Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Fundamentally, this Bill is an attack on democracy that will disenfranchise millions, entrench more powers with the Executive, and remove the power of the Electoral Commission to scrutinise. Like many others, I urge Members not to look at the Bill in isolation but to view it in the wider context of the other legislation going through the House at the moment with respect to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, citizens’ right to peacefully protest, and even the proposed privatisation of Channel 4. That paints a very bleak picture for our democracy.

When the Bill first appeared, in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year, the headline-grabbing proposal was voter ID, whereby photographic evidence would be required before an individual was allowed to cast their vote. However, as we have heard from many others this afternoon, voter fraud at polling stations barely reaches the height of minuscule, and the evidence that we have heard from those on the Government Benches has been based on personal anecdote. We have to ask: what is the problem they are seeking to solve?

Seeing a Government introduce such radical policy changes without a shred of evidence to support those changes sets alarm bells ringing among those of us who believe that every Government should be trying to remove barriers that prevent participation in the democratic process, rather than raising them.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about not taking the Bill in isolation and looking at the cumulative effect. Does he agree that it is definitive of a Government that have lost any confidence in their ability to outrun their outrageous false claims, their untruths and their broken promises that they have to bring this measure in to try to gerrymander the system?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I could not agree more, and I will elaborate on that as I go through my speech.

In all the debate and discussion that have followed the Queen’s Speech in May, the Government have had ample opportunity to produce the evidence that these proposals are a proportionate measure to deal with an identified problem, and they have not. The reason they have not is that there is absolutely no evidence for them to produce. As one leading, albeit unelected, Scottish politician recently said:

“They can’t cite any evidence of it because I don’t think there’s any evidence to cite. In terms of this particular part of the Queen’s Speech, I think it’s total bollocks, and I think it’s trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and that makes it politics as performance.”

It is not often that I agree with the former Scottish Conservative leader, Baroness Davidson, or whatever her title is at the moment, but on this occasion she was absolutely spot on.

In the absence of any evidence that voter ID is the answer to an identified problem, we can only conclude that, for the Conservative party, the problem is not folk turning up at polling stations without photographic ID, but that certain folk turn up at polling stations at all.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)? Does he disregard the recommendations of the OSCE?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I do not regard any findings of the OSCE, but what I think is important in this place, looking at UK-wide elections, is that we have a measure that works for United Kingdom general elections, and this is one that absolutely does not. The right hon. Gentleman says we should be reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch. There is a debate to be had, but the imposition of this kind of voter ID now is absolute nonsense and there is no evidence whatever to justify it. This is, therefore, actually a ploy to stop people going to the polling station in the first place. I believe it really is as crude as that. The Government plan appears to have been to conjure up a demon, convince people that that demon is posing a threat to them, and then allow themselves to introduce draconian and totally disproportionate measures to slay the demon they have just invented.

The fatal flaw in that argument is that there never was a demon. No matter how the Government have tried to spin this, people know that there never was a demon and that there is nothing to see. Now, the United Kingdom Government stand accused of a sleazy attempt to gerrymander the register for their own electoral gain.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

In his judgment on the election in Tower Hamlets, Richard Mawrey QC said there was an appreciable amount of personation by false registration in Tower Hamlets. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has read that judgment.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman on the Tower Hamlets issue, which I believe went back to 2014, that to change an entire voting system on what went on in one particular London borough—the anecdotal evidence I have heard is that it was more to do with postal voting than personation. This measure is to do with personation, which has been proven not to be a problem.

This is an utterly reprehensible proposal that would be more at home in Donald Trump’s Republican party than in the United Kingdom. What is more important and more chilling is the brazen way in which the Government are doing it. They seem not to care. We always know it will not be the well-heeled and the affluent middle classes who will struggle to produce a passport, or a driving licence. We know and they know it will be the young, the poor, the marginalised and the minority communities who do not have a passport or do not drive, who will struggle to manage to collect a voter ID card. They will be affected by this registration.

