Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

Because I am in Switzerland next week and in the middle east the week after. As I said to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am happy to appear in front of the Committee, and now that we have a settled policy I will do so.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, this Bill is a shambles and it is felt to be so by my constituents in Putney, for whom this is having real-world effects. Businesses in Putney have seen rising costs and less investment because of the threat of the sunset clause and still not knowing what will be in it. The Government have left businesses across the country high and dry and the Bill is far from oven ready. Can the Secretary of State explain how the £1 billion figure for business savings has been estimated—or is that more pie in the sky?

[Kemi Badenoch]

You can see a classic example of what I am talking about, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady complains that the sunset would not allow her constituents to know what is being repealed, but the whole purpose of the amendment is for people to be able to see what is being repealed in the schedule. I ask Opposition Members to please read the amendment and wait until the schedule arrives. On what we want to do and reform, the £1 billion savings have been calculated not just by the Department for Business and Trade, but by multiple external organisations that have raised with the Department how the working time regulations could be improved. Those are the benefits we can get from Brexit to make things better, and we will continue to do so.

Elections Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 22 restricts all third party campaigner spending during a regulated period to entities eligible to register with the Electoral Commission, as listed in section 88 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and to overseas unincorporated associations with the requisite UK connection.

Currently, foreign third party campaigners can legitimately spend on UK elections underneath the recognised third party campaigner registration thresholds, which are £20,000 during a regulated period in England, and £10,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This activity becomes illegal only once the thresholds are passed. It is important that only those with a legitimate and fair interest in UK elections are able to influence the electorate.

Clause 22 will remove the scope for any legal spending by foreign third party campaigners underneath the registration threshold but above a £700 de minimis. The inclusion of such a de minimis provision will balance the desire to prohibit spending by foreign entities without criminalising low level, potentially unintentional breaches below £700, which are unlikely to adversely impact an election.

It is worth noting that only individual overseas electors are permitted to register as third party campaigners with the Electoral Commission. In order to support overseas electors, who are important participants in our democracy, to work together, the clause will permit them to form unincorporated associations to campaign if they spend below the new lower tier registration threshold of £10,000, set out in clause 24. That is in line with the current situation, and it is only right that such electors should be able to spend in UK elections as they can now. Under our proposals, unincorporated associations will meet the “requisite UK connection” requirement to incur spending in UK elections only if they are composed solely of registered overseas electors.

To conclude, these provisions make necessary and proportionate changes to ensure that spending at UK elections is only permitted, above a £700 de minimis, for those with a legitimate interest in UK elections. They help reduce the risk of illegitimate foreign influence in UK elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Third parties capable of giving notification for purposes of Part 6 of PPERA

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 23, page 33, leave out lines 6 to 10.

This amendment would leave out the powers for ministers to remove categories of permitted campaigner while leaving in place their power to add new categories of campaigner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 23 builds directly on the requirements put in place by clause 22. As I have mentioned, the aim of clause 22 is to remove the scope for foreign entities to spend above a £700 de minimis amount during the regulated period running up to an election by restricting all third party campaigner spending at that time to spending by entities that are eligible to register with the Electoral Commission, as in section 88 of PPERA.

However, we are conscious that legitimate categories of third party that are not on the list of categories of campaigners may emerge in future, and clause 22 would significantly restrict their ability to campaign if they could not be added to the list quickly. For that reason, clause 23 makes provision for the amendment of the list of eligible categories of third party campaigners in PPERA. It will allow the Government to add to, remove items from, or otherwise amend the list of categories of third party campaigners as necessary. Any such changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative procedure. These provisions will ensure that we can be responsive to the emergence of new groups, and that eligible categories of third party are not unduly restricted from campaigning and participating in our democracy in future. I therefore urge the Committee to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24

Recognised third parties: changes to existing limits etc

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 24, page 33, line 23, at end insert—

“(5C) Registered charities and Community Interest Companies may act as a recognised third party subject to the lower-tier expenditure limits without the requirement to give the Electoral Commission notification under section 88 of PPERA.”

This amendment would exempt registered charities and Community Interest Companies from the notification and registration requirements of Clause 24, which introduces a new lower tier registration for third party campaigners who spend more than £10,000 on controlled expenditure anywhere in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I do not think so at all. In the previous clause, we made the situation equal for everybody. The Opposition are talking as if there is a secret conspiracy where everybody knows, other than them, when an election is going to be called. We are applying the law equally to everybody. That is right and I am happy to continue making the argument.

[Fleur Anderson]

Will the Minister give way on the point about a conspiracy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

As I have already set out, spending limits are an integral part of the political finance framework. They ensure a level of fairness between parties and campaigners. Controls are already in place on the integrity of spending limits—for example, in the case of targeted spending where a cap is placed on third party spending to promote one political party, and joint campaigning, which applies where third party campaigners work together and must all report costs. It is right that where groups work together on a campaign the spending should be accounted for by anyone involved in it, otherwise groups could unfairly attempt to make use of multiple spending limits. Therefore, we are extending the principle of joint campaigning to cover scenarios where political parties and third party campaigners are actively working together on a campaign. That is very different from targeted spending, where a third party targets a political party with their spending, but they do not actually work together on a campaign. It will simply mean that where a political party and third party campaigner are incurring spending and actively campaigning together, the relevant spending for that joint campaign should be accounted for by all groups involved in the spending. That will help to ensure that campaigners are playing by the rules and make it much easier to know who was involved in such campaigns. Of course, it will not stop groups spending separately outside the joint plan in their capacity as an individually recognised third party or political party. Any regulated spending that is undertaken by an individual group and is not part of a joint campaign will need to be reported only by the group incurring the spend.

