The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House
of Commons on Thursday 27 April.
“It is vital that we keep our democracy secure. This Government
stood on a manifesto commitment not only to protect the integrity
of our elections but to enhance it. On that basis, this
Government won a majority. We have introduced legislation to
implement that commitment and we are now in the process of
delivering on our promise. Voter identification is central to
protecting our electoral system from the potential for voting
fraud. Its implementation at the local elections next week brings
the rest of the UK in line with Northern Ireland, where people
have had to bring photographic ID to vote in elections since
2003. I remind the honourable Member for Cardiff West (), who is chuntering from a
sedentary position, that that legislation was introduced by the
then Labour Government under direct rule.
The data collection processes for polling stations are set out
clearly in the Elections Act 2022 and the Voter Identification
Regulations 2022. Polling station staff will record details of
any electors turned away—should there be any—for the purposes of
complaints or legal challenges and, in the short term, to provide
data to evaluate the policy, which will be conducted by the
Government and the Electoral Commission in line with the
legislation that was voted on, debated and passed by this
House.
The Electoral Commission has published suggested templates of the
necessary forms and has updated its guidance in the polling
station handbook to reflect the new processes. As required by
legislation, the Government will publish a number of reports on
the impact of the voter identification policy. Our intention is
that the first of those reports will be published no later than
November 2023. The data collected will be a significant part of
that evaluation.
There are few tasks more important in public life, as I am sure
every member of a political party represented in this House and
the general public would agree, than maintaining the British
public’s trust in the sanctity of the ballot box in our
democratic processes. We on the Government Benches take that duty
very seriously. I look forward to our first experience of the
policy in polling stations in Great Britain on 4 May.”
11:50:00
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the Government implemented this rushed programme for
voter ID against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the
Association of Electoral Administrators and the Local Government
Association, which all said that it needed more time. Does the
Minister now agree that they were right, given that around 1.5
million people eligible to vote do not have the accepted ID or
certificate? Tomorrow’s election will be the greatest restriction
of the franchise in our democratic history, taking the vote from
seven times as many people as were given the vote in the Great
Reform Act. What will it take tomorrow for the Government to
rescind this policy? How many people will the Government allow to
be turned away before admitting that this experiment has
failed?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
No, I do not agree that we have done it in haste, because I have
spoken personally to the LGA and many leaders across the country
who are having polls. I have also spoken to the Electoral
Commission. The processes that were put in place worked well; the
IT worked well, and we will know after tomorrow what the outcome
is. As I said yesterday in this House, the number of people who
have not registered for a voter authority card will come out in
the data. Whether or not we need to look at any changes, this
Government and the people of this country want voter ID. Two out
of three people asked said they would feel more confident in our
democratic process if it was in place.
(Con)
My Lords, I return to a subject that I raised yesterday. It would
be so much easier and sensible for all of us if we had an
identity card that we could produce on all necessary occasions.
There would then be no question of some people not having one of
the designated documents, because they would all have the same.
Could this please be looked at again if, as I suspect, the
figures from tomorrow are disappointing?
(Con)
Just to let my noble friend know, the Government have no
intention of looking again at identity cards, as I said to him
yesterday.
(LD)
My Lords, allowing for postal votes, there will be more than 1
million people legally entitled to vote tomorrow who will not be
able to do so because of the new requirements. The number of
people who do not go to the polling station because of them will
never be known; nor will the number of people turned away at the
entrance to polling stations ever be known. If the Electoral
Commission’s review suggests that wider forms of ID could be
accepted, such as the items on the Post Office list for
collecting a parcel, will such a change be made before elections
in 2024? The cost saving would be substantial. Will the Minister
undertake to tell us what that saving would be? She said
yesterday that the government scheme would cost £2.42 per
elector. There are about 48 million electors, so that would be a
cost of £116 million. Which party is this expenditure most likely
to benefit?
(Con)
As I have said before, we will look at whether there need to be
any changes after the Electoral Commission and the Government
have collected the data they require from returning officers. We
said that we would do that; there will be a review by both Houses
of Parliament at the end of this year, and the Electoral
Commission will review it as well. We expect its interim report
in early summer. That is when we will need to look at whether any
changes need to be made.
(Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the difficult position that the Minister
is in, but can she set out a list of all those people who are
eligible for a proxy vote organised up until 5 pm
tomorrow—election day? It was a mystery to me; I had never heard
of emergency proxies. Apparently, they are available to people
who, for example, cannot use the photo pass they were planning to
use; it is not just an illness or disability issue. Where is the
list, because it is very confusing on the websites, of who can
get organised for a proxy up to 5 pm tomorrow? Are local
authorities organised to do that for people who might have
problems? Has this happened before or not?
(Con)
In certain circumstances where a person has an emergency that
means that they cannot vote in person, they can apply for an
emergency proxy. There is full guidance on the Electoral
Commission’s website. I should stress that the circumstances
where an application for a proxy vote may apply are specific and
very limited. Emergency proxies are available if a person’s photo
ID is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the deadline to
apply for a voter authority certificate has passed. This can also
be used if an anonymous elector’s document is lost, stolen,
destroyed or damaged. As the noble Lord said, applications can be
made up to 5 pm on polling day.
(Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the measures being introduced by
the Government are very similar to those that were introduced in
Northern Ireland, which have been generally welcomed by both
Houses?
(Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right: those measures were brought
in in Northern Ireland by the Labour Government in 2003. They
have been highly successful, and, in fact, the people of Northern
Ireland have a higher rate of satisfaction with their electoral
system than we do in England.
(CB)
My Lords, are the Government alive to the prospect that they have
set the bar too high for forms of photo ID for younger people in
particular? The chance that someone would be so keen to vote
fraudulently that they would make a fraudulent Oyster ID card as
an 18-plus as a way to gain access to a polling station is
vanishingly small. In that review, will they be alive to widening
out the forms of photo ID for younger people?
(Con)
Yes, obviously, but it is interesting that, when the research was
done on the number of people in this country who had photo ID, it
was higher for younger people. It was 98% for the whole of the
country, but 99% for young people between 18 and 25. But, yes, we
will look at that. I know that the Oyster card has been an issue,
but there is a real reason. Oyster cards for younger people have
a different process which is not as secure as that for older
people’s Oyster cards.
(LD)
My Lords, mention has been made of a review, and it is critical
that it happens correctly. That requires three sets of
information. The first is how many people were turned away; the
second is the precise reasons for their being turned away, and
the third is the time of day that they were turned away, because
if it was before, let us say, half an hour before the close of
polls, people may have been able to go and get the required
documentation in some cases. Will the Government have the correct
data on which to form an opinion?
(Con)
Councils are required by law to record data in polling stations.
There are two purposes for that. The first is in the case of any
complaints or legal challenges, as we know. That data is on
individual electors formally refused a ballot and whether they
later returned and voted successfully; it will be sealed and
retained in case it is needed. The second set of data will be
captured in the short term to help evaluate the voter
identification policy. That data will be anonymised and will
include both the number of electors turned away and the reasons
why, as well as whether they returned and voted later; it will
also include data on other aspects of the policy, such as the
number of times a voter authority certificate is used. As I have
said, that data will be used by both the Government and the
Electoral Commission in their evaluations. I do not think that
the time of day when those electors came to a polling station
will be in the evaluation, but I will certainly get the House an
answer on that.