The Government know that there are already between 2 million and 3 million people who do not have that ID. They also know that there are about 9 million people not registered. I think they should be spending an awful lot more time getting people on to the register than organising to take people off that register.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Would these be the same young people who have to show photo ID to get into a bar, a nightclub or a pub every Saturday night?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce this debate to that level, he is perfectly welcome so to do, but this is about a fundamental right for people to exercise their democratic right to vote. I urge him to take it a bit more seriously.

Yet again, this highlights the differences between what is happening here and what is happening in Scotland. If ever there was a reason why we need our independence, it is to get away from draconian legislation such as this. In May, when the Scottish National party won an unprecedented fourth term, we did it with a record number of people turning out to vote in a Scottish Parliament election. That does not happen by accident; that was by design. The SNP Government led the way by extending the franchise to all 16 and 17 year olds and, more recently, by allowing all eligible refugees in Scotland and those foreign nationals with settled status the right to vote. It is because we extended that franchise that we now have a thriving, healthy and robust democracy in Scotland. It is telling that, as Scotland, and indeed Wales, extend that franchise, this place seeks to do the exact opposite.

Over the summer, we learned that the Bill goes far beyond plans for voter ID. If it is passed, the Government will assume powers over the running and scrutiny of all future elections. The Bill reveals plans to strip the Electoral Commission of its powers and the independence it enjoys at the moment, and put it directly under the control of the Government, forcing it to conform to a strategy and policy statement which will be written by the Government. This means that the Government—the Executive—will be giving political direction to the organisation whose job it is to independently scrutinise and adjudicate on the fairness of elections. At a time when its powers should be extended, this Government are stripping the Electoral Commission of its powers and making scrutiny far more difficult.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. On extending the Electoral Commission’s powers, it has previously said that it does not have enough powers to keep the major parties in check and that overspending and breaches of electoral law have become business as usual, because it cannot fine them enough. Is this not all about taking further control rather than accepting open elections?

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are heading down a dangerous road and I urge Government Members to think carefully before proceeding.

One would have hoped that, at a time when democracies across the world are under threat from the influence of hostile actors, Governments could have taken this opportunity to introduce legislation to tackle those shadowy groups—those unincorporated associations—with anonymous sources of cash that are seeking to influence UK politics. However, given that openDemocracy recently revealed that since 2019, the Conservative party has accepted £2.5 million in donations from these shadowy groups, it was never going to be the anonymous, deep-pocketed bankrollers of the Conservative party who would be targeted in the Bill.

This Bill was always designed to hit the poor, the disadvantaged, the trade unions, the charity campaigners and civic society activists, because it will be the Secretary of State who will get to unilaterally decide who can campaign, what they can campaign on, when they can campaign, how much money they can raise and what they can spend those funds on. At a stroke, a Government Minister could ban a whole section of civic society, including trade unions and charities, from engaging in elections and campaigning or donating. It is fundamentally anti-democratic and people should be outraged by it. But, of course, if those people are unhappy and want to take to the streets to protest, this Government are already planning to block off that avenue to them.

[David Morris]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene. Charities are supposed to be apolitical—how do you explain that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I say again that hon. Members really should not use the word “you”; otherwise, it becomes a bit of a conversation down there and we feel kind of left out.

[Brendan O’Hara]

A charity has the right to advocate on behalf of its members and the people it represents. A charity must have the leeway and the bandwidth to advocate. To block that off screams of the anti-democratic road that this Government are determined to go down.

What we have here is a Government who are allergic to criticism, who are terrified of scrutiny and who are determined to give themselves, through this and other pieces of legislation, the powers to silence their critics. They want to prevent public displays of dissent and weaken their political opposition while, at the same time, entrenching the advantage that they already have, all at the expense of democracy.

[Geraint Davies]

Aneurin Bevan famously said that in the struggle between poverty and property, when poverty rises, property will attack democracy. Is this not what we are seeing in terms of voter suppression, getting rid of the right to peaceful protest, and attacking the judiciary and our fundamental democratic rights?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we are heading down a very, very dangerous road. The public have to be made aware of that and Government Members have to be aware of where this could lead.