Furthermore, to create parity with the current rules on joint campaigning between third party campaigners, the requirement to specifically identify relevant spending and spending returns will also be applied to the existing rules on joint campaigning between more than one third party campaigner. It is absolutely right that the rules on transparency of joint campaigning should be as similar as possible across all types of campaigners, to ensure fairness and support compliance. Therefore, I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Fleur Anderson]

We oppose part 4 in its entirety. The Minister makes it sound very easy. Parties campaign together and write a joint plan. If they have been a part of it, they declare all the expenses. In practice, that involves a huge amount of red tape and burden, and it is absolutely disproportionate to the effect that the Government are trying to achieve with the Bill—transparency, integrity and freeing up our elections so that everyone can take part and we all know what is happening. There should absolutely be transparency, but there should not be an overly bureaucratic system that will actually suppress freedom of speech.

The clause is a deliberate attempt to silence the trade unions in particular, which is what I will focus on. It is all about the Conservatives rigging democracy in their favour, because they know full well that the clause will silence Labour-affiliated trade unions. It is totally out of step with what we see globally. Only four of the 57 member states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe—the UK, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Slovakia—require third parties to register campaigning activity at election time. Clause 25 would change the joint campaign rules so that organisations campaigning jointly with political parties are collectively liable for the total campaign expenditure of all organisations. No matter what small part or supporting role an organisation might play, it has to declare the full total amount, which will take up all of its campaigning allowance. That will include the political party.

The 2021 report “Regulating Election Finance” by the Committee on Standards in Public Life says:

“When considering calls for greater regulation of non-party campaigning it is important to be mindful of the role of non-party campaigning in the broader ecosystem of democracy and pre-election debate. As the Committee made clear when it first concluded that spending limits for non-party campaigners would be necessary, there is nothing wrong with individuals and organisations sending out explicitly political messages in advance of and during election campaign—‘On the contrary, a free society demands that they should be able to do so, indeed that they should be encouraged to do so.’ The right to campaign is also protected by law through the right to freedom of expression. This should act as a check on ensuring that regulation strikes the right balance.”

We contest that the Bill does not strike the right balance. Who can think of a political party that has strong historical links with external organisations working together—maybe around election time, and maybe for workers’ rights across the whole country—and traditionally campaigning together as a movement for change? That’s right: it is the trade unions. I hope that the Minister has talked to the trade unions about the Bill and understood the impact that it will have on trade union activity in all our constituencies, as well as across the country.

Elections Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

We have been talking so far about making the Bill less confusing and more streamlined to enable more people to vote—that being the aim—as well as about ensuring that voting has integrity. It will be very confusing to be on the doorstep telling people to vote, depending on whichever agreement we have at the time with different former colleagues in the EU. It would really simplify voting if the new clause were agreed or could at least be considered as the Bill goes forward. It will be very difficult for people to work out whether they possess these voting rights at the time each election happens. To ensure that more people vote and that it is as easy as possible to do so, voting should be as simple as possible, and allowing all EU nationals to vote is the simplest way.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Our position has always been that after our exit from the EU existing voting and candidacy rights should be maintained where possible. The new clause would extend the parliamentary franchise to EU citizens where no such rights previously existed, as I said during our debate on the previous amendments. Those who are nationals of a member state have never been able to vote in UK parliamentary elections by virtue of their EU citizenship. If an EU citizen becomes a British citizen, they will be eligible for the parliamentary franchise from that point. The right to vote in parliamentary elections and choose the next UK Government is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historical links to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

Absolutely. We just do not know what will happen on the day. We do not want people to lose out on a vote just because emergencies happen. To extend proxy voting will not cost any more. It will not undermine any of the previous clauses; it does not change the fact that voting will be secure—the same security will be there. It all stays the same, but extends it until 5 o’clock on election day, which seems a fair thing to do, and I urge everyone to support the new clause.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government cannot support the new clause as we believe that in order to maintain the integrity of the electoral process, the emergency proxy provision cannot be drawn too widely. We discussed that in passing when considering other clauses. The arguments for emergency proxies still stand. There is already provision for electors to be able to apply for an emergency proxy, as the hon. Member for Putney said, in the event of illness or recent disability or for reasons of occupation, service or employment. These are important provisions that facilitate participation in the electoral process.

In his review into electoral fraud, Lord Pickles considered emergency proxy voting and found that there was concern among electoral administrators that widening the right to an emergency proxy would increase the risk of fraud. We therefore have no plans to increase the availability of emergency proxy voting.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is in a similar vein to the previous new clause. It would require officers to make provision for voter registration up to and including polling day.

