UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I am really honoured that she is here today, because her voice is so important. When I was elected to the House last year, I was really proud to be here as part of a diverse Parliament. That diversity is welcomed across the House and is reflected on these Benches. That is good, but I have to be honest and say that we have heard from many parliamentarians—not just here, but across the UK—that if they had known what being an elected representative would bring to their life, they would not have stepped forward. But that is exactly what we need, because the social media companies want those voices to be silenced.

This is not just about our agreeing with the political views we like—absolutely not. I will defend to the hilt the right of people to express views that I absolutely do not agree with, because they need to be heard too. The hon. Member made a really important point, and I thank her for it.

The Northern Ireland Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election laid bare that over half of candidates reported harassment, intimidation or abuse; one in ten faced severe abuse; and women were disproportionately targeted, as were minorities, often by anonymous accounts—the point just made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The consequences were immediate: nearly 40% of candidates avoided solo campaigning and almost 20% avoided social media altogether. This is a system in which intimidation silences voices before they can even be heard. I have heard the same warnings from colleagues across this House, and the chilling effect is real.

It is much bigger than this too. Let us be clear: our democracy is under threat, and the battlefield is not just in Parliament or the ballot box, but online, where rogue states and billionaire tech moguls are manipulating public opinion for their own ends. The recent Romanian presidential election should have been a routine democratic process. Instead, it became a cautionary tale. A pro-Russian candidate who did not debate, did not campaign and supposedly spent nothing suddenly surged to the top of the first round, and the election was then annulled. That was digital interference in action—a warning for every European democracy, including our own.

If Members think that is just happening in Romania, they should think again. Here in the UK, over half of the public said they saw misleading information about party policies and candidates during the last general election. Nearly a quarter of voters say they have encountered election-related deepfakes, while 18% were not even sure if they had. The scale of the problem is staggering. Democracy does not function when voters cannot trust what they see or hear, yet the people in control of these digital platforms are not just bystanders, but active participants.

How is it that Elon Musk, now sitting in Trump’s Administration, owns one of the world’s biggest digital platforms, which has spiralled into a far-right cesspit? Remember when we thought silicon valley’s tech bros were going to make society better—more open and more progressive? Those days are long gone. Now they have tasted power and they are in the White House, endorsing the AfD—Alternative für Deutschland—in Germany, while their algorithms push misogynists and conspiracy theorists to the top of feeds.

This is not a glitch in the system; this is the system. It is a system that rewards the loudest, most divisive voices while drowning out facts and reasoned debate. If we care about democracy here in the UK, we need to stop treating social media giants as neutral platforms, and call them what they are: political actors. If we do not hold them to account, we are not just allowing misinformation to spread, but handing them the keys to our elections on a silver platter.

For online abusers, anonymity is not protection; it is a weapon, and overwhelmingly it is used against women and minorities. For centuries, democratic debate was based on people knowing who they were engaging with. Anonymity once existed to protect the speaker from harm. Now it enables the speaker to inflict harm with impunity. This is not about free speech; it is part of a political strategy; a co-ordinated effort to undermine trust in institutions, silence opposition and create a hostile environment for anyone who dares to challenge the status quo. When those in power let this happen—by dragging their feet on game-changing legislation, by gutting a private Member’s Bill and by potentially scrapping a digital tax, handing more money to the very platforms on which these predators thrive—they are sending a message. It is a message to every woman in public life and every girl in this country that their safety is not the Government’s problem.

What needs to be done? We must deprive these hate figures and predators of the oxygen of publicity. Why is it being tolerated? The Online Safety Act 2023 was outdated before it was even fully implemented. It is too slow and too weak, and the harms it was designed to address have only worsened. Regulators lack the power to challenge big tech, and Ministers are too afraid to stand up to Musk and Trump. Every concession emboldens these extremists, there is no appeasing them, and our children’s lives cannot be collateral damage in a reckless pursuit of growth.

