Political Donations: Cap

Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Lord Hayward

Thursday 5th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of points. I reassure him that we want to ensure that the Government’s focus is on our manifesto commitment to strengthen integrity in our democratic process. Democracy is precious, and we want to make sure that no malign actors can contribute to it and that any foreign interference is stopped. However, it is for political parties themselves, under law, to ensure the nature of the donation and the background of the company or individual making it.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is aware of my long-standing concern about the use of anonymous opinion polls and other forms of campaigning, either in a general election or prior to one. Will the Minister please ensure that he talks to the excellent new chief executive of the Electoral Commission to establish that it uses all the powers it currently has available to check on the issues I have identified, and, if it does not have the necessary powers, that it is given them through changes in legislation where necessary?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord and I met the new chief executive of the Electoral Commission, and we will continue to have those conversations—together, if need be, given the noble Lord’s expertise in this area. The noble Lord is quite right: the Electoral Commission plays an important part in the UK’s democratic system, promoting public confidence in democratic processes and ensuring their integrity. On his question about anonymous donations, I will take it away and ensure that we come back to him with some more facts and information.

Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Lord Hayward

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I am sorry for any miscommunication, but what we are saying is that we want to get everything ready for the May 2025 elections. The focus is on getting the review and I am sorry if I confused noble Lords on that point. It depends what comes out of the review: depending on what it tells us, we can act on that. That is our focus.

The noble Lord. Lord Hayward, talked about the IFF research and the point that the Minister in the Commons made on this. The Elections Act 2022 included a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish an evaluation of the implementation and impact of the voter ID policy on the first local and the first two UK general elections after the Act came into force. We have therefore contracted IFF Research, an independent research organisation, to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the July 2024 general election—we would have waited much longer for an evaluation of two general elections. It is essential that we understand how the policy has operated in practice, what has gone well and where there are any areas for improvement in the future. We expect that report summarising the work on the voter ID policy in the spring of 2025.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that clarification. I seek further clarification on that point: will the political parties be consulted as part of the IFF research, so that they as well as other organisations can have input?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The research is independently contracted, so that is something for IFF to consider. I reassure noble Lords that I will consult across the House on any concerns they may have around ongoing work on the report or its publication.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised a number of important issues. On the voter ID policy, he reminded me and my colleagues of how we voted when in opposition. I note the concerns about the policy requiring voters to show identification when voting, which is why this Government are conducting a thorough review of the voter identification rules. This will include evaluating their impact on the 2024 general election. I, too, am waiting for that review. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns, and it is right to raise concerns about all new policies to make sure that they are working in practice, promoting democracy and helping people to turn out and vote at elections. I say to all noble Lords: let us wait for that review to take place. We will carefully consider the findings and recommendations contained in both the report we have contracted and the Electoral Commission report and will bring forward a proposal in the future.

The noble Lord talked about the voter authority certificate. There is a big issue in that approximately 210,000 people applied for a voter authority certificate between January 2023, when it was launched, and 26 June 2024, which was the deadline for the UK election, but around 26,000 certificates were used as a form of ID on 4 July. It is not clear why so few electors used the VACs they applied for, so we want to conduct a review on that point of the voter identification rules, which will include the impact in 2024 of the VACs, and any changes or improvements will wait for that review to take place.

If I have not addressed any issues, I am happy to meet noble Lords about them, as we regularly do. An important point to make before I finish—I know the noble Lord will want to come back in—is that the Government are committed to improving electoral registration and addressing lower registration rates among all groups in society. Officials are working with their counterparts in the Welsh Government to learn in particular from automatic registration pilots under way there and to see how they are taking place. We will examine different approaches and use experiences from other countries to inform our decisions. My only point here is that we are waiting for the review. The Government are working on a number of improvements in this area, and that will take a bit of time as we set out our position.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I apologise for intervening again, but I seek quick clarification on a point that I raised at the end of my comments in relation to the county council elections next year. Is the Minister in a position to indicate whether all the county council elections currently scheduled will actually take place?

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I apologise; that point was also raised by the noble Baroness opposite, and it is very important. I have just been handed a clear answer—it is exactly what I was going to say noble Lords, since I have not been informed of any plans—which is to reassure the Committee that there are no plans at the moment to cancel any elections, but if anything happens I will communicate through the usual channels of government machinery to ensure that noble Lords with a particular interest, expertise and passion in this area, over a number of years, are consulted.

We are all justifiably proud of our long history of democracy, but we should never take it for granted. The addition of the veteran card to the list of documents accepted as identification at the polling station will support this important community in engaging in the elections process and exercising their democratic rights. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these regulations provide for some important changes to our electoral rules, strengthening, widening and securing our democracy into the future. I hope they will join me in supporting the veteran community.