Yesterday, the ultra low emission zone was extended—bear with, because this is relevant. Plans for the ULEZ started in 2014; it was announced in 2017, there were lots of consultations across London, and it was introduced in 2019. There were further consultations on extending it, as has happened. More consultations and measures were put in place. It was very controversial. Signs have been going up on our streets since May. Yet still, yesterday, it was a surprise to some people. A lot of constituents got in contact with me, saying, “What is this ULEZ? Why don’t I have a say on what’s happening?”

As we all know, we might flag something, advertise it as much as we like, but some people will be surprised to find that it is election day. They will be surprised to find out that they have to use their ID to vote. They will be surprised to find out that the deadline to get a postal vote or voter ID has passed. These changes will be a surprise to many. There are 9 million people of voting age not on the register. The moves in the Bill to increase the frequency of registering for a postal vote and to change to the voter ID system will not be known about by many people until election day.

As I have said, every single vote counts. I am sure we all agree. However, in every single pilot for this Bill, people were turned away from polling stations and then did not return because they did not know about the different provisions being made. Some elections are won or lost by a single vote, or a handful of votes.

This, therefore, is a high-risk strategy; if same-day voter registration is not allowed, the Bill will stop people from voting. It is an unproven system—there were not many pilot schemes—and at the cost of £120 million, we must get it right. We should be increasing voting, not decreasing it, and having same-day registration will increase voting. The new clause will enable everyone who wants to vote to vote. Not allowing same-day registration will prevent that.

I am sure the Minister will not accept the new clause, despite the earlier signs of change. However, I challenge her to return to amend the Bill, if this is not accepted, with the provisions that she would deem necessary to enable same-day registration, and to match the ID that would be deemed to be strong enough, safe enough and secure enough to maintain the integrity of the Bill, in the Government’s view, but also allow same-day voting.

[Kemi Badenoch]

We cannot agree to the new clause, as it would have a significant logistical impact on the conduct of elections. Allowing registrations on polling day itself would raise issues about how the eligibility of applicants can be verified, and uncertainties as to the register to be used for the election, undermining confidence in the process.

All applications should be subject to the same level of scrutiny and checks; if we allow applications to be made on the day, that would leave electoral registration officers having to confirm a person’s eligibility after the close of poll. As there is a legal requirement that returning officers start the count within four hours of the close of poll, that would have a significant impact on the timing of the declaration of the results for polls. The declaration would need to be delayed, pending confirmation that those voters who registered on polling day were indeed entitled to vote at the poll.

Any same-day registrations would need to be verified by EROs, which could take some days to do. That would no doubt present some issues to the longstanding tradition of counting and declaring election results as soon as possible, which has had benefits for establishing certainty and for having a Government in place as soon as possible. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the awareness of the report to the Committee and directing us toward the potential risks when it comes to overseas permitted donors. Those open the door to a lot of concern, which we have seen in the past and has been reported on in past elections.

What better way is there to have influence than with a UK residency? Someone could be living here as a student, qualify as a resident, then return to their country and many years later be able to register as an overseas voter, thus being able to bankroll and influence our parties. It is unfair and wrong that there is a loophole. People who do not live in the UK and pay tax and are not affected by the rules and decisions of elected politicians can take such a full and active role in financing our political system, giving them more of a say—because of their wealth—than many working people living here all their life, who are very affected by the decisions made.

Many feel that Tory donors, for example, already have more of a say than working people in this country, and the Bill will only continue that fear. As the shadow Minister said previously in Committee,

“My biggest concern about the overseas electors section of this Bill is the fact that it could undermine the integrity of our electoral process.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 21 October 2021; c. 245.]

Let us be clear: the true motivation behind these changes to overseas voting is to create a loophole in donation law that would allow donors unlimited access to our democracy, allowing them to bankroll Tory campaigns, for example, from their offshore tax havens. If that is the case, then vote against the amendment, cut the link between overseas voters and permitted donors, and only allow overseas voters to vote. It is as simple as that. If that is not the true motivation, let us close the loophole and cut the link by voting for new clause 14.

[Kemi Badenoch]

As the hon. Member mentioned, we discussed this issue when considering clauses on overseas electors. I did agree with Opposition Members that we should look at ways to ensure that we do not inadvertently create new loopholes while trying to secure the voting system or inadvertently extend the franchise beyond the Bill’s intention.

Having said that, what the hon. Lady refers to as a loophole is not. It is a long-standing principle—one originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998—that permissible donors are those on the UK electoral register. If someone can vote for a party, they should be able to donate to it.

UK electoral law already sets out a stringent regime of spending and donation controls, to ensure that only those with a legitimate interest in UK election can donate or campaign. That includes British citizens who are registered as overseas electors. I have explained that I am very open to discussing what we can do to secure the system but, for the reasons I have outlined, the Government do not support the new clause. I hope the hon. Member for Putney understands that and will withdraw the new clause.

Elections Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Committee stage
Thursday 21st October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid that the amendment would have what I suspect is an unintended consequence, so we cannot accept it. In short, it prevents many overseas electors from casting their ballots, for this reason: the registration deadline for overseas electors is 12 working days before the poll. The amendment does not change that, but it makes the deadline for applying for an absent vote earlier than the registration deadline. The effect is that someone who registers by the registration deadline would not be able to vote because they would not have made their absent vote application, and the only way they could fix that would be to travel back to the UK for polling day. The proposed changes to move other absent vote deadlines further from polling day would make it more difficult for some overseas electors to update or alter their absent voting arrangements ahead of the election. Because our intention is to facilitate greater participation in our democracy among British citizens living overseas, we cannot accept the amendment.

