Israel and Palestine

Debate between Paul Bristow and Cat Smith

Monday 11th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for the work she is doing on the Parliamentarians for Peace vigil that will happen in about 25 minutes. I share her disappointment at the outcome of that vote.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

I appreciate the hon. Member giving way. She talked about her support for a ceasefire. Does she recognise, as I do, that the temporary truce that we have recently seen in Gaza led to about 80 hostages being released, to an end to the bombings, and to hundreds, if not thousands, of lives being saved? We gave peace a chance. Does she agree that the best way to secure a lasting peace settlement and an end to innocent lives being lost in both Gaza and Israel is the push for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I share the feelings that he has just expressed. In fact, he pre-empts the contribution that I was about to make, which is that the temporary ceasefire last week was a brief respite for the 1.8 million people displaced in Gaza, and therefore it was that opportunity for aid provision to come in and for the release of hostages. However, unless there is a permanent ceasefire, we will never find a permanent peace.

There is no doubt that it was incredibly moving to see the videos of families being reunited, and it is impossible to imagine the fear and the worry of the families of those who remain hostages. However, as Israel continues to seek to destroy the terrorists Hamas, the fear and threat of injury and death continue. The temporary ceasefire was merely a brief respite and as the conflict continues, the needs of the displaced and injured people in Gaza are increasing. We need to address that through aid and through diplomacy.

Ballot Secrecy Bill [ Lords ]

Debate between Paul Bristow and Cat Smith

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe.

Before I speak to the clauses of the Bill, I want to acknowledge all the work of my noble friend Lord Hayward, who sponsored the Bill in the other place. He is a man of tremendous knowledge of the subject, and it is a great privilege for me to sponsor the Bill in the House of Commons. I am grateful to noble Lords of all parties in the House of Lords who have worked together on the Bill. I thank Ministers and the Department, who have already been engaged with the Bill and improved it through amendment in the Lords.

The House of Commons has had an opportunity to debate the issues that the Bill seeks to address through my Westminster Hall debate on 14 December 2022, which considered the integrity of the voting process. I am grateful to the Minister, who responded then and who is with us today.

The Bill seeks to address issues of family voting, which is where an individual seeks to influence or guide another person, often a family member, when casting their vote. Democracy Volunteers, an independent organisation approved by the Electoral Commission and funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, has identified, in its observations of elections and its reports, that family voting is an issue of concern across the country. Despite the introduction of the secret ballot in 1872, the Electoral Commission has identified that the practice of family voting was not illegal.

This is not a party political issue. Baroness Hayman of Ullock in the other place said:

“We supported the Bill at Second Reading and continue to do so…We need to make sure that we have…an understanding of exactly what is acceptable when people vote in a polling station.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1158.]

Lord Rennard said:

“Clarity is what we need on these issues if the proper principles behind the Bill are to be enforced. I hope we will proceed very speedily with this Bill becoming law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 2022; Vol. 825, c. 1157.]

Clause 1 sets out the amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983. A person will commit an offence if they are with another person at a polling booth, or near another person at a polling booth, with the intent to influence that person in a particular way of voting or to refrain from voting. Importantly, the clause is drafted to avoid criminalising innocent behaviour. The intent provision ensures that someone who is with another seeking to influence a vote, whether a bystander or an innocent family member, will not be liable to conviction themselves. Particularly importantly, it also means that someone who is assisting a person who is voting, such as a formal companion of someone who is blind or a presiding officer assisting a disabled voter, is not captured by the clause. That will include those accompanied by a child or children standing together alongside a parent.

The Bill does not have an impact on elections in Scotland or Wales. I understand that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is making the devolved Administrations aware of the issues in this area and the intention to update the law.

Clause 2 provides for the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation. Elections are excepted matters and are not within the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. These provisions were introduced in the House of Lords by Government amendment. Clause 3 deals with the extent, commencement and short title. The measures that I have outlined will come into force on a day to be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. That will allow for the necessary training to be undertaken and preparations made.