Australia has taken decisive, world-leading action. It has introduced a full ban on social media for under-16s. Meanwhile, the UK’s digital age of consent remains 13. That means children as young as year 8 can legally sign up to platforms awash with violent misogyny, porn, self-harm content and extremist material. What more proof do this Government need? The safer phones Bill could have been a game changer. Instead, it was watered down, gutted and abandoned. Why? It was because this Government prioritised big tech’s profits over our children’s wellbeing. We do not need any more reviews or consultations, but we do need decisive, courageous action. While this Government dither, the average 12 to 15-year-old now spends 35 hours a week—more than a full-time job—on their phone.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a genuinely powerful speech with a really strong argument, and I commend her for it. The Government may be struggling to tackle the digital platforms themselves, but would a useful first step be banning telephones in schools up to the age of 16?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is a huge issue to grapple with, but I think the evidence is clear about what this has caused so far. There is a valid discussion to be had about the use of phones, and school is possibly one of the only places where our children’s devices will be taken off them for a set period, but the issue is what is on the phones when they get them back. For me, that is the point at hand.

To conclude, who would want to be a child growing up in this world today? That question is really distressing and disturbing. It is a world in which radicalisation is just a click away, misinformation spreads like wildfire and people’s reputations are trashed in seconds, and it is one in which those who challenge it are met with a wall of co-ordinated abuse. I know I would not want to be growing up today, with political donations, foreign interference in elections, voter manipulation, online bullying, deepfakes, mental health problems and class disruption—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly, I do not have time to cover it all, but I do know that we have a moral duty to protect young people and future generations, and I truly believe that everybody in this House genuinely believes that and wants to act on it.

This is now a national security issue. A society in which young men are radicalised against women is a society that becomes more violent, fractured and dangerous for us all. We are at a critical juncture. The question before us is clear: do we allow the likes of Andrew Tate, Donald Trump, Elon Musk and others to profit from poisoning the minds of our young people, or do we stand up for our children, our country, our democracy and the very fabric of our society? The Government must act, and act now. So I ask: what is stopping us? If not now, when? The time to act is today, for the sake of our children and, indeed, our very democracy.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member has asked an important question, and I have answered it a number of times. To reiterate, there will be robust security provisions in that regard. That is why China has not welcomed this deal. We will have full UK control with the United States over Diego Garcia. We will have a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, and we will have a robust mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Crucially, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces on the outer islands, either civilian or military.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

What a disgrace this shabby Chagos deal is turning out to be. Labour are not just giving away our national security; they are going to pay billions to Mauritius for the pleasure. Instead of raising taxes on people and businesses in this country, why does the Minister not stand up for Britain and stop this deal?

[Stephen Doughty]

We are standing up for Britain, by defending our security and that of our allies, and we will not scrimp on that. It is critical to secure the operation of this base. It is crucial to our interest and that of our allies. As I have asked many times, if there was no problem, why did the hon. Member’s former Government start negotiating over this?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the important work the BBC World Service does in this area, in particular through its language services. I have in the past met its fantastic staff who do that important work. It is important that people have access to free, accurate and impartial information, including in their own languages. We have been clear about the extent of Russian interference in Georgia for a long time and we are clear about Russian interference across Europe in democracies. That is why we are working so closely with NATO and EU partners on that very issue.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

13. What steps he plans to take to help strengthen relations with the US.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

The United States is an indispensable ally and I am committed to the depth and breadth of the UK-US relationship. The Prime Minister and I met President-elect Trump in September for dinner, which was a good opportunity to get to know each other. We of course continue to work with the current Administration. I was with Tony Blinken just yesterday.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Defence spending is a key aspect of our relationship with the United States. Will the Foreign Secretary be able to tell our American allies the date on which we will increase defence spending to 2.5%? If he cannot, what influence will we have on European allies to increase their defence spending?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of defence spending. It has been raised by US Presidents since Eisenhower. He is right that when Donald Trump came to power there were just four European countries spending above 2%. When Labour left government it was at 2.5%. We are sad that it dropped and we are determined to get it back to 2.5% of GDP.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise these issues. He will be able to scrutinise provisions in that regard in the coming months.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary has come to this House with the smile of a favourite, having exchanged British sovereign territory for a 99-year lease from a Chinese ally, and expects to be applauded for it. He claimed in his statement that we can extend the lease, but can he inform the House whether that right is unilateral and, if so, how many years will that extension be? Why does he think that this piece of paper will prevent Chinese encroachment?