[Fleur Anderson]

May I ask a question about potentially putting some aspects of this into secondary legislation? In other countries, overseas electors are able to avail themselves of the opportunity of going to their embassy—or our equivalent, the high commission—in order to post their ballot paper. That might help with some of the short timings, and also with the burden that we are putting on our EROs in local councils here. Have there been any discussions with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the use of embassies within this process to enable our overseas voters to vote?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have not had a formal conversation with the FCDO, but I have had conversations with officials about what else we could do on the specific point that the hon. Lady has raised. The issue is that not everybody lives near an embassy, so that does not necessarily solve the problem that she has described, but we have tried to solve the problem of registration and making things easier for electoral registration officers in another way. The Bill enables overseas electors to remain registered for longer with an absent vote arrangement in place ahead of the election, so that is a burden that is being taken off the EROs. At the moment, the registration period for overseas electors is one year, so that is what those EROs have to deal with. We will extend that to three years in the Bill. Then, in addition, electors will be able to reapply or refresh their postal absent vote arrangements, as appropriate, at the same time as renewing their registrations. I think those changes will have the effect that Opposition Members want, by reducing the workload on electoral administrators during the busy election period.

Elections Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kemi Badenoch]

Although the Government share the aim of elections being accessible to all voters, we cannot agree to the amendment because it is needlessly prescriptive. I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, which were not bad ones. I understand what he is saying, but we disagree on what the clause is trying to do.

I emphasise firmly that the principle underpinning the change is to make elections more accessible to a wider range of disabled voters. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s agreement with the provision to include, for the first time in law, a requirement for returning officers to consider the needs of voters with a wide range of disabilities when providing equipment for polling stations. However, I do not agree with the proposal to keep a piece of specific, prescribed equipment for one subset of disabled voters.

Our experience with prescribing assistive equipment in law is that it can become an obstacle to wider inclusion and innovation more generally. A prescriptive approach in legislation makes changes difficult when better solutions are developed, and it also becomes an impediment to their development. We believe it is better to allow returning officers that flexibility to tailor the equipment they provide to suit the needs of voters in their area.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Has the Minister been able to meet the RNIB? I have met its representatives and heard their concerns, and we have all seen their written evidence. They discussed their concern about the word “reasonable”, as it will not widen access to means of voting but reduce it because there will be inconsistency: what is deemed reasonable will be different at different polling stations, instead of being consistent for all people. That may mean that instead of access being widened there will actually be nothing.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have not personally been able to meet the RNIB, but I believe that officials and possibly my predecessor did—[Interruption.] My officials are confirming that that is the case. We have seen its evidence and we believe that these changes are proportionate. We do not expect the outcomes that the RNIB has outlined to necessarily be the case.

I am a patron of a sight organisation in my constituency called Support 4 Sight, and I have discussed the issue with its representatives. They raised this legislation with me during a surgery and I was able to reassure them. I will be happy to write to the RNIB, as the Bill progresses and as we consider the secondary legislation, to see what other reassurances we can provide for it.

Sorry, I have lost my place in my notes—bear with me just a moment.

Elections Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are many circumstances in which someone might just not have that photographic ID to hand. My children go off, use their photographic ID in a nightclub and do not return with it. There are so many reasons why it might be hard to find that photographic ID. If people find it hard to locate their polling card on the day—I accept that sometimes they do—they will find it even harder to find their photographic ID.

This amendment is so important. The polling card would give people huge reassurance that they will be able to go down and vote. If the amendment is not agreed to, that will be taken away. The amendment is logical and supported by plenty of evidence from the pilot schemes themselves. I urge the Minister to support it.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

If I may, Sir Edward, I want to take time to acknowledge the tragic loss of Sir David Amess. He was a fellow Essex MP to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point. He was a truly beloved friend and colleague who served both Parliament and Southend West for nearly four decades with dedication and care.

It is particularly poignant that we should be debating the Elections Bill at this point. The act of violence that occurred on Friday was abhorrent. Violence and intimidation cannot be tolerated in any circumstance and must have no place in our public life. No one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy or to represent their community, and tackling intimidation in public life is a top priority for the Government. There are measures in the Bill that seek to introduce a new electoral sanction against anyone found guilty of intimidating a candidate or elected representative, but this is a problem that no one measure alone will address. That sanction is just one part of a much wider effort by the Government to tackle intimidation and violence in public life.

Amendment 54 would allow a voter to use their poll card as a form of identification under the new system being introduced by the Bill. The amendment effectively defeats the purpose of the Bill. We cannot agree to it because the requirement to provide a form of photographic identification is the best way to secure the electoral system against fraud and to stamp out the potential for it to take place at polling stations in elections.

My hon. Friends have made the argument already, but I should also say that when evaluating the security strengths and weaknesses of each pilot model the Electoral Commission found that

“the photo identification only model has the greatest security strengths compared with the other models”.

