Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In a little noticed event in Britain on 5 November, a court effectively involved itself in the political process and overturned the election of Mr Phil Woolas, a former minister for immigration, to the seat of Oldham East. We in Australia have not heard much about this case, but it has rightfully caused huge debate in Britain and has implications here—and, indeed, anywhere with a Westminster system of government .

The case was brought under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which makes it an offence for anyone to publish ‘any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct’ to prevent them from being elected, ‘unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, the statement to be true’. A specially convened Election Court ruled that Woolas had, in mocked-up newspapers, claimed that another candidate had ‘wooed’ Islamic extremists and the Liberal Democrat candidate had failed to condemn radical group attacks, and that this was deliberately and knowingly misleading.

I have had a look at some of the election material put out by Woolas, and I have to say the tone used is not one that I would support. Neither do I support the death threats against the former immigration minister, but I think the decision of the court is an unfortunate one for British democracy.

I am sure that when the Representation of the People Act was framed it was intended to ensure that the voting public was empowered and protected. This verdict, in my view, has the opposite effect. In the words of Mr Woolas’s solicitor, the decision will ‘chill free speech at election time’. The Conservative member for Gainsborough said in the House of Commons:

… massive constitutional issues are raised by it—

the court’s decision—

which the House should debate. This is the first time in 99 years that a Member has been evicted.

The member for Gainsborough also said:

My worry is that if the judgment is allowed to stand, robust debate during elections will become virtually impossible. People will be terrified of attacking their opponents. For instance, what happens if a minor candidate for the BNP—

that is, the British National Party—

attacks a major party candidate? The latter would be frightened of attacking the former back because he might be disqualified. These are enormous constitutional issues, which we should discuss in the House.

In the words of the Labour member for Walsall North:

… the House has always been extremely reluctant to expel anyone. I know that this is not an expulsion made by a decision of this House, but the House has refused to expel Members over the years on the basis that this is not a club, despite what some people might say, and that if someone is elected it should be for the electorate to decide.

There is therefore bound to be concern about whether a court—judges—should decide, and not the electorate. From the moment I heard of the decision, I felt some concern and anxiety that the decision about whether the electorate wanted that particular Member to serve had been taken out of their hands and given to the judges. Therefore, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) said, the question does arise about whether in future circumstances an unsuccessful candidate will use any means to say in effect that what happened during the election was unfair, and to take the issue to the judges.

In elections, electors expect a bit of rough and tumble, colourful rhetoric and exaggeration—we are judged on whether we go overboard. It is part and parcel of politics. In a democracy, the electors rather than judges should decide what they think of attacks made by candidates on their opponents.

From the information I have, there was at least some basis for Mr Woolas’s colourful campaigning. During the British election the UK Muslim Public Affairs Committee targeted six ‘Zionist MPs’—their words—and argued for their supporters to vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate in Oldham East and some other seats. Of course, British Muslims have a perfect right to campaign against whomsoever they like in a free society like the UK. But the UK Muslim Public Affairs Committee was described in 2006 in a carefully written British parliamentary report on antisemitism as being involved in Holocaust denial, using the word ‘Zionist’ to replace the word ‘Jew’ and promoting conspiracy theories about Jews. It seems fair, within the parameters of free speech, to describe them, as Mr Woolas did, as extremists. Moreover, if the Liberal Democrats were prepared to benefit from the MPAC targeting six seats in the recent British election then it is perfectly fair and understandable that any MP would subject his opponent to caustic criticism. That is what Mr Woolas did during the campaign. He demanded that the Lib Dems condemn some of the campaign tactics used against him. Although both sides agree that the Lib Dem candidate was silent during the attacks on Mr Woolas, there is disagreement about whether this silence was a refusal to act. I note that no similar prosecution has been successful against a member of the House of Commons for 99 years and that the previous case involved public corruption which led to riots—far more serious than the claims against Mr Woolas.

Mr Woolas’s solicitor Gerald Shamash, who acts for the Labour Party, said:

In reaching this decision the court adopted an interpretation of conduct detailed in a case nearly 100 years ago when considering a 19th-century statute. Those who stand for election must be prepared to have their political conduct and motives subjected to … scrutiny and inquiry … This decision will inevitably chill political speech.

Even more significantly, the former Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said:

It is bound to have ramifications, if there’s no appeal, for how people conduct elections in the future. It is going to make all the political parties say, ‘look, we’ve got to be very, very careful about that in future’.

One can expect political opportunism from the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, who instantly and greedily announced that they would try to seize Mr Woolas’s seat. Worse is what many in the British Labour Party described as the gutless decision of their new leader, Ed Miliband, and deputy leader, Harriet Harman, to suspend Mr Woolas, a former immigration minister. What happened to the Labour ethos of solidarity and opposition to extremism of the far Right or the far Left or any other variety?

I conclude by reporting to the House that Mr Woolas is appealing the decision, and I wish him all success. It may be found that the original decision was a narrowly correct interpretation of the law. If that is the case I think the British should look seriously at amending the law, lest their great democracy be diminished and lest it have implications for other countries practising under the Westminster system.

See this speech in context