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

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Mott (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment that we are discussing today, particularly in reference to the Armed Forces veteran card. It was disappointing that it was not in place for the general election earlier this year, and I very much support what the Minister had to say today.

I also highlight and welcome the Electoral Commission’s report on the high awareness levels of voter ID when people went to the ballot box this year. There were a lot of concerns in the run-up to the election, but it is good to see that survey report high voter awareness.

The other incredibly welcome thing today, speaking as somebody who spent 32 years at the front line of politics working for a political party, is that these changes are being made well ahead of those elections in May next year. There is nothing more frustrating for a political party or political organisation than to have changes come into force at the last minute. There are implications for all political parties, not just for professionals but for the thousands of volunteers who keep our democracy vibrant in this country. Again, I thank the Government for making sure that we are making this change well in advance.

What else are the Government thinking now about participation, and how do we open up the democratic process to more people? The turnouts in the elections in July were disappointing, to say the least, and we need to make sure that everyone is completely engaged in the political process. Also, do the Government have any thoughts at this stage on further items of identification that may be added to the list?

I appreciate that my final point is a little cheeky. Having been in the Minister’s position, where I often used to say “next year” or “at some point”, could I push him a little further? He said next year; is there any date when the Government may have finished their review and he will be able to come back to us with some of those proposals? It could be quarter 1 or 2—that would be good. If we could have a little more detail around that, it would be incredibly helpful to us. As I sit down, I welcome these changes and thank him for the timely fashion in which the Government have introduced them.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend in welcoming the proposals that the Minister outlined in his opening comments. I have two or three points to raise. The first is that, when this SI was discussed in the Commons, the Minister identified that research was being undertaken by IFF Research on voter ID. Could this Minister clarify the terms identified for this work and why it is necessary, given that the Electoral Commission has in fact already undertaken its report, to which the Minister referred? It does not seem necessary to have two organisations doing the same thing.

In passing, I add my welcome to the Minister’s comments on Zimbabwe. As a former resident of that country, I am conscious that there are some 200,000 people of Zimbabwean nationality in this country; it would be helpful to that community.

I am concerned by a phraseology that the Minister used—that there might be further changes to ID that are not done as a group. If we are to make further changes to requirements for the opportunity to use certain forms of ID at polling stations, they must be introduced en bloc. We do not want a series of changes, one after another, and to have to sit in this Committee to consider them individually. It makes much more sense, whether they are because of the Electoral Commission’s work, IFF Research’s work or a combination, to bring them together as a single block. That reduces the workload on the Minister for a start, let alone for anybody else.

Although this is not quite within the field of the SI, it follows on from my noble friend Lord Mott’s question on the local elections taking place next May. Is the Minister in any position to indicate whether, in fact, those elections will be as those currently scheduled or are there likely to be any changes?

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, accepting the use of the veteran card as ID for voting is a welcome improvement, but to a very poor, expensive and quite unnecessary scheme. When the previous Government introduced the requirements for photo ID at polling stations their impact assessment said that it could cost £180 million over a decade, so I hope that the new Government have other spending priorities and recognise that scrapping or changing this scheme will not endanger the fundamental security of the ballot process.

As many Members on the Government’s side said in the debate in the House of Commons, this can be only the first of many steps in helping to make sure that everyone legally entitled to vote is able to. Issues with voter ID may not affect large numbers of voters, but many elections are determined by small margins. Etched in my own memory is being the election agent for a parliamentary by-election in which just 100 votes, or 0.1% of the vote share, separated my candidate from the successful Conservative candidate—now the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. In the recent general election, seven seats were determined by margins between 15 and 98 votes. Many council elections are also determined by very small margins—sometimes there are even ties—so changes in the election rules really matter.

We are advised by the Electoral Commission that, on 4 July, slightly less than 0.1% of people were turned away from polling stations, never to return, because of the photo ID requirements, but that could have been the margin of victory in several seats. With the lowest turnout in a general election for 23 years, it is probably more significant that 4% of the non-voters said that their decision not to vote was related to the voter ID requirement. That is perhaps 800,000 people or 2% of the electorate.

There is no need today to repeat arguments about the motivation for introducing the photo ID rules and the complete lack of evidence ever presented to justify them. However, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons at the time, made it clear what the intention was. Moving forward, the Electoral Commission has suggested that we would need a much wider review of what may be acceptable if we have any form of voter ID at polling stations—more than we are considering today. It suggests, for example, that the Jobcentre Plus travel discount card and the 18-plus student Oyster photocard should be acceptable in addition to the veteran card.

Let us look back to the commission’s consistent advice of some years ago and to the last Conservative Government’s report, conducted for them by the former chair of the Conservative Party, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. There was no suggestion from either of a photo being required on any form of ID at polling stations. In debates during the passage of the Elections Act 2022, Ministers suggested that the process for obtaining a ballot paper should be akin to that for obtaining a parcel at a post office, but they could never explain to me why the Post Office’s ID requirements —including a bank card or a credit card—could not be acceptable at a polling station.

In the review of these regulations that the Government are now undertaking, will the Minister undertake to look at the costs of the photo ID scheme, admitted by the previous Government to be more than £100 million during those debates? Ideally, he would consider scrapping it while taking steps to ensure that voters know that their vote cannot be stolen. Even Ministers in the previous Government did not seem to know that, if you go to a polling station and someone appears to have already used your name and address to get a ballot paper, you can have a replacement issued. The fact is that hardly ever happens. In the 2019 general election, it happened in just 0.00004% of cases—an average of two cases per constituency. This was mostly down to clerical error and crossing off the wrong name rather than fraud, thereby showing that the expensive scheme is quite unnecessary.

Will the Minister undertake to review in particular the costs and the value of voter authority certificates, which can be issued on request by local authorities as a form of ID? The take-up of these certificates was minimal in the general election, with many people, particularly young people, remaining unaware of them, but the costs and time involved for election officials must have been considerable.

If the Government conclude that there must still be a form of voter ID at polling stations, can the Minister confirm that the review will look at alternatives to the current scheme using the official polling card issued to every voter by electoral registration officers? When I moved an amendment to the then Elections Bill in 2022 proposing just this, I was pleased to have the support of every Labour Peer present for the vote, with none of them voting against. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, who led for the Opposition at the time, said

“we believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said in introducing his amendment, that the Government have simply got it wrong on requiring voter ID to be presented at polling stations”.—[Official Report, 27/4/22; col. 337.]

She and her colleagues then voted for my amendment, calling for the official polling card to be acceptable as ID—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Khan of Burnley. I am pleased to see the latter as the Minister today; I look forward to his response as to whether he and his colleagues, now in government, remain supportive of this cost-saving and effective measure if any form of ID requirement is to be maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

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

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

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

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