A poll card can easily be intercepted, particularly for those living in shared accommodation, and so cannot be used as a form of identification. It is simply not secure enough. That is why we are requiring voters to provide photographic identification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move amendment 62, in schedule 1, page 82, line 4, at end insert—

“Reports on voter identification and turnout

35A The Secretary of State must prepare and publish reports on the effect of the voter identification requirements in this Schedule on turnout—

(a) across the electorate,

(b) in minority groups,

(c) among disabled people,

(d) among young people.

35B The Secretary of State must publish a report under paragraph (35B)—

(a) no later than 31 July each year, and

(b) in the 90 days following a general election.”

This is a highly reasonable amendment, which I hope will be supported. I also hope that all hon. Members would want to see the effects and outcomes of what the Bill does. The Secretary of State would be required to prepare and publish reports in a timely fashion on the effect of voter identification requirements in the schedule—in particular those where civil society groups have raised a large amount of concern—so that we can learn the effect of the measures in real time. The amendment would not undermine the fundamentals of the Bill; it just says, “We should report on it and learn from it in a timely fashion.” I hope that it will be accepted.

[Kemi Badenoch]

We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already outlines that there must be three evaluations of the effect of a requirement to show identification on voting, and those will consider the effect of the new policy on electors’ applications for a ballot paper. Committing to further evaluations annually and in perpetuity would be disproportionate and an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money.

The Government will consider how best to gather information relating to the impact of the policy on all parts of the electorate. Although some data will be collected at polling stations under new rule 40B, and used for evaluations, it is important to note that it would be inappropriate to collect information on protected characteristics at the polling station directly. Electors would not expect to have to answer questions about their race, sexual orientation or gender identity before receiving their ballot and might not feel comfortable doing so. We will consider how best to gather that information without such intrusion.

[Patrick Grady]

This is a very reasonable request from the Opposition. One of the most robust evidence sessions we had was when we discussed the impact of the Bill on minority groups and people with protected characteristics. I would have thought it would be in the Government’s interests to try to gather evidence to show the minimal impact—or indeed the positive impact—they expect the Bill and the requirement to show voter identification at the polls will have on those groups.

The Labour party makes a perfectly reasonable request. As the Minister said, there is already a certain amount of evaluation built into the Bill; an additional round of evaluation is not going to cause too much difficulty. No one is suggesting that people should be quizzed before the ballot box. There are perfectly acceptable and valid ways to conduct research, at academic or Government level, without having to put people under pressure at the moment they are carrying out their votes. We have seen some of that research already, as some of it was commissioned to help inform the Bill. The Opposition are entitled to make the points they have and can expect our support if they push the matter to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Clause 2 is essential to strengthen and improve the current security of the postal ballot. The clause, and associated schedule 2, will require postal voters in Great Britain to make a fresh postal vote application after a maximum of three years of being registered as a postal voter if they want to continue to vote by post at future elections. That is one of a number of measures in the Bill that implement recommendations in the 2016 Pickles report into electoral fraud, and it is needed to address documented weaknesses in the current absent voting arrangements.

The Electoral Commission’s winter tracker for 2021 found that one in five people considers postal voting to be unsafe, and the witnesses who gave evidence to this Committee also highlighted that absent voting can be particularly subject to fraud and abuse. Currently, an elector may have a postal vote on an indefinite basis as long as they provide a signature sample every five years. Requiring an elector to reapply for a postal vote at least every three years will enable the electoral registration officer regularly to assess their application and confirm that they are still an eligible elector. The measure will also ensure that electors’ details are kept up to date and reduce the waste and cost of postal votes being sent to out-of-date addresses, where they may also be vulnerable to fraudulent abuse.

By requiring each postal voter’s signature to be refreshed more frequently, we will also reduce the likelihood of a postal vote being rejected because of the elector’s handwriting changing over time. Further, asking that electors confirm their preferred arrangements at least once during the life of a Parliament provides an opportunity for someone who may have been initially convinced or coerced into having a postal vote to break out of that situation and protect their vote from being stolen.

Existing long-term postal voters will benefit from the transitional provisions in the Bill that allow them to maintain their preferred voting arrangement, and they will have advance notice of the change so that they can prepare ahead of the deadline. Electoral registration officers will be required to send a reminder to existing postal voters in advance of the date that they will cease to have a postal vote and to provide information on how to reapply.

Schedule 2 also provides for postal vote registrations for the maximum period to cease on 31 January in the year in question, which will give electors time to apply for a fresh postal vote ahead of scheduled elections in May that year if they wish to vote by post. For overseas electors, we are aligning the maximum period for which they may hold a postal vote with their registration cycle, and have extended that period so that it may also not exceed three years.

Those safeguards will not only protect against the abuse of postal voting but also, I hope, raise the level of confidence in absent voting so that no one has to feel concerned that their vote could be stolen or abused.

[Fleur Anderson]

We will vote to remove the requirement for the reapplication for postal voting every three years and return to the status quo of postal votes lasting an indefinite period, because we believe that the requirement is disproportionate, costly and confusing. We strongly oppose moves to force those using a postal vote to reapply.

