Undue Influence
59. Undue influence, where a voter is pressured into
voting a particular way, is one of the hardest electoral offences
for the police to investigate. Undue influence can take place
in several situations;
- In elderly peoples homes/hospitals;
- In the home under parental or other family pressure;
- In the community, including pressure from Trade
Unions and religious organisations; and
- Excessive or undue political pressure from campaigners
and candidates.
In each of these cases the person seeking to influence
the vote may offer assistance in the completion of the declaration
of identity, often acting as the required witness to the voter's
signature, thus ensuring they are present when the elector completes
their vote; offer to collect a completed postal vote for onward
transmission to the Returning Officer; or even suggest the voter
arranges to have their ballot papers sent to a central place where
they can come and complete their vote at a later time.[86]
60. The difficulty for the police is that whilst
some of the above activities are 'unethical', they are not illegal.
Under current legislation an elector may opt for a postal vote
to be sent to an address other than the address listed on the
electoral roll. So in a conventional election a canvasser can
persuade an elector to sign a form to apply for a postal vote,
the advantage to the elector being that the canvasser will arrange
this for them. The postal votes are, on request, sent to the candidate's
election office. The canvasser duly takes the postal ballot to
the elector who then casts their vote and the canvasser passes
this with other "harvested" votes to the Returning Officer.
The Metropolitan Police Special Branch told us:
"I cannot say we have come across many cases
like that. We do have one case which is currently awaiting trial
at crown court, so I can only talk in general terms, but that
involved an inner London borough where a representative of a candidate
was approaching residents on an estate, explaining the postal
ballot system to them and getting them to sign the form. The ballot
was redirected to the party HQ and on the day of voting, this
particular individual would turn up and literally stand over your
shoulder while you voted, which personally I think is unethical,
if anything. Whilst the actual sending of the ballot paper to
party HQ is not illegal, it does obviously raise concerns about
harvesting and farming of ballot papers."[87]
They added:
"The elderly and infirm are particularly susceptible
to this type of activity. Although not in itself an offence, it
could well be argued that those living alone or those who are
infirm may well be susceptible to undue influence from the canvasser
at the very moment they mark their ballot paper in the casting
of their vote." [
] "Whilst not in itself illegal,
there must be serious ethical concerns over such a practice by
parties. [
] should an allegation be received involving these
circumstances, an investigation into a breach of confidentiality
or undue influence will pose particular problems to police concerning
the corroboration of evidence. We believe that the option for
an elector to have their postal vote sent to an address other
than that shown on the electoral roll should be removed, or the
"harvesting" of votes by parties outlawed."[88]
61. However Roger Morris, an experienced Returning
Officer does not believe such activity is common:
"I have to say, my experience over 30 years
with all the principal political parties is that they are much
more concerned with getting the vote out and complying with the
rules. It is not my experience that there is much that you could
call a deliberate attempt to subvert the requirements. Of course
the possibility exists and one has to be on guard, but very often
the publicity that, perhaps, some candidates think they can achieve
outweighs their sense of judgment on occasions. It is relatively
small scale and I think we are on guard for it."[89]
Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chairman of the Local
Government Association, shares this view. He has more worries
about the influence of groups within the community:
"[
] there are some concerns, not necessarily
about [political] parties but about other organisations, in one
case a London borough suggested that everyone brought their votes
to a religious organisation, a Christian organisation, and cast
their votes together. That should be discouraged."[90]
62. There is concern that such incidents will increase
under all-postal voting. The Metropolitan Police Special Branch
believe the complexities of the all-postal voting process may
force people to seek assistance from others in the community,
especially in communities with language barriers:
"I think there are dangers with certain of the
communities in inner cities. These are often people who do not
fully understand the nature of the system - and I am not just
talking about people who are visibly ethnic minority community
members; they may well be indigenous members of the community.