[Mr Lammy]

As I have already said, this is not a Chinese ally; it is one of two countries that have not participated in China’s belt and road in the continent of Africa, for a reason. It is an ally of India, not a Chinese ally, and it is hard to take the hon. Gentleman seriously if he cannot even get his facts right.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It has been a truism across so many of today’s speeches that we have a universal desire for the violence to stop, and for it to stop immediately. The only question that exercises us in this Chamber today is, what is the most effective method to achieve that immediate cessation of violence?

I will do the SNP the courtesy of addressing its motion. This is an SNP debate, and it is that party’s motion that is important. However, as has been referred to multiple times today, the SNP motion makes no reference at all to the Hamas attack on 7 October last year. It makes no reference to the stated intention of Hamas to repeat atrocities again and again, similar to and worse than that which was achieved on 7 October. We know that removing Hamas from Gaza—again, something that the SNP motion makes no reference to—is the only way to stop civilians, Israeli and Palestinian, from being killed. If we address only half of the issue, we will condemn any ceasefire to failure and bring about a renewed cycle of killing time and time again and a repetition of that appalling history of violence.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Jerome Mayhew]

I will not give way, because I have so little time. I am sorry.

The most important thing for people in the region right now is an immediate cessation of violence, which will be achieved through a humanitarian pause. Such a pause would stop the fighting, get the aid in and allow for the hostages to come out. It is not delayed by the wider ceasefire negotiations—those are inevitable, because this is a complex matter—but it makes space for those negotiations to take place. Those negotiations are going to have to deal with the release of all hostages. A one-sided ceasefire is no ceasefire at all, nor is a ceasefire that leaves Hamas in possession of their hostages.

The negotiations will also have to deal with the recreation of a Palestinian Government for both the west bank and Gaza, freeing the people of Gaza from the terror of Hamas: they terrorise not just Israelis, but Palestinians too. Crucially, the negotiations have to lead to a credible and irreversible pathway to a two-state solution. That all takes time, but the fighting needs to stop now, so the Government are absolutely right to call in their amendment for an immediate humanitarian pause to give space for ceasefire negotiations but to stop the killing now.

Sudan Update

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

Ultimately, the processing of visas is a Home Office function. We are working closely with the Home Office, but I am not able to give her those details. The prioritisation that we have broadcast is to discharge our duty to support British nationals and their immediate dependants. I will of course make sure that my Home Office colleagues are aware of the hon. Lady’s question.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The FCDO is rightly focusing on the immediate need to evacuate nationals. For that they have my thanks and, I suspect, the thanks of everyone in the Chamber. When that is completed, however, we will leave behind a nation in conflict. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to galvanise international support, perhaps led by the African Union, to help to end the bloodshed?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That action is happening in parallel with our evacuation options. I have spoken directly to one of the generals and spoken through intermediaries to express my views to the other. I know that our action replicates the actions of our international partners, particularly those in the immediate region who have influence. We must push for peace in Sudan. The country has suffered enough, and we must ensure the conflict we are now seeing does not spill over into nearby countries. In particular, we must ensure that malign actors do not interfere in the events in Sudan in order to turn this into a regional conflict.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

I recently met a cross-party delegation of MPs from Tunisia, who are united in their opposition to the forced closure of the Parliament building with tanks by President Saied, and now his proposed rewriting of the constitution. To date, Tunisia has been the one spark of hope—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is not relevant to this question. I thought that there must be something somewhere, but I cannot spot it. Let us go to the shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy.

Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am really surprised that the hon. Lady would say that. We did an 18-month piece of work on covid disparities and covid’s disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities, and I came to this House multiple times and gave updates and reports, so it is not true to say that the Government did not take that seriously. I am very confident that the findings will be part of the covid inquiry; they were even among the evidence that the commission used, which we built on when we were writing the action plan. If she wants to write to me, I am sure that we can get a report to her to show her its findings.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) stated that the report of the independent commission was received with outrage because it failed to find structural racism. Surely we want Government strategy to be based on evidence, not ideology. Does my hon. Friend agree that a narrative that all minority discrimination is caused by majority discrimination or privilege is by definition divisive, diverts attention away from the real causes of discrimination as found by the independent commission and is incompatible with the goal of a sense of belonging?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I completely agree with that. We cannot have young ethnic minority children growing up being told that everyone in that society is against them. It means that they give up, lose aspiration and decide not to take up opportunities that they should, because the rhetoric is so demoralising.