Clause 2 is another Government provision that has left me scratching my head and very concerned. These pointless changes will make the process of voting more complex and bureaucratic, forcing lifetime postal voters to reapply every three years. The Minister may think that mandating re-registration every three years is making our electoral system more secure from postal vote fraud, but that is mistaken and based on flawed assumptions about where postal vote fraud is happening. It is at variance from what we heard in evidence.

In evidence, we heard about the highly concerning case of postal vote fraud in the 2004 local elections in Birmingham. However, the main concerns raised by the commissioner included the deadline for postal voting packs being close to the election—six working days before—and the lack of checks on whether applications were made by the named voter, which made it difficult to detect fraud. Clause 2 does not address that.

Following that case, the Electoral Commission made a number of recommendations, including using personal identifiers for postal votes, moving the deadline for applications from six to 11 working days before polling day and making falsely applying for a postal vote an offence. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 was passed by the Labour Government in response to criticisms and has addressed a number of those concerns already, including a system of personal identifiers for postal ballots. What is the evidence that clause 2 will address the postal fraud that has been identified in the cases about which we have heard? The measure is not based on good evidence.

The second thing we are deeply concerned about is that the changes will reduce flexibility for voters and risk imposing yet another barrier to voting, which damages our democracy. Ministers should direct their energy towards changes that make voting easier, not putting up barriers. The change will suppress voting and erase the positive improvement in postal voting seen during the pandemic. It is unnecessarily bureaucratic.

We have seen a gradual rise in the use of postal voting over recent years, as an easy and flexible alternative for those who prefer not to visit the polls in person, even more so during the pandemic. In 2001, 1.8 million postal votes were issued; in 2012, 6.3 million; and at the last general election in 2019, 7.3 million postal votes were issued. As has been mentioned, in his review, Lord Pickles concluded that

“the availability of postal voting encourages many legitimate electors to use their vote effectively”.

But forcing people to keep reregistering so frequently—too frequently—could risk disenfranchising people who are not aware until it is too late that the rules are changing and that they need to reapply for their postal vote, when they have only had to do it once before. Changing the rules is confusing.

We oppose moves to change the law to limit who can hand in postal votes at polling stations. That change could create barriers for some voters who genuinely need assistance. My other concern is the sheer cost; as we mentioned, the Cabinet Office’s own impact assessment published with the Bill estimates the cost of the new requirement for postal voters to register every three years rather than five at between £6 million and £15 million. This will cost millions of pounds, and do we even need it? That estimate is in addition to existing costs and is based just on the cost of sending out the additional letters, let alone the extra administration and advertising costs. Can the Minister explain how she will pay for those additional costs?

There is also a capacity issue for local councils. It will inevitably prove hugely burdensome on local authority election teams, who are already overburdened and under-resourced. The Association of Electoral Administrators agrees with that assessment. It believes that reapplying for a postal vote every three years rather than five will bring an “additional burden to Electoral Registration Officers, creating more regular peaks of demand.”

There is the confusion between different election systems in the devolved nations Currently, neither Scotland nor Wales has diverged from existing legislation on postal voting. Postal votes on demand are available indefinitely, as they currently are in England, and signature refreshes are also required every five years. If the current measures in the Bill are approved, a complex, messy system of divergent requirements for different sets of elections will be created. I cannot imagine having to explain that multiple times on the doorstep, and for councils to have to explain that: one local election will be like this, but a general election will be like that. It will be very confusing.

Confusion stops people voting and gets in the way of our democracy. For instance, someone who has chosen to vote by post permanently in Scotland and Wales will be required to reapply every three years for their postal votes for the UK parliamentary elections, and will also separately be required to refresh their signature for postal votes in devolved elections every five years. It will create a huge administrative and bureaucratic nightmare that will be highly confusing for voters, who do not look in as much detail as we do at postal votes and when to sign for them and apply for them. I have yet to hear the Minister’s solution to that, and I hope to hear it now.

The clauses are pointless and arbitrary; they will not achieve what the Government is setting out to achieve. As usual in the Bill, they are disproportionate. There is very little evidence that they are necessary. They will hit the already disenfranchised the hardest. They will cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, pile the pressure on our already overstretched electoral staff and conflict with the frontline service delivery of our local councils. I urge colleagues not to let the clauses stand.

Elections Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

I was as surprised as the witnesses from Peterborough and Birmingham councils when the chief electoral officer from Northern Ireland said that she needed 70 additional staff during the election period. Up until then, the evidence from Birmingham and Peterborough was that we would need a handful of additional staff through the year to give out ID cards, and then a surge, but to hear that 70 additional staff were needed in Northern Ireland was, I think, illuminating and concerning for some of the council staff who were giving evidence. It is a good point, well made.

Will the Government resource our local councils to deliver this policy? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no cuts to frontline services because of the need to transfer resourcing to the production and delivery of ID cards? All year round, young people especially will be getting this card. At the moment, they have to buy a provisional licence to be able to go to a nightclub, so they will definitely want this card. It is a free resource all year round, so there will be demand for it all year round, but in the run-up to an election there will obviously be an additional surge. Will that fall on the local councils? Can it be guaranteed that Government funding will cover that? Local authorities and electoral registration officers will potentially be burdened with the additional time and money required to enfranchise 35 million overseas voters, at the same time as creating a whole new requirement for processing free voter ID cards for domestic voters, and that is on top of the Boundary Commission changes and all the other burdens being put on our electoral registration officers.