We would not take this in any other walk of life. If this was a casino, we would demand that it be shut down and the owners arrested for loading the dice, marking the cards and allowing the dealers to have aces hidden up their sleeves. If this was a football match, there is no way that we would accept the home team manager being the referee and the assistant manager sitting up in the VAR box. Why, then, are we being asked to accept this? Why are we being asked to let this Government play fast and loose with something as fragile and as precious as our democracy—something that so many have done so much to defend? Why are we being asked to let this Government undermine those independent institutions that are specifically there to scrutinise our elections and preserve the public’s trust in a free and fair electoral system?

This is little more than a grubby attempt to gain electoral advantage. Why are we being asked to potentially disenfranchise millions of poor people and disadvantaged communities? Why are we being asked to accept that a Government Minister can unilaterally decide who can or cannot campaign for what they passionately believe in? Why are we being asked to turn a blind eye to those incredibly rich and powerful bodies that seek to buy their way to influence and power in the UK Government?

Our democracy, as I said, is under sustained attack. The arithmetic of this place means that the only people who can prevent this anti-democratic slide are Conservative Members. If they decide to fall meekly in line with what the Government say and nod this truly, thoroughly anti-democratic legislation through, I fear that history will judge them as those who facilitated one of the darkest days for democracy in the history of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I am certainly happy to offer that meeting. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution mentioned earlier that she has had a number of meetings with the RNIB already and has been working with it, but she will continue to meet it as the Bill progresses, because that is vital. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s illustration of the support for this measure in Northern Ireland.

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I want to address some of the evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s party asked for. One survey conducted just a few years—

[Brendan O'Hara]

It is on that point.

[Mr Walker]

I will address the point that the hon. Gentleman’s party raised. One survey, conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2009 under the last Labour Government, just a few years after the introduction of photographic ID in Northern Ireland, found that 100% of respondents in Northern Ireland experienced no difficulty with presenting photographic ID at polling stations. As part of its post-election questionnaire in 2019, the Electoral Commission reported that 83% of voters in Northern Ireland found it very easy to participate in elections, as opposed to 78% across Great Britain, including, of course, Scotland.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Can I just clarify whether the Minister is drawing a clear and direct parallel between the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and the situation in the United Kingdom in 2021? Is there a clear and direct parallel that joins the two that explains this legislation?

Elections Bill (First sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q I have a couple of questions, directed to both of you, but I will start with Lord Pickles. You said that there have been some shocking examples of postal vote fraud, and you gave some examples. However, you said that it is not endemic in the system but that the system is vulnerable. Do you think that, with the system being vulnerable, we are missing an opportunity to tighten up on postal vote fraud in the Bill? It does not seem to be a huge part of the Bill. Given what you have said, the Bill seems to be almost looking in the wrong places to tighten up on fraud. Where could we tighten up more on the postal vote fraud that you say is not endemic but to which the system is vulnerable?

Lord Pickles: Thank you. That gives me a brief opportunity to clarify the remarks. If postal vote fraud was widespread, it would be too late, and this place would be stuffed with people with a vested interest in keeping a vulnerable system. It is vulnerable. We have delineated a number of court cases, over several years, and showed how vulnerable it is. What we want to do is to close that.

Obviously, it is up to the Committee to move various amendments further to restrict postal votes. The recommendations that you have here plough a middle route between taking away from things that people have become very used to and restricting too much. For example, having to renew every three years is important; restricting the number of people who can handle postal votes is important. As Richard says, postal votes are by their very nature more vulnerable than votes at the polling station. Things like carousel fraud are no less possible, but they are hard to do.

You have to come to a judgment. Certainly, I would urge you to put down some amendments to test the Government on restrictions on postal ballots. However, in many ways the horse has bolted on that—people have become used to it. Going back so that everybody voted in person, except in cases of illness or business, would probably be a step too far, but it would certainly be worth putting down a probing amendment. Obviously, I am not saying to my Conservative colleagues that they have to vote for it, but nevertheless it would be a good debate.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q The problem that you have both identified is around postal voting, and the examples of personation that you have given have been pretty few and far between. It is fair to say from what you have said that where the system is most vulnerable and weak is around postal voting.