Russia Sanctions Legislation

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

A number of Members speak with seeming great authority on the tone or the thinking of our allies. I have just returned from Washington, where I have spoken with elected Members and senior officials in the White House, and I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the United States recognises the robust position that the UK is taking through the extension of our sanctions regime and that we will ensure, if Russia pursues an aggressive posture, that there are consequences that are meaningful.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It seems to me that for the first time in my adult life, it is our values—the values of this country and the values of the west—that are being challenged in a meaningful way in Russia and, I am sorry to say, elsewhere in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in that light that we should see what is happening on the borders of Ukraine, and it is also in that light that we should respond in terms of sanctions?

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are incredibly important principles at stake here, and the UK and our international friends and allies are making a statement to Russia in clear and unambiguous terms that we expect it to abide by the commitments that it has previously made to respect the territorial integrity of another sovereign state and to de-escalate and step back from the aggressive posture that it has taken. If it does not, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making clear that there will be repercussions.

Elections Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I confess that I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would ask me that. I have been a Labour party branch secretary, branch chair, constituency secretary, constituency chair, councillor, Member of Parliament and shadow Minister, and I have never once been asked for voter ID at a meeting. That has only ever happened in cases where certain Labour parties were in special measures and it was seen as a proportionate protection. It is proportion that we are talking about.

The hon. Gentleman said in a previous contribution that there is enthusiasm in Swindon for the measure to tackle that one solitary aspect of personation. In fact, if we were to replicate the findings of the pilots he relies on across the country, 184,000 people who wanted to vote would be turned away and would not return. That makes it 184,000 to one; this is racking up faster than Downing Street parties. The Cabinet Office itself says that that approach will exclude 2% of the electorate without the right form of ID, but according to the Electoral Commission the actual figure of those without the right ID will be between 1 million and 3.5 million.

In addition, the people excluded will not be evenly spread and that goes to the heart of the Government’s problems with inclusivity in the Bill. Some 77% of people in the UK hold a full driving licence, whereas the figure for black people is 53% and the one for Asian people is 61%. Similarly, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the poorest are six times more likely than the best-off to miss out under these proposals—the measure is not inclusive.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Bill also includes provisions for totally free and suitable photographic ID for anyone who needs it, so the poor are protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point, which I will address specifically as I continue my speech.

What is different now from 1967 is that, with two nations of the United Kingdom already having this provision in place, new clause 1 does not ask the UK Government to take a step into the unknown. We can see how well it is working in Scotland and Wales, where the change has been both seamless and uncontroversial. Any concerns that we might have had about 16 and 17-year-olds not being interested in politics or being unable to understand the issues have been shown to be without any foundation.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I once met Winnie Ewing when I was at school and she came to talk to a politics class I was attending. However, on the new clause, I rise to ask what is the rationale for choosing the age of 16, when people are not considered to be responsible enough to decide whether to buy cigarettes, rather than some other age—say, 15 or 14?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing private rights and public rights. There are public health issues around the consumption of alcohol and the purchase of cigarettes. These are exactly the same debates as we had in 1967, when there were fears about taking a step into the unknown. What is different now, as I said, is that it is not a step into the unknown. It has been proven to work. Why should young people in England and Northern Ireland have different rights from those in Wales and Scotland?

When we had our referendum in 2014, 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote and 75% of them turned out to vote on the day. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, studies showed that young people had investigated the issues and had multiple sources of information, and many were far better acquainted with the issues than were their parents or grandparents. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), if we look at the age of the people leading the fight against climate change and the demonstrators at COP26, we see that overwhelmingly they were young people making their voices heard above everybody else’s. That tells us all we need to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Over 180 years ago, starting in Blaenau Gwent, thousands of Chartists marched on Newport. From across south Wales, they demanded reforms to elections so that common people could have their voices heard in Parliament. Since then, elections in our country have got more transparent, fair and open, but I am worried about voter suppression, and at stake is the very integrity of our elections.