On top of that, the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, by its very nature, creates uncertainty around the timing of general elections, as the Prime Minister will be able to choose the date. The extremely short timetable in the lead-up to elections, as well as plans to shorten that window, has the potential to completely bury the administrative system behind elections, which will potentially result in those very precious electoral ID cards not being given out and people not being able to vote.

Local election authorities are already discovering that there is an increasing burden, and all the returning officers in the May 2019 voter ID pilots had to recruit extra staff, so it is not controversial to say that others will have to do so. It is not always straightforward. Mr Connelly from Birmingham City Council told us in evidence last week:

“As it is, we struggle to recruit and retain staff, who come to the polling station literally for one day a year.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 61, Q96.]

Recruiting and retaining staff all year round will be a challenge. All those staff will need to be trained, and that requires more time and money.

This Bill needs to guarantee two things. First, it needs to guarantee that the responsibility for delivering the voter ID programme falls on a central body that ensures consistency across the country. The amendment would make it the Electoral Commission. The responsibility should not be squarely on the shoulders of local returning officers and electoral registration officers, who are already stretched to their limit.

Secondly, the Bill needs to guarantee that local electoral authorities are properly resourced and given what they feel they need to carry out their new duties and responsibilities. During the evidence session I was concerned to hear that local authorities had not already been asked for their estimates of what that would cost. The Government cannot yet know what it will cost to fund that adequately because local authorities have not been asked. If they are not properly funded and staffed, they will collapse under the weight of the new electoral regime; it will not work.

In her response, I would like the Minister to assure not just me but returning officers and registration officers up and down the country that she understands the concerns and limited capacity of local election registration teams. I would like her to guarantee that they will be given all the resources that they will need, and to emphasise that no frontline services will be cut.

I should also be grateful if the Minister would shed some light on the following questions. Will there be a national IT system for producing the ID cards? What will be the role of the Electoral Commission in supporting local authorities as they gear up to deliver this? How much will one elector ID cost the taxpayer? We heard that, in Northern Ireland, costs differed when production was outsourced and when it was insourced, but what is the estimate for the rest of the UK?

Has the Minister consulted local authorities? I know that she has not been in her place for very long, but have there been consultations with local authorities about how elector IDs will be administered and physically printed? Will local authorities need special printing facilities, for example, or will a normal colour printer be sufficient? Such things will make a big difference to local authorities. Will voters have their photos taken at the local authority when applying for the card? How will that work? Will women wearing face coverings be forced to take them off, and has that been built into how the system will be administered?

The evidence that we have heard so far demonstrates convincingly that a centralised approach to administering voter ID is cheaper, is more consistent and efficient, ensures that local authorities will not be pushed over the edge but can deliver the system, and ensures that every single person who can vote is able to vote. I hope that the Minister will take amendment 24 seriously and commit at least to embedding these principles in the Bill and the guidelines that follow.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will respond to the hon. Lady’s points first before coming to the substantive reason that the Government cannot support amendment 24.

The hon. Lady asked how we will ensure consistency in provision between local authorities, and my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington and for Peterborough made very good points on that. The broader point is that local authorities have to administer very complicated elections anyway. The hon. Lady knows that in London elections there are multiple things happening at the same time, and London can cope. Local authorities do not need to worry about the support that they will get to deliver this. In me they have a Local Government Minister who will be very much on top of these issues.

The hon. Lady asked a lot of technical questions—about how the cards would be printed and so on. I am afraid that I cannot answer those today, but those are things that we shall be working towards. The hon. Lady asked whether ID cards would be transferrable from one local authority to another. They will be.

Interestingly, the hon. Lady acknowledged that there might be a surge in demand for the ID cards because of young people wanting to use them to go to the pub, but it is important to clarify that they are not a form of free identification. They are for electors who do not have existing photo identification, and they will not include date of birth.

Amendment 24 would mean that the responsibility for producing and administering the voter card and the anonymous elector’s document would rest with the Electoral Commission rather than with electoral registration officers, as the draft Bill provides. We cannot support the amendment, because the Electoral Commission is an advisory and regulatory body; it is not an administrative one. It does not have the experience or capacity to carry out that function. To take that away from local government, which has been doing that for centuries, and pass it to the Electoral Commission would be completely wrong. Such an approach would represent a significant shift in the way we deliver elections. How can the commission guide and oversee a process that it participates in the delivery of? The Electoral Commission will play a key role in communicating the change to voters ahead of polling day, and must be able to focus on fulfilling those existing duties. I am not in a position to make those changes to the implementation of the policy. As I said, I have every faith in local government to develop and deliver local services that meet the needs of their communities, so we will not support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

Thank you very much, Sir Edward, and I thank the hon. Member for Darlington for his memorable intervention—I certainly remembered it—on whether we should match 10-year passports, and whether that would be easier for people to remember. That might be part of the Government’s thinking. I would like to know what their thinking is. Can the Minister confirm how long the free elector ID card will be valid for? Are there plans for that? Does she agree that a free elector ID must last more than one parliamentary cycle or risk disenfranchising people by asking them to reapply between elections, or even at every single election? Finally, what is her policy on ID card renewal?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Amendments 32 and 41 would mean that voter cards and anonymous elector documents would be required to be valid for a period of 15 years from the date of issue, and I am afraid we cannot agree to that. Primarily it is important that the documents are renewed on a regular basis to ensure that they remain a good likeness of the holder, as the Bill states. I note, however, as other Members have mentioned in interventions, that driving licences and passports are typically renewed every 10 years. The hon. Member for Putney makes a good point, but we are considering the most appropriate time before expiry. We will bring forward our proposals in secondary legislation, which will then need to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative procedure.