In conclusion, the Bill will provide the measures needed to ensure that the practice of family voting no longer undermines the secret ballot. Having a clear offence in law will provide the clarity and certainty that our polling station officials and police need to ensure that the practice is stamped out, and should in many cases improve equality in our voting processes. Some 150 years after the introduction of the secret ballot, we will ensure that all people—all individuals—are free to vote as they wish in secret.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on introducing the Bill. I do not think anyone on either side of the House will dispute the importance of the secret ballot or the fact that, in a strong democracy, everyone casts their vote for the candidate or party they wish to vote for without any undue influence. Indeed, the secret ballot was a demand of the Chartists, so it is a long-standing demand. I congratulate the Member for bringing the Bill forward, but I will make a few points, and I hope to catch the Minister’s ear.

The legislation goes some way to allowing people to cast their vote for the candidate for whom they wish to vote without undue influence, but it strikes me that there is perhaps a gaping hole in the legislation in that it does not cover postal votes. I draw the Minister’s attention to the Law Commission report on the reform of electoral law, which clearly sets out the weakness in the system around postal votes. Indeed, the commission’s reports on electoral law over the years have consistently pointed out that UK electoral law is fragmented, that some of it is very old, and that it has not been brought together in one consistent piece of legislation.

That makes electoral law challenging for electoral administrators, and confusing for candidates and political parties. Frankly, I suspect that the general public have no chance of fully understanding the complexities of electoral law. The Law Commission has for a long time called on the Government to rationalise electoral law into one single piece of legislation—I suspect that these days it would have to be four pieces of legislation, because of devolution to the countries of the United Kingdom. That would go some way to assisting those of us who participate in elections to understand, abide by and uphold the law.

I am not planning to take up much of the Committee’s time. To conclude, our democracy is always strengthened by participation and encouraging people to take part in democracy. When I first saw the Bill and heard the conversation around family voting, it struck me that perhaps the Committee could send a positive message and encourage parents of children under the age of 18 to take their children with them to polling stations, to show them what is behind the mysterious door of the polling station and how to cast their votes. Then, when they come of age and are entitled to vote, they would perhaps not be daunted by the mysterious place that is a polling station. If people do not know what is behind that door, it can be intimidating to go and vote for the first time. So perhaps another positive that could come out of the Committee is that united message of encouraging parents to take young children with them, and to lift the shroud of mystery around polling stations.

Elections Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Paul Bristow and Cat Smith

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Bristow]

In response to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Putney, I would argue that this change is perfectly reasonable. If someone is trying to renew something as precious as their postal vote, it is perfectly reasonable to be asked to do that every three years. As it happens, I personally think it should be done every year. Households have to renew who is on the electoral register every year. It is not that much of a leap to apply yearly for something as precious as a postal vote. This is a perfectly reasonable request.

I would like to draw Members’ attention to the evidence we heard from the chief executive of Peterborough City Council. It was argued earlier that some of the restrictions about who could hand in postal votes to a polling station were unreasonable. I would ask, what is reasonable about people walking up to polling stations, indeed to the town hall the night before, with plastic bags full of postal votes?

[Cat Smith]

I thought I might help out the hon. Gentleman, because I think he might be straying into the next schedule to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that he would like to see postal votes renewed every year. Why did he not table an amendment to the Bill on that?

[Paul Bristow]

Because we have to start somewhere. As a start, considering the evidence and arguments we have had, renewing every three years is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask someone to do. We should look at what happens after three years and maybe in the future we can see where we are. It is perfectly reasonable to ask someone to apply for something as precious as a postal vote every three years. We have talked about how important the privilege of voting is. If it is important, it is perfectly reasonable to fill out a form every three years. Evidence from my constituency suggests that we have wards in Peterborough that are twice as high as the national average for registered postal votes. I am not saying that that is done for any particularly nefarious reason, but clearly considerable postal vote harvesting and postal vote recruitment have been seen in Peterborough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Clause 4 is about the handing in of postal vote documents—not necessarily by party political campaigners, but by anyone. It is about setting out requirements for the handing in of postal votes to the returning officer and at polling stations, including setting a limit on the number of postal voters on behalf of whom a person may hand in postal votes, and postal votes being rejected if not handed in in accordance with the requirements.

