of making the change last year.
As signatures are presently seen as a necessary check—the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, spoke about this—to ensure that candidates have some level of support within the local electorate, and the policy seeks to avoid having candidates with no real hope of being elected on ballot papers, which can increase the burden on administrators and cost to the public purse, the Government wish to consult further with the
Parliamentary Parties Panel and others to identify views and issues. As I say, we heard dissent from the Liberal Democrat Benches on that. This is not to undermine in any way the statement in principle made by the Minister to my noble friend, but to ensure there is careful consideration of the consequences of such a change. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, we will look to start the necessary work to put any new arrangement in place for elections in May 2023. I have asked my officials to keep my noble friend updated on progress.
Amendment 90 proposes to reform the process around incorrect declaration of results. Once a result is declared and made public, the result stands and can be undone, as my noble friend explained, only through a formal election petition process, a court process which serves as a safeguard against elections being improperly run or adversely affected by illegal activity. The law purposefully sets clear requirements and a short timeline in which to bring a challenge. I recognise that this has led to issues in the past where an incorrect name has been called out as winning a seat and then a petition was required to resolve it. Fortunately, in recent years such a problem has been addressed by the returning officer, with the agreement of candidates, correcting the initial mistake before they have finalised their declaration process, although that does not cover all the instances my noble friend was talking about. While we are sympathetic to the issues he has raised, any statutory changes in procedures for the certification and declaration of results have the capacity to have an impact on the outcome of elections. This requires careful consideration. We will consider it further, but there is no time to complete such consideration effectively within the time allowed for passage of the Bill.
Finally in this group, Amendment 208 would require the Government to consult on the variations in criteria to stand at different polls. We hold elections to a wide variety of offices and bodies in this country, which necessarily perform a wide variety of functions. Consideration is given to the criteria for disqualification of candidates on a case-by-case basis to suit the functions of the role for which the person seeks election.
There are good reasons for having different disqualification rules for different offices. For example, the rules governing who can be a candidate in police and crime commissioner elections and hold the office of a police and crime commissioner are the strictest of all those for elected roles in Great Britain, because the role is focused on direct oversight of the police, and because of the need for public trust in the management of police forces.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend on this, but the Government’s view is that a consultation on the requirements for standing at different elections and on disqualification rules is not an immediate priority. For this reason we cannot accept the amendment, but I can assure my noble friend that—as he knows from the engagement we have had—he has put these points on the table for consideration, and they will not be lost for consideration even if they cannot be addressed in the Bill. In the light of that, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.