Richard, you were talking about a particular culture that existed in Tower Hamlets and manipulation by religious means. You said yourself that that was an extreme case. The Tower Hamlets example has been used in previous debates to claim that voter ID cards are absolutely necessary. In your opinion, how would voter ID cards at polling stations have changed what you witnessed at Tower Hamlets?

Richard Mawrey: Tower Hamlets would be a bad example. In Tower Hamlets, as I said, they virtually ticked every box of electoral offence. But for my being rather kind-hearted, they would have ticked the intimidation box as well—they ticked them all. Voter fraud played a very small part, funnily enough, in Tower Hamlets. There was a handful of personation cases. Because they were orchestrated by the candidate, they were enough, as it were, to get him over the line.

If you as the candidate, or as an agent of the candidate, procure one false vote, you are out. It is all or nothing: you do not have to show that it made a difference. There was simply a handful. I regret to say that, in that case, a number of people who were carrying out these frauds by registering themselves at the wrong address were people who were councillors who lived outside the borough and registered in the borough, but that was a rare occurrence.

Birmingham, in particular, Slough and Woking were all cases that were purely postal fraud. Voter ID at polling stations, frankly, is neither here nor there. Personation at polling stations is very rare indeed, because it is so dangerous—if someone turns up to a polling station and says, “I am Mr Jones of Acacia Avenue”, and somebody says, “I know Mr Jones; you are not him”, the next thing is a policeman’s hand on his shoulder and he’s up at the local Crown court—but postal vote personation, whereby you are voting in the name of a non-existent person or a person who lives somewhere else, is very difficult to detect and to trace. It is only when you have a full-scale petition that it comes to light and you are able to unseat someone.

Voter ID in polling stations is all right, but voter ID for the purposes of registering votes would require checking. If you do not have a mechanism to check—even just to spot check—then registering people at addresses where they do not live, which is the key to that sort of postal fraud, which is a form of personation, voter ID is going to be quite difficult to operate. What you need is simply to check that if Mr Jones is registered at 1 Acacia Avenue, there is a Mr Jones living there. That takes money and resources. We do not have an identity card system in this country, for good or ill, so there is no way, obviously, of cross-checking that. Voter ID only takes you so far with postal votes. Beyond that, the system is vulnerable, and necessarily vulnerable.

Lord Pickles: Thank you for the really interesting question. I did not recommend photo ID, but I think things have moved on since then. I was very interested to see that the Government said that 98% of the population has some form of photo ID. To emphasise the importance of voting, to be able to demonstrate that you are that person by producing, in my case, my bus pass—I could not use my driving licence, because I still have a paper one; I am that old—or something from work is a very sensible process. It occurs to me that the 2% who do not have any kind of photo ID might in itself have a wider use beyond voting in a polling station. It is an important check and a way of emphasising the importance of the vote. If Barack Obama can sign for his ballot paper, which might be an alternative, it is not unreasonable to have the same level as we have for getting a pair of Nike trainers from Amazon.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q That is a purely subjective view. The fact that you did not recommend photo ID in your report and it is now being introduced would suggest that it is a solution seeking a problem.

Lord Pickles: No, not really. I did bear in mind what had happened in Northern Ireland. I am sure you will recall that it started with paper ID for the first few years and then went over to photo ID. A lot of things have happened. Essentially, what the Government are suggesting, so far as I can follow what they are doing, is that we are moving to the Northern Ireland system without an intermediate stage with paper ID—

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Sorry, Lord Pickles, can I interrupt? Are you seriously suggesting that the situation in the United Kingdom in 2021 bears any similarity to the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s?

