Former electoral commissioner accuses Boris Johnson of undermining Britain’s democracy watchdog

Professor David Howarth says the plans could present a ‘serious threat to the fairness of elections’, as Andrew Woodcock reports

The powers could be used to win electoral advantage, says Prof Howarth (PA)

Boris Johnson’s controversial plans to reform electoral law will undermine the independence of Britain’s democracy watchdog and pose a “serious threat to the fairness of elections”, a former member of the Electoral Commission has warned.

Speaking to The Independent days ahead of Tuesday’s Commons debate on the prime minister’s Elections Bill, former commissioner David Howarth said that “catastrophic” provisions in the legislation give ministers new powers that could clearly be used by the ruling party to win an advantage at the ballot box.

And he warned that passage of the bill in its current form would harm the UK’s global reputation as a leading light of democracy, saying: “A country where the Electoral Commission is told what to do by the executive is not a country with free and fair elections.”

Opposition parties branded the measures “anti-democratic”, while the Best For Britain campaign group drew parallels with the attempt by ministers in Poland to take control of aspects of the country’s national electoral commission’s activities ahead of last year’s presidential election, which won the Polish government a rebuke from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which is part of the OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe).

Critics suspect Mr Johnson’s bill forms part of a concerted Conservative assault on the commission in apparent revenge for a series of investigations into the use of Tory election battle buses, the funding of the Vote Leave campaign, and payments for the refurbishment of the PM’s Downing Street flat. Tory chair Amanda Milling has said the commission may have to be abolished, while Jacob Rees-Mogg has said it is “in serious need of reform”.

Controversy over the bill has so far revolved largely around proposals to require photo ID to vote, which critics say could disenfranchise large numbers of people in the name of preventing an extremely rare form of electoral fraud.

But Prof Howarth – a former Liberal Democrat MP who served on the commission between 2010 and 2018 and is now professor of law and public policy at Cambridge University – said this was a “smokescreen” designed to distract attention from far more serious threats to the UK’s democracy, principal among them the power for ministers to draw up and pass through parliament a strategy and policy statement setting out guidance on how the watchdog should function.

“The minister will be able to in effect tell the Electoral Commission what to do,” said Prof Howarth.

“This is obviously a terrible thing to do. The regulator of our elections needs to be independent and impartial, not subject to political control.”

Although it is unclear how current ministers intend to use the new power, he said it would allow future governments to instruct the commission to scale back programmes designed to boost voter registration among the young and ethnic minorities, or to focus on removing people from the electoral roll promptly after they move house on the ostensible premise of making it more accurate.

“It’s obvious that this is intended to be used in a partisan way, and I think that is – for free and fair elections – catastrophic,” said Prof Howarth.

“The government justifies this by saying that ministers give guidance to other regulators, but these regulators are not responsible for ensuring candidates, ministers and political parties stick to the rules. Giving guidance to Ofwat is not the same as giving guidance to the Electoral Commission, which is right at the heart of politics.”

A provision preventing the commission from bringing criminal prosecutions could be explained only by the assumption that ministers believe it is more likely than the Crown Prosecution Service to mount a legal case over breaches of electoral law, he said.

And he warned that new powers for ministers to change the types of organisations barred from registering as non-party campaigners in elections could be used to exclude trade unions, or disruptive protest groups like Extinction Rebellion.

Meanwhile, a ban on political parties registering as third-party campaigners would make it more difficult to set up a progressive alliance pact of the kind seen in the 2019 election, which involved Liberal Democrats, Greens and Plaid Cymru. Parties in the pact would be unable to spend money on promoting each other’s candidates in seats where they have stood aside, “which is plainly something that is mainly in the interest of the current ruling party”, said Prof Howarth.

With the legislation expected to pass its second reading in the Commons on Tuesday on the back of Mr Johnson’s comfortable Tory majority, Best For Britain CEO Naomi Smith said: “Alongside the egregious assault on the independence of the Electoral Commission, this bill would rig future elections in favour of the government by crippling the campaigning ability of their critics and suppressing the vote.

“With this bill, the government are admitting they are afraid of educating the electorate and afraid of scrutiny. It must be opposed by everyone who believes in free and fair elections in the UK.”

And the Electoral Reform Society’s Dr Jess Garland told The Independent: “With our politics in near-permanent campaign mode and more money than ever flooding into our politics, the strong and independent scrutiny of parties and campaigners has never been more important.

“Far from enhancing the powers of our independent elections regulator, giving it the powers it needs to protect and defend our democracy, the government are instead intent on stripping the ability of the Electoral Commission to do its job. These proposals threaten to end the commission’s independence and put control over how elections are won in the hands of those who have won them.”

Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve said it was vital that the commission could continue to do its job without pressure from the ruling party of the day.

He told The Independent: “Whilst ultimately it is for parliament to set up the Electoral Commission, once it is set up the commission must be independent and must been seen to be independent.

“One should be very careful about giving any powers to ministers to direct the Electoral Commission, and one needs to know very clearly what the possible areas for direction might be. If they are unlimited within the scope of the function of the commission, then I think that would be unacceptable, because the independence of the commission is central to its role. It must be free from being able to be pressurised or directed by government.”

Labour’s democracy spokesperson Cat Smith said the government’s proposals would “allow the Tories to set the agenda of the Electoral Commission” in what she termed “yet another attempt by the Conservatives to rig democracy in their favour”.

“With mounting opposition to the government’s discriminatory Voter ID plans, the Tories are weakening the pillars of our democracy to silence scrutiny,” she said.

“Seen alongside their call for the complete abolition of the Electoral Commission, this is just one part of a concerted strategy by the Tories to remove scrutiny and proper accountability.”

And Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael branded the measures “anti-democratic”.

“The Tories are clearly determined to silence any opposition to their incompetent government and its disastrous policies,” said Mr Carmichael.

“Instead of pushing these anti-democratic laws, the government should support our cross-party efforts to build a better politics with a fairer electoral system.”

A Cabinet Office spokesperson rejected Prof Howarth’s concerns as “unfounded”.

“The public rightly expects efficient and independent regulation of the electoral system,” they said. “Our measures are necessary and a proportionate approach to reforming the accountability of the Electoral Commission to parliament whilst respecting its independence.

“It is commonplace for the government and parliament to set a policy framework by which independent regulators should work.”