We all know what is going on in America. Despite the highest election turnout in 120 years, the big lie has been amplified that Trump actually won in 2020. Since then, ordinary Americans are facing higher hurdles to vote in too many states. Raising the bar to lower voter turnout is what the Republican right is up to, and similar tactics here trouble me.

I am particularly concerned about the introduction of voter ID, so I am supporting amendment 1 tonight. Asking for voter ID seems reasonable: someone shows who they are to get a ballot paper. However, it is an old cynical trick: insert an administrative hurdle, dress it up as improving security, watch voter turnout go down—job done, the fix is in. Of course, voter fraud should be stopped, but impersonation is hardly an issue in the UK, and our independent Electoral Commission says the same.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Member makes the point that if we put an administrative hurdle, by which he means photographic ID, in the way of the voters the turnout would go down, but that specifically is not the evidence we have seen from Northern Ireland, where the Labour Government put in the requirement for photo ID, and it has been widely accepted and is a general part of voting there.

[Nick Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for intervening, but those were exceptional times, and I will answer his case in my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), I served on the Bill Committee. It was my first time on a Bill Committee on a major piece of legislation. I do not know how often there is a change in Minister, PPS and Whip during a Bill Committee, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), on getting up to speed on the Bill so quickly and taking us through the Committee.

Bill Committees can sometimes be sleepy affairs, but that one, like this debate, certainly was not. We had vigorous debates on various parts of the Bill, including the measure on voter ID, which I fully support, as it closes a vulnerability in our electoral system. We discussed a number of points surrounding voter ID, including many examples from abroad—countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands. We are now, through this Bill, introducing a form of legislation that will make us more European, in many ways, than we were. It is interesting that the Opposition parties that would have had us remain members of the European Union are so resistant to a system that is more in line with our continental friends than what we have at the moment. It will be a more secure system. I accept that there is a lot of work for Government to do in order to popularise and inform voters of these measures, and also to roll out the electoral ID card that will be introduced, but if the measures are introduced properly, there is no reason why anybody should be left out.

It is said that these are solutions in search of problems, but problems have been identified in places such as Tower Hamlets, Slough, Wycombe and Birmingham, among others, and this Bill will finally address them.

[Jerome Mayhew]

In an earlier speech, reference was made to an electoral judge suggesting that personation was neither here nor there, but does my hon. Friend recall the evidence to the Bill Committee where that electoral judge, in a judgment during the Labour Administration of 2005, said, “If you don’t look for fraud you won’t find it”, and described the Government as “having its head in the sand” on this issue?

[Tom Randall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the key problems is not only not looking for it—it is a matter of training. There is a big problem that needs to be addressed in terms of making sure that the police are aware of electoral law issues and getting them out there to go and investigate. He is completely right that a lot of this goes undetected.

I am pleased to see that the clauses on undue influence remain. I spoke on Second Reading about having to run the gauntlet of people trying to use intimidating behaviour on election day by thrusting leaflets into people’s faces. The central thrust of many of these measures is to protect the security of the ballot. I appreciate that I may be slightly testing the limits of what I am allowed to say on Report, but I have seen today an email from Scotland Yard to somebody I know who has reported an alleged breach of the secret ballot, but advice from the Electoral Commission and the local authority concerned is that the onus is on the individual who cast their vote to claim that secrecy has been breached. I would suggest that that is contrary to section 66 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which says that every returning officer, presiding officer, clerk, candidate, election agent and polling agent

“shall maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of”

the vote. So if this legislation is to be reformed further in the other place, it should not be by removing the parts that we have introduced, but by giving some consideration as to whether the need to maintain a secret ballot is restated in primary legislation.

We have heard the argument for votes at 16, which I will not support. We have raised the age of marriage to 18, we have raised the age at which people have to be in education or training from 16 to 18, and the age at which you can smoke was raised by the Labour Government to 18. We have raised the age at which people can buy a lottery ticket from 16 to 18, I am sure with the Opposition’s support, as well as the age at which people can buy alcohol. Voting is an adult activity; it is something that adults do—if we want to encourage younger people to vote, I see no reason why we cannot introduce votes at 12. I think all the arguments advanced by Opposition Front Benchers could also apply to 12-year-olds.