The new rules could create barriers for some voters who genuinely need assistance. For example, the new rules will limit, perhaps, care home staff being able to hand in, say, a dozen postal votes from residents in the care home. This leaves us in the bizarre situation whereby a care home worker could drop a dozen postal votes into a postbox but not hand them in at a polling station, so I raise that as a potential loophole with the Minister. There is something of an inconsistency. As has just been said by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, perhaps some level of prelegislative scrutiny with a draft Bill could have allowed us to look at ways to deal with such matters. Given that we can find consensus on many issues in relation to elections, we might have been able to iron some of these matters out before we ended up in Committee.

Let me deal with amendment 69. In its current form, the Bill, as I have just set out, contains numerous holes. Our amendment asks the Government to provide draft regulation that would include greater detail about exactly how the new limit would be enforced, and I would like to put a few questions to the Minister. Could she outline whether polling station staff will be asked to enforce the new limit, and if so, how? What level of training does she envisage polling staff will receive in order to be able to, potentially, enforce this legislation?

[Paul Bristow]

I want to repeat the point that I probably made rather presumptuously in my previous remarks. I want to know what the hon. Lady’s thoughts are on the evidence proposed by Gillian Beasley, the chief executive of Peterborough City Council, when she described a practice of people turning up with plastic bags full of postal votes either at polling stations or at the town hall the night before the election. I want to know whether she thinks that a reasonable practice.

[Cat Smith]

That is exactly why prelegislative scrutiny would have been useful. This is about the distinction between political campaigners and voters. There are legitimate reasons why some voters may wish to hand in more than two postal votes at a polling station.

I gave the example of a care home, but equally, in the current context of covid, a family of three may not have posted their postal votes and ask neighbour to deliver them. If two postal votes can be handed in by an individual but three postal votes cannot, and someone turns up with three, how do we know if that third postal vote is an individual postal vote? There are various holes in the legislation. I am putting these questions to the Minister and I hope she will be able to answer them.

For example, with the limit of two postal votes, if someone were to turn up at a polling station with three postal votes to hand in, and they are able to hand in two for other people and one for themselves, how do we know which is which, given that when they are sealed there is no way of identifying whose votes they are? If the person says, “That one is mine. That is my postal vote so I can legitimately hand that in, and these are the two that I can legitimately hand in,” how would a polling clerk know that those were two postal votes that were being handed in on behalf of other people and one that was for that individual, if the envelopes are sealed and there is no way of identifying them? Can the Minister clarify how she envisages a polling clerk can make that assessment?

According to the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill,

“regulations may require a person seeking to hand in a postal voting document to complete a form containing specific information, which the government anticipates would include, among other information, the name(s) of the postal voter(s) whose ballot papers are being handed in. Regulations may make provision to require the “relevant officer” receiving the ballot to reject the document if the person fails to complete the form.”

The Minister will know that, once completed, a postal vote does not have a person’s name on the front of the envelope, for obvious reasons to do with the secrecy of the ballot. How does the Minister see this being enforced or policed? It would be impossible to know if the postal vote being handed in actually belongs to the person recorded on the form.

I leave the Minister with those questions. It would be helpful to have some clarification on these matters, in terms of how the Committee might progress and whether or not to accept this clause as part of the Bill. I draw the distinction between political campaigners, whose actions were the subject of the clause we previously debated and who I believe should be held to rights, and members of the general public, who might be handing in postal votes on behalf of a neighbour or family member, or be a care home worker handing in ballots on behalf of residents of a care home.

Elections Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Paul Bristow and Cat Smith

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I welcome the new Minister, the new Government Whip and the new member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Devizes. They missed out on the pleasure of the four evidence sessions that we enjoyed last week, but obviously those evidence sessions—I will make the point again, Sir Edward—were not sufficient to cover all the clauses due to the instruction motion that was passed on the Floor of the House on Monday evening.