Lord Pickles: In what respect? I do not understand the question.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Well, you say we are moving to the Northern Ireland system. The Northern Ireland system was introduced for very specific reasons. Are you saying we should move to the Northern Ireland system because there are similarities between what is happening here in 2021 and what was happening in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s?

Lord Pickles: I think you are putting words in my mouth. My remarks on Northern Ireland were restricted to the point that at first there was a paper check, and then photo ID. The Government are suggesting that we move on to photo ID now. What has changed since 2016 is the growth of photo ID. It is important to be able to demonstrate who you are when you go to the polling station, not just in order to deal with personation but to emphasise the importance of the vote. No doubt you will spend many happy hours together debating that point. I shall read the debates with great interest.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Q I wanted to pick up on your point about policing, Mr Mawrey. You have been very critical, in both your judgments and your previous evidence to Parliament, of the police and their determination not to get involved. My question is twofold. What does that imply about how many cases have not been brought that perhaps ought to have been? Does the Bill empower the police, and would you expect them to be more willing to be involved in future?

Richard Mawrey: Those are two separate questions. One was whether the police are empowered. They have the necessary powers now. In the aftermath of my critical remarks in the Birmingham judgment, a number of forces had designated officers to deal with the issue, but for various reasons, there were never enough officers for some to be spared to deal with electoral matters only, so they tended to be somebody who added this issue to his or her other duties—say, with the fraud squad, or whatever it was. They did not have the time or resources, because obviously this was regarded—not unreasonably—by some police forces as being very low priority. They tend to think, “This is a squabble between politicians. Let them sort it out.”

In certain areas—Tower Hamlets is a good example—the police force was wary of the local politicians, who were, of course, only too anxious, particularly in the case of Lutfur Rahman, to meet any sort of criticism or investigation with cries of “Institutional racism!”, mentions of the Macpherson report, and all that. The police were wary of dealing with that. They have the powers; whether they have the resources and the will is an entirely different matter.

On whether lots of cases are going undetected, the answer is undoubtedly yes. It is very difficult to prove fraud, and when you have proved it, it is very difficult and time-consuming to prove who benefited from it. In some systems—in Australia, for example—you can prove fraud until you are blue in the face, but you no longer prove who benefited from it, so anyone elected with fraudulent votes stays elected. That is obviously not a good idea. What you see in the cases that I try is the tip of the iceberg, and those cases exist only because concerned citizens are prepared to put their money—their houses, sometimes—on the line in order to fight that fraud. You can end up, as the petitioners did in Tower Hamlets, with a large order for costs against someone who cheerfully declares themselves bankrupt, and you find yourself having spent a fortune doing what you think to be right, only to see none of that money back.

What the Bill does not deal with, although it might have done, is any reform of the process of electoral petitions, trying disputed elections, and all that—things on which Lord Pickles and I have given evidence on other occasions. I am sorry that it does not deal with that, but it is a big, long Bill; perhaps you will get round to it later. The idea that it should be made easier for elections to be challenged by citizens or candidates, and less expensive—

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

Q My question for both witnesses is about the accountability of the Electoral Commission and the part of the legislation we are looking at on that issue. It is a balance between parliamentary accountability for the commission but also independence of the commission to be able to do its job. As it stands, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has an in-built Government majority, with five Members from the governing party and three Opposition MPs—I declare an interest as a member of that committee. Do you feel that is effective and what do you think will be the impact of adding another Government MP to that committee? Do you think the Electoral Commission is currently suitably held to account by Parliamentarians?

Professor Howarth: Perhaps I should answer that more than Fraser. I do not think there should be any circumstances in which there is a Government majority on the Speaker’s Committee. It was set up not to have that, but the balance in the House that determines which party gets which Chair of which Select Committee has an effect. I think the legislation has to be adjusted to ensure that the definition of who is on the Speaker’s Committee is not affected by those sorts of changes. The whole idea is for there to be consensus on electoral matters across the parties. That is the main objection to having ministerial guidance in the first place—a Minister from any particular party might be seen to say something in the interest of the party. Similarly, the Speaker’s Committee should never have a single-party majority. The legislation should make that clear.