But the process is pretty complicated. [
] there will be
people who look to their elders and advisers for assistance, and
all it takes is for one of these people to be rather corrupt and
you have a problem, a major problem. We had this in north London
about four years ago where a very close-knit community was attacked
by just a couple of people really and that actually caused quite
a lot of community tension."[91]
Richard Price QC OBE of the HS Chapman Society shares
this view. He believes the all-postal system is inherently flawed
because voters will be open to undue influence from all types
of groups:
"[
] I do not think it is restricted to
party agents. I think it is restricted to anybody who is involved
in a pressure group of whatever sort. It could be a community
pressure group, it could be a trade union pressure group, it could
be any sort of pressure group you like to name, and if you have
the all-postal vote system then the opportunity for them to do
something that they should not be doing is greater than it would
otherwise be."[92]
Roger Morris however disagrees;
"In my experience, most of the people who want
to do something with an individual vote are not really into "farming"
or trying to change the result of the election; they have some
personal interest perhaps based on getting themselves on the register
for credit reasons or other things of that sort. Their aim is
less to do with the voting outcome then their personal interests."[93]
63. It is the personal interest of voters that worries
Ken Ritchie of the Electoral Reform Society. He believes all-postal
voting systems may lead to creation of a market in votes:
"[
] if you can demonstrate to somebody
how you are voting then your vote becomes almost a saleable commodity.
There is no point in somebody bribing me on how to vote if I can
then go into the privacy of a polling booth and double-cross them
and take the money but cast my vote in the way that I would have
wanted. But if somebody can actually see how I am using my vote,
then that is something that makes bribery worthwhile."[94]
Sarah Birch and Robert Watt, academics specialising
in electoral systems also believe this could happen:
"If individuals can be expected to find benefit
in voting in their own interest, they will find even more benefit
in seeking to alter the choices of numerous other voters. And
other self-seeking individuals would undoubtedly have to be offered
only relatively modest rewards in order to tip the cost-benefit
ratio in favour of accepting immediate gain in exchange for their
votes. The public nature of open voting can thus be expected to
create a market in votes. But this market will function effectively
only if 'buyers' have a means of verifying that votes have been
cast as requested. In obstructing the verification process, the
secret ballot goes a long way towards blocking the exchange of
votes for immediate rewards by preventing voters from selling
the power they exercise over their choice."[95]
This is obviously something the Government, Electoral
Commission, and police will have to consider carefully. However
it should be remembered that outright bribery is illegal, and
potentially easier to investigate by the police if money or goods
have changed hands. Few candidates or voters are likely to consider
such activity.
64. The Committee does not believe that all-postal
voting poses any greater security risk than conventional voting.
However, we believe that the investigation and prosecution of
electoral offences needs to improve in order to increase public
confidence in the system. We therefore strongly support the Electoral
Commission's report on Absent Voting which recommends;
- Inter-agency cooperation
to develop and disseminate information and guidance to local police
forces in relation to electoral offences;
- Development of a protocol in liaison with
prosecution authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO), the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE),
and the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) setting
out clearly the respective roles of the Returning Officer, the
police and the Crown Prosecution Service in pursuing allegations
of fraud;
- Identification of best practice in relation
to the handling of postal vote applications and postal ballots
by representatives of political parties and development of a Code
of Practice in conjunction with political parties;
- More publicity for offenders caught and successfully
prosecuted for electoral offences;
- Introduction of a new offence of intending
fraudulently to apply for a postal (or proxy) vote. The maximum
sentence should be a custodial sentence in line with the penalties
for personation;
- Redrafting of the law on undue influence to
clarify the nature of the offence. It should also become a legal
requirement that secrecy warnings are included on postal (and
proxy) voting literature;
- Extension of the existing statutory provisions
on personation to give the police power of arrest based on 'reasonable
suspicion' of personation at any location; and
- Introduction of a new legal provision so that
in exceptional circumstances, and where the prosecution has demonstrated
all due diligence, the Courts may extend prosecution time limits
by up to 12 months.
65. We wish to underline the need for prosecution
agencies to rigorously pursue allegations of electoral offences,
and for the courts to punish those convicted with harsher penalties.
Political parties have a responsibility to demonstrate the security
of postal voting, therefore candidates and canvassers who are
convicted should be banned from participation in election activity.
66. In addition to the recommendations made by
the Electoral Commission, we recommend that the Government consider
the case for granting the police search and arrest powers to aid
investigations of allegations of electoral offences. We also think
it is vital that the Government establish a national database
to record allegations of electoral offences. In the response to
this report we recommend that the Government outlines the number
and nature of all allegations of electoral offences resulting
from the June 2004 combined elections.
24