Hon. Members have been judicious in trying to open up the list of specified forms of identification to include insecure methods, but they are limiting the flexibility of the method upon which those without access to a form of accepted identification could rely. For example, the amendments would prevent any consideration of an electoral returning officer issuing any kind of temporary voter ID card or anonymous elector documents, should that be appropriate. As such, that would work against being able to provide mechanisms to support people who need a short-term solution to showing identification, which I know the Opposition are particularly concerned about.

The hon. Lady raised inclusivity. We will of course ensure that the process is inclusive. The Government take those issues very seriously—I see that as the Minister for Equalities. We are doing a lot of work in terms of ID documents and gender recognition certificates to support trans people. As we have made changes throughout the last 12 months or so, we are seeing applications increase. Often all the things that we say will stop applications and participation are measures that improve and increase it.

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I did not have enough time to write down her last question and so have forgotten it. I hope that I have been able to address some of the issues that she raised. However, in order to maximise the options that we can consider as we take forward our implementation plans, the Government cannot support this amendment; it is just too restrictive for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

When secondary legislation is developed, which will probably cover this matter, perhaps we can see what the evidence base is. We can then look at different potential contracts and what the costs would be, and the hon. Member is correct that that should inform our decision.

Most recently, there was real concern about sharing our NHS data and GP surgery data with a private company. That had to be scrapped during the summer, because there was so much concern about sharing that data. I think we should learn from that experience as well. With voting, people are even more concerned about where their data goes, who will be producing the voter ID card and what will be done in that area, so we have to be even more concerned to ensure that the Government are in control of the matter. That is the way to keep our integrity.

I shall finish my remarks by asking the Minister some questions. Does her Department plan to outsource the administration and production of voter ID to private companies? Have there been some pre-contracting conversations already? If she does not know, will she commit to following best practice in Northern Ireland and ensuring that this essential service is kept in-house, or at least to making that the default position in future negotiations?

I hope that the Government will support the amendment, which is not controversial. It is in line with best electoral reform practice in our kingdoms, as shown in Northern Ireland, and most importantly it is the right thing to do for our democracy.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The amendment would ensure that private companies could not take any part in any aspect of producing or administrating voter cards and anonymous elector’s documents. We cannot agree to the amendment. It is an entirely unnecessary restriction, clearly raised for ideological reasons, with no consideration for the practicalities. I remind Opposition Members that the private sector already plays numerous roles in elections—it prints documents, ballot papers and poll cards; it manufactures equipment such as ballot boxes and polling booths; and it delivers poll cards and postal votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling made the point well; we on the Conservative Benches can spot socialism coming from a mile away, and this is nationalisation through the back door.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely agree. That is what the wording of the amendment would mean. It would ensure that private companies cannot take part in any aspect of producing or administering voter cards, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point.

It is also possible that the private sector will have expertise or capabilities, or could offer innovative solutions, that do not currently exist in the public sector but would be of great benefit to the elector. The private sector has long held an important role in supporting the effective delivery of elections. I have mentioned some examples showing that it is already a valuable and capable partner for electoral registration officers and returning officers, and there is no good reason why it should be prevented from contributing in this instance.

[Fleur Anderson]

I would say that the whole Bill is ideological, so it is ridiculous just to take one part of it. It is ideological from start to finish, and especially in these provisions on voter ID. We must get this right from the start. We cannot go to an outsourced private company, get it botched, cause people not to trust it, and then insource it. Why not learn from Northern Ireland and get it right from the start? I am disappointed by the Minister’s lack of reflection on the Northern Irish experience. I still hope that this will be insourced from start to finish when it comes into play, and that the £120 million estimated cost will not go to line the pockets of individuals but stay within the system, where it should be. For all those reasons, we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Public Health England Review: Covid-19 Disparities

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Kemi Badenoch

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is a very good point, and I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Engaging employers as well as employees will be essential. Professor Kevin Fenton of PHE has already undertaken extensive stakeholder engagement on this issue, and I intend to assist him in continuing that excellent work. I also intend to ensure that this approach continues to cover other factors such as age, sex, geography and deprivation.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

The Spanish flu epidemic led to huge, widescale social reform, and this report points to the need to do the same. Almost three quarters of health and social care staff who have died as a result of covid-19 are from black and ethnic minorities. Why does the review fail to mention the occupational discrimination faced by BME healthcare staff, which has been highlighted by the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing and needs urgent attention?