Elections Bill

Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Lord Hayward

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate to the secrecy of the ballot. Amendment 97 from my noble friend Lady Hayman would expand the offence to include attempting to communicate the number or other unique identifying mark on the back of a ballot paper sent to a person for voting by post at a relevant election. Amendment 100, meanwhile, expands the offence to include those who obtain or attempt to obtain information or communicate at any time to any other person any information as to whether a person voting by post at a relevant election has spoilt their ballot.

The purpose of these amendments is to draw attention to the various ways that an individual could circumvent the secrecy of the ballot for nefarious purposes. I am sure the Minister would agree that legislation must cover each of the possible intrusions. Given that this is not the only legislation that deals with voting in private, I hope the Minister can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary and that this is already an offence.

Government Amendments 83, 99, 101 and 102, meanwhile, each make minor changes to inserted Section 66(3A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. These all appear to be technical amendments which I have no intention of opposing, but I look forward to the Minister explaining their purpose in more detail.

Government Amendment 103 ensures that no criminal liability arises where information is sought from, or given by, a postal voter at an election for the purposes of an opinion poll or exit poll. Again, this amendment seems to be a technical clarification which has been rightly introduced.

Finally, Amendment 109 from the noble lord, Lord Hayward, allows for a more general debate on the secrecy of the ballot. It would mean that the Secretary of State could issue guidance on steps that presiding officers or clerks should take to ensure the secrecy of the ballot in polling stations, including debarring anyone accompanying the elector into the polling booth, unless on grounds of infirmity. This raises issues similar to those raised in earlier amendments from my noble friend Lady Hayman regarding how we can ensure that votes remain private. The noble Lord is right to table this amendment and to draw attention to further ways that this principle could be compromised. I hope the Minister can allay the House’s concerns ahead of Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made reference to the original secret ballot of the 19th century. To a large extent, what we have seen over the last 150 years is what should happen: a ballot should be secret, in that one person goes into the polling booth alone, marks their vote and then casts it in the ballot box. Unfortunately, because of a series of interventions, with the Electoral Commission and others denying who is interpreting the legislation in whichever way, this issue has been called into question. I am going to cite Tower Hamlets again, but I know that this problem is broader than that. Too regularly, presiding officers in polling stations are faced with a problem whereby people attempt to accompany somebody else into the polling booth, effectively to influence the casting of that ballot.

I can do no better than to quote research undertaken in 2018 by Democracy Volunteers, an organisation of lawyers who operate a system of reviewing the processes of elections, within Tower Hamlets and other similar locations. I make no apologies for quoting the research in full:

“QUESTION 9. Was there evidence of ‘family voting’ in the polling station? … In 58% of polling stations our observer teams identified so-called ‘family voting’. OSCE … describes ‘family voting’ as an ‘unacceptable practice’. It occurs where, generally, husband and wife vote together. It can be normalised and women, especially, are unable to choose for themselves who they wish to cast their votes for and/or this is actually done by another individual entirely. It is a breach of the secret ballot. We identified this in 58% of polling stations (74 separate occasions). As family voting, by definition, includes more than one person this means that we observed this 74 times in the 764 voters we observed. This means that over 19% of all the voters who we observed were either engaged in, or affected by, this practice.”


This is the key qualification:

“We would, however, like to add that the vast majority of cases of this were prevented, or attempts were made to prevent it. However, we believe that this constitutes an unacceptably high level of family voting in an advanced democracy and further steps should be taken to discourage and prevent it. However, this activity is generally not the fault of polling staff, in fact we commend the staff for being so active in their attempts to prevent it.”


As one of the observer teams said:

“Family voting is a definite concern in Tower Hamlets. At the best-run polling stations, the Presiding Officers kept an active watch for potential cases and took steps to prevent it happening. They took care to issue ballot papers to family members one at a time, and then direct them to polling booths in different parts of the room. With three members of polling staff, this meant that while two clerks checked the register and issued papers, the”


polling officer

“could remain vigilant for possible family voting or other problems. All the observed cases of family voting took place when the”

polling officer

“was absent or distracted, or their attention was elsewhere.”

There is no criticism here of the polling staff; they try to do their best. But I am afraid, as this report from Democracy Volunteers identifies, that this is a far too pervasive problem, and we need clear guidance. Most people believed that we had clear guidance for a century and a half, but because of varying interpretations, my amendment is an attempt to ensure that we move away from this practice and back to what was originally intended.

As the noble Lord, Lord Khan, identified, I have tried to allow for those people who need accompaniment. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in a previous debate, there may be other people in similar circumstances who need assistance. Generally, the assistance will come from a polling officer, but there may be special reasons why somebody needs accompaniment from a member of the family. However, these should be virtually unique occasions, not—as the report from Democracy Volunteers identified—a pervasive problem. I therefore believe that my amendment is attempting to tackle a problem which is quite widespread and needs clarification, and that it is in the best interests of conducting elections across the country.