Fraser Campbell: I agree with what Professor Howarth says about majorities on the committee. Members have to bear in mind the distinction between accountability and direction. It is one thing for the Electoral Commission to be accountable to Parliament, through the Speaker’s Committee and potentially through other mechanisms, in terms of explaining itself and being questioned about decisions it has made or its performance. It is another thing for it to be directed to do particular things.

That is the concern that arises in terms of the statement of principles. One example of that is that it envisages the ministerial statement and directing priorities. One can easily think of examples where it might be quite improper for particular priorities to be set; for example, if there was a hypothetical party that drew disproportionate amounts of support from older people as opposed to students. One can imagine why that hypothetical party might wish to make it a priority for the Electoral Commission to assist in increasing turnout among the elderly, and on whatever grounds it came up with, deprioritise facilitating students living in multiple households to register to vote. If that was a direction given to the commission, that would not really be accountability at all but interference. It would be much better for the commission to be allowed to get on with what are very well established and understood statutory objectives, and for Parliament through whatever means to hold it to account on its performance.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q My question is in two parts. On the plan to give Ministers more control of the Electoral Commission, David, were these plans ever discussed or floated when you were a commissioner between 2008 and 2018? To both of you, why do you think they have now appeared in the Bill?

Professor Howarth: To answer the first question, this would have been unthinkable in my time as an electoral commissioner, and also that was during a time when there had been a Conservative Prime Minister for the whole time. I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.

As to where it has come from, it is beyond my time in office. All I can say is it looks as if it has arisen out of certain resentments in certain quarters about decisions the commission has made that people disagree with, and the Government must have been scrambling around for ways of satisfying that desire for revenge and come up with possibly the mildest version they can think of, but even this version is outrageous.

Fraser Campbell: I would not wish to make a window into the Minister’s soul, but I think all Members on all sides would want to bear in mind that if they are in Government, they will one day be out of Government, and one would not want to have a position where whatever party happens to be in Government is able to take advantage of an opportunity to influence or exert pressure on the commission while the sun is shining, only to see the boot on the other foot when they are out of power.

One sees this, for example, in the United States where it is very nice for the governing party to be able to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, but it feels much less promising when they happen to be out of power. In my position, it is much better to have a properly independent process, which we have in the courts here. We do not have the same business of political nomination of judges. We would lose something of value were we to have, in any sense, a politicised, oscillating Electoral Commission, whose priorities change depending on who is setting the direction from time to time. That would not be in the long-term interests of any party.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Q The Bill seeks to address the integrity of elections. Would you say this is the biggest problem we face in our elections currently? Are there any other concerns you think the Bill should address or any other proposals or measures you think should be included? Do you have any other concerns about the Bill that you have not been able to address?

Fraser Campbell: Shall I go first this time? I am grateful it is a broad invitation. I think the integrity of elections is not an overwhelming concern in UK electoral law. There have been pockets of extremely bad practice that have been exposed and investigated, and have obtained a high profile, but generally the UK happily leads the world in this respect and should not be shy about that. There are problems though, which are along the themes of needing to encourage broader and freer participation, because that is the best prophylactic against domination by particular vested interests. The explanatory notes rightly draw attention to some dangers of foreign interference or interference by the very wealthy, but one of the things one can do to discourage or balance that out is to have as broad a plurality of participation as possible.

It worries me that certain provisions of the Bill are potentially apt to have a chilling effect on participation by small parties, or those who are not parties at all but are legitimate pressure groups, charities, NGOs, trade unions and so on. An example of that is the power to be given under clause 23 to a Minister, albeit subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to effectively proscribe the types of organisations that can become registered third parties. That is important because, if an organisation is not a registered third party it is subject to a much lower spending limit. The pre-legislative material that I have seen does not give any explanation as to why there needs to be a power to limit the types of organisation that can become registered third parties. I can see why there might need to be some sort of power to quickly expand the list, if it turns out someone is inadvertently excluded.