It is incredibly disappointing and bad form on the part of the Government to approach the House with a constitutional Bill that fundamentally changes huge swathes of how we vote and exercise our democratic rights as a society without that level of scrutiny. The instruction motion included a change to the voting system that previously happened only under referenda. I note the alternative vote referendum that we had about a decade ago. If we are to change our voting system in this country, not with referenda and not even with consideration on Second Reading or in Committee evidence sessions, I question the accountability to which hon. Members feel they can hold themselves.

Clause 1 requires voters to show photo ID at elections. I believe that in a democracy it is right that voters choose their leaders, but in the Bill we see a reversal of that: it appears that the leaders are trying to choose the voters who participate in elections. There is no doubt that requiring photo ID at a polling station is an additional barrier to voting. No one can argue—I welcome interventions from Government Members—that putting an additional requirement on a voter before receiving their ballot paper is anything other than likely to drive down turnout. If we wish to strengthen our democracy, as the Opposition wish to, one of the best ways that we can do that is to drive up turnout, because bad actors thrive when turnout is low. I wish the Bill were about encouraging participation in elections and democracy, and driving up turnout, because that would make it harder for bad actors to manipulate and twist our election results.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

In the hon. Lady’s vast experience as a member of the Labour party, has the requirement for voter ID to vote in internal Labour party elections been an additional barrier to participation?

[Cat Smith]

I have been a member of the Labour party since 2004 and I have never been asked to produce photo ID to participate in my local party or national party events, to stand as a Member of Parliament or to be a member of the shadow Cabinet. The hon. Member will remember from the evidence sessions, because he was a member of the Committee then, that an example was given about the parliamentary selection in Tower Hamlets. I imagine that Tower Hamlets will be brought up a fair bit in Committee.

Where there are isolated issues, the Labour party has a process by which it can put constituency parties into what we call special measures. There are additional requirements to take part in our internal democracy where there has been evidence of fraud in the past. That probably backs up my point that the incidents that we have seen are very geographically specific, whereas the legislation covers England, Scotland and Wales. We are penalising huge swathes of the country by putting additional barriers between them and participation in democracy, when at best we have found tiny pockets. Indeed, the Committee heard evidence that personation at polling stations was incredibly isolated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

But this Bill does not solidify all our election law into one single, cohesive piece of legislation that campaigners can use, that gives voters confidence, and that makes it easier for our election judges to use the law and apply it correctly. Election law in this country is so fragmented and confusing. The Law Commission has published reports calling on the Government to come forward with a single piece of legislation to bring all this law together, rationalise it and make it more straightforward and simple. This Bill just adds to the massive catalogue of legislation that we have—different Acts from here, there and everywhere. This Government are doing nothing to make it simpler; they are just adding another layer of complication to it.

[Paul Bristow]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cat Smith]

I have not heard anything that has convinced me that the situation in England today is the same as that in Northern Ireland in the 1980s, but I will give way to the hon. Member.

[Paul Bristow]

Earlier in the hon. Lady’s remarks, she asked for evidence of where election results have been impacted by personation. I urge her to look at Peterborough, my constituency, where council results have absolutely been affected by personation, and I ask her this question. In evidence, we heard from the chief executive of Peterborough City Council, Gillian Beasley, who installed CCTV at polling stations. Why does the hon. Lady feel that the chief executive of Peterborough City Council needed to do that?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for sharing the example of Peterborough. I thought Gillian Beasley gave some really strong evidence to the Committee. The Opposition found the example of the CCTV very interesting, as it is a way in which the current law can be used to combat isolated pockets of personation. Gillian Beasley said,

“I would say that we have seen less personation in polling stations in the recent past. Probably our last prosecution was some years ago, and that is because there are some tight measures not only in polling stations, but around ensuring that we have a good electoral register.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 21, Q23.]

She also talked about the resource implications of implementing voter ID, saying that,

“we will probably see a surge at what is the busiest time for electoral services”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 18, Q19.]

