Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024
Debate between Lord Mott and Lord Hayward(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendment that we are discussing today, particularly in reference to the Armed Forces veteran card. It was disappointing that it was not in place for the general election earlier this year, and I very much support what the Minister had to say today.
I also highlight and welcome the Electoral Commission’s report on the high awareness levels of voter ID when people went to the ballot box this year. There were a lot of concerns in the run-up to the election, but it is good to see that survey report high voter awareness.
The other incredibly welcome thing today, speaking as somebody who spent 32 years at the front line of politics working for a political party, is that these changes are being made well ahead of those elections in May next year. There is nothing more frustrating for a political party or political organisation than to have changes come into force at the last minute. There are implications for all political parties, not just for professionals but for the thousands of volunteers who keep our democracy vibrant in this country. Again, I thank the Government for making sure that we are making this change well in advance.
What else are the Government thinking now about participation, and how do we open up the democratic process to more people? The turnouts in the elections in July were disappointing, to say the least, and we need to make sure that everyone is completely engaged in the political process. Also, do the Government have any thoughts at this stage on further items of identification that may be added to the list?
I appreciate that my final point is a little cheeky. Having been in the Minister’s position, where I often used to say “next year” or “at some point”, could I push him a little further? He said next year; is there any date when the Government may have finished their review and he will be able to come back to us with some of those proposals? It could be quarter 1 or 2—that would be good. If we could have a little more detail around that, it would be incredibly helpful to us. As I sit down, I welcome these changes and thank him for the timely fashion in which the Government have introduced them.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend in welcoming the proposals that the Minister outlined in his opening comments. I have two or three points to raise. The first is that, when this SI was discussed in the Commons, the Minister identified that research was being undertaken by IFF Research on voter ID. Could this Minister clarify the terms identified for this work and why it is necessary, given that the Electoral Commission has in fact already undertaken its report, to which the Minister referred? It does not seem necessary to have two organisations doing the same thing.
In passing, I add my welcome to the Minister’s comments on Zimbabwe. As a former resident of that country, I am conscious that there are some 200,000 people of Zimbabwean nationality in this country; it would be helpful to that community.
I am concerned by a phraseology that the Minister used—that there might be further changes to ID that are not done as a group. If we are to make further changes to requirements for the opportunity to use certain forms of ID at polling stations, they must be introduced en bloc. We do not want a series of changes, one after another, and to have to sit in this Committee to consider them individually. It makes much more sense, whether they are because of the Electoral Commission’s work, IFF Research’s work or a combination, to bring them together as a single block. That reduces the workload on the Minister for a start, let alone for anybody else.
Although this is not quite within the field of the SI, it follows on from my noble friend Lord Mott’s question on the local elections taking place next May. Is the Minister in any position to indicate whether, in fact, those elections will be as those currently scheduled or are there likely to be any changes?
Representation of the People (Postal Vote Handling and Secrecy) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Lord Mott and Lord Hayward
Lord Mott (Con)
I will have to come back to the noble Lord on that in more detail. The point he made earlier concerns me. The potential for a bundle of ballot packs to be collected up and put through a door or letterbox is something that we really need to look at. I will take it away and look at it in more detail, and I will certainly come back to the noble Lord.
Lord Hayward (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, is pursuing a key point. It has been the case in certain investigations that fingerprinting has been used to establish who has handled the ballot papers, which would cover an element of the aspects to which he referred but not necessarily all of them.
Lord Mott (Con)
That is true. I know there is one example in the Pickles review that I was on the ground for: in Bradford, at the 2005 general election. I think I am right in saying that it was not just fingerprints but analysis of signatures. The police were able to identify and take action because the individuals who were filling in the ballot papers did them on top of each other. It was not just the signatures they could identify; they could identify them on every single one, which enabled them to prosecute. I saw that up close several years ago.
To close this discussion, I know that all noble Lords believe that preserving our democratic processes is paramount. I will certainly come back on the very important points raised, but I am pleased to be able to introduce these measures.