I support the measures in this Bill. I look forward to its going on to Third Reading and the other place, and to seeing those measures come on to the statute book as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Although I do not wish to repeat in detail the excellent points made by so many colleagues, I want to put on record my unequivocal opposition to the Bill in its current form.

On the issues that this Bill does not cover, last week I tabled new clause 10 that would amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 by removing the current requirement for public notice of the address of election agents, including where candidates are acting as their own election agent. Instead, it would allow for the general area in which the address is situated to be published, and would apply to parliamentary and local elections across the UK. Why is that important? Where a candidate is a lone election agent, the law could very well lead to their home address entering the public sphere.

Politics, by its very nature, can be divisive—look at the anger that this Bill alone has triggered. When we stand for election, we know that that comes with associated risks. Sadly, it becomes essential for us to be hyper-vigilant about our personal safety. Those who are privileged enough to win a seat are afforded some support in that respect, but those who do not win do not get the same support, despite the increased profile that even standing for elections will bring in the local community in many cases.

For me, there is an even more vital consideration. Many of us do not live alone, so we are not taking a solely personal risk. If a successful candidate acted as a lone election agent and were suddenly thrust into a very bright national spotlight, their home address would be out there for anyone to find. Our families do not sign up for the personal safety risk that our jobs bring them—we do. Our husbands and wives, children and, in some cases, parents and siblings, could be at risk, too. That is not acceptable.

I hope that the Minister and the Government see the value in new clause 10 and will consider including it in the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for tabling amendment 2 to strengthen the accessibility requirements for blind and partially sighted voters.

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Ballot Act 1872, which gave citizens the right to vote independently and in secret. It is absolutely essential that any new legislation does not limit that right, even unintentionally.

[Jerome Mayhew]

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that there was too little time for this debate, but those of us who sat on the Bill Committee will not recognise that feeling, because we had days of seemingly interminable debate, much of which has been repeated this evening.

[Patrick Grady]

I am afraid that I completely disagree. I sat on the Bill Committee, which the Government rushed through with two days left. As none of the Back Benchers participated, the entire Committee collapsed. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael): the way the Bill has been rammed through this House is a complete and utter disgrace.

[Jerome Mayhew]

We will have to agree to disagree on that because there was very lively debate in Committee.

I have made a number of interventions, so I will keep my comments short and on only two points. First, on new clause 1 and voter ID, others have spoken movingly—both in evidence to the Bill Committee and this evening—about the impact of voter fraud and the need to take reasonable steps to minimise it. The first step is voter ID, and I fully support what the Government suggest on photographic ID, but for that to be effective, the second step is to have prosecution where evidence is established that a crime has been committed. Much of the evidence that the Committee heard was frustration that the police or the Electoral Commission did not take allegations of fraud sufficiently seriously and bring them before a tribunal.

That brings me to clause 13, which deals with the Electoral Commission’s assumed power to become a prosecution body in its own right. I am very glad that the Government have taken this opportunity to re-establish the status quo, which should be that the police and the CPS are the relevant prosecuting authorities, in part because of the obvious conflict of interest. The Electoral Commission is the body that provides advice and guidance on electoral law. If it then takes off its regulatory hat and puts on its prosecuting hat, it is marking its own homework, which is a clear conflict of interest.

A wider point about the prosecution of crimes in this country, and one that was picked up by the Law Commission recently, is about a move away from what are described as “private prosecutions”, including by the Post Office—we need only mention the Horizon scandal to see why it is clearly wrong for the Post Office to be its own prosecuting authority—and, in my submission, the Care Quality Commission, which I know the Law Commission is looking at. We should move the power of prosecution and responsibility of prosecution away from those private prosecuting bodies and to the CPS and the police.

There is one message that I would like the Minister to take away and think seriously about. It is all fine and well for us to make the laws in this place, but if they are not taken seriously and investigated seriously by the police, leading to prosecutions where the evidence passes the evidential test, we are on a hiding to nothing.

In much of the evidence that came out in the evidence sessions in Committee, and in the experiences of hon. Members on both sides of the House, there was a huge degree of frustration that allegations of electoral fraud were not taken seriously by the police, who seemed embarrassed and unwilling to get into what was seemingly a political area. Instead, the police should realise that the full implementation of our electoral rules is incredibly important and that the defence of our democracy requires them to take those rules seriously.