That draws me on to the evidence we received about the clause from the Association of Electoral Administrators. It is an organisation I meet with regularly, because I think it is important that, as legislators, we understand the implications of the laws we make on those who have to administer them. During my time in this Front-Bench role, electoral administrators have consistently told me that elections are often only just delivered securely because of the pressures in local government right now.

Local government has been on the frontline of Tory cuts, and I make no apology for saying that. Our town halls and civic centres are struggling, and elections offices are incredibly understaffed. Speaking for my own electoral administrators in Lancaster and Fleetwood, the staff work incredibly hard. In the run-up to an election, they work seven days a week, and they work incredible hours. I believe that all they do is work and sleep in order to deliver our elections and democracy securely. I pay tribute to all our electoral administrators. They often pull this off under increasing pressure. The snap elections in recent years have meant that they have often been unprepared, particularly in 2019, when the election coincided with the annual canvass. They are under incredible pressure.

Electoral administrators and councils were very clear in their evidence that, if voter ID were to be brought in, they would expect to see a surge in applications for the free voter ID in the run-up to an election, when there is incredible pressure with last-minute registrations and people checking that they are on the electoral register. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, there has been an increase in people double-checking that they are on the electoral register. It would be nice to see something in the Bill that allowed electors to check whether or not they were on the roll, rather than just re-registering in the few weeks before an election, which puts additional pressure on electoral administrators when their pressures are at their greatest.

Peter Stanyon from the Association of Electoral Administrators said in evidence to the Committee that the applications for voter ID will come in

“when the pressures in the electoral offices are at their greatest.”

Because the Bill has absolutely no detail on how the free IDs will be administered, he asked:

“Will it require attendance in person? Virginia mentioned posting out ID—will that be permissible in the remainder of the UK?”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 44, Q59.]

Virginia McVea was the witness who gave evidence from Northern Ireland. The Minister is very welcome to intervene to make the position clear. That would be very helpful. As Peter Stanyon was saying, we do not know any of the detail at this stage.

We are being asked to vote on something with absolutely no detail. We have no idea what resource implications the Bill will have on electoral registration offices. We have no idea whether the free IDs will be posted out or whether people will have to apply in person at civic centres and town halls. We have no idea whether there will be a basic standard of expectation that people will apply for their voter ID in person, but will only be able to go on a Monday, Wednesday or Friday. None of those basic details is on the face of the Bill. We are being asked to legislate on something that we cannot be confident will be accessible to the people we have been elected to represent.

There is a £120 million bill for the taxpayer to bring in this policy, which we heard in the evidence sessions is basically designed to address something that is incredibly rare and very difficult to do. It does not seem like a good use of taxpayers’ money. In the last 10 years, there were four cases of voter personation fraud, and that was out of 243 million votes cast.

Elections Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Bristow and Cat Smith

Committee stage
Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Thank you so much for your time.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Q Maurice, it is nice to talk to you, and thank you for coming to the Committee. I note that you are a Labour councillor in Battersea and a self-confessed Corbynite, and that you previously described the Government as

“Diluting rights, denying racism, delegitimising protest, and diminishing voter turnout.”

You added:

“Anyone who doesn’t see a concerted campaign at work here simply isn’t looking.”

What is that concerted campaign?

Maurice Mcleod: We have had mention of what happened in America with voter suppression, the methods that some parts of the political machine have gone through and the fights to pull back the other way. I think that there is a concerted effort, first, to instil the idea that our voting system is not secure, that there is loads of fraud, that there are loads of people doing something dodgy and that people are cheating. As I have said, I do not really see much evidence of that. Our voting system is pretty trusted and robust. So first, there is this idea of bringing in a measure. When you bring in a measure in Parliament, people think, “Oh, there must be a reason that they’re doing this; it’s because there’s loads of fraud.” It undermines faith and trust in our democracy.

Secondly, as I have said, these measures also put an extra barrier in the way of groups that some parts of the political establishment may think will not turn out for them or are not particularly strong supporters of them. What some people behind this may be thinking is, “If those people do not turn up and vote, is that such a bad deal?” When I said a concerted effort, that is what I mean.