The only rationale I have seen for this provision, generally, is to clamp down on foreign interference. If that is the case, it does not provide any justification for Ministers to have the power to exclude numbers of categories from that list, which includes trade unions, charities, UK companies and unincorporated associations. It would be of benefit to the process if this Committee were to examine, with the Government, the rationale for that procedure.

There is a tension between that procedure and a general desire, which is expressed by some parties, to avoid lawyers being too involved in the political process. I can tell you, as a matter of simple law, that if a decision to exclude an organisation was made under such a power, it would be more susceptible to challenge by judicial review than if such a decision was made under primary legislation. As a matter of basic law, judges are naturally much less deferential to secondary legislation, because it has not gone through the rigmarole and process that we are engaged in today. It would be a jamboree for lawyers—in a selfish, personal sense I would welcome that—but it has not been explained and it could have a chilling effect. Even if the power was not actively used, people would be participating as registered third parties not knowing what the situation might be in the future. I think that would disincentivise the plurality of participation that can balance out foreign interference and other less welcome vested interests.

Professor Howarth: I agree with Fraser on clause 23; the delegated powers memorandum—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Thank you very much for joining us. This morning, Richard Mawrey talked about the widescale postal vote fraud in Birmingham. What have you done to tackle that? What in the Bill helps you to further tackle that wide-scale postal vote fraud, and is anything missing from the Bill that would help you were it to be added?

Rob Connelly: I am not sure that something is missing from the Bill. What always surprises me is the number of postal votes that we get handed in on the day. We are talking perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 at a parliamentary election. We also recorded, as part of what happened, how many people brought the postal votes and in what numbers, and we often asked for names and addresses. There is no legal obligation to tell us, but in case there was a follow-up we tried to address that problem.

After the problems we had in Birmingham, the law was changed to deal with some of the issues that arose. To be honest, I am not aware that we have had major wide-scale problems in Birmingham, but it is not something that we can be overly confident can never happen again; it may do. We just have to be extra vigilant. That is where the joint working comes into play.

Restricting the number of postal votes that you can bring into a polling station may help, but we need to understand in a bit more detail the reasons behind it, because one of my concerns with the Bill is that you might be restricted to bringing in two postal votes into a polling station, but what is stopping you going to another polling station in the constituency and handing in another two? I also worry that by limiting it to such a small number we are potentially disenfranchising the honest person as opposed to your determined fraudster. A bit of work could be done around that.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Would it be safe to say that your biggest headache would be around postal voting, and being able to police how postal votes are managed and handled?

Rob Connelly: No, because with postal voting at the moment—I always put that qualification in—we have not had any issues. This is where we work closely with political parties, because we share information on how many we are getting back by ward and by constituency, so that they can spot any potential areas. We have always had a system in place that, if we have more than six new postal applications from a particular household, that would be flagged up and we would have a closer look. We have always put in measures to raise red flags. Individual registration and having to supply, for newer registers, national insurance numbers and dates of birth is helpful. We have the IT equipment whereby we do the signature checking, which is, again, very helpful. IT has moved on a lot since 2004.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Finally, how widespread have you found personation at polling booths since you joined the council in the early 2000s?

Rob Connelly: It is not a major issue that has been raised with me by either electors or political parties. We did keep some stats in polling stations as part of how to restore confidence in Birmingham. We would record, when someone came in, why they could not vote—for example, it could be that they come in and their surname is already marked off on the register. We have to do a number of years of research into that, looking, checking the numbers.

The two biggest reasons are, first, it was a simple error on the part of the poll clerk—often, it was a big family and they have just put the mark against the wrong person—and, sometimes, they came in but were marked as a postal voter. Again, it was a simple case of forgetting that they had applied for a postal vote. When we got that information back, we undertook that we would look at those cases, to establish whether there was any possible personation or other types of fraud. However, as I say, we have not picked that up and it has not come through to me from any source that personation has been a major problem. We cannot say that it has never happened or does not happen, because we do not know, but I am fairly confident that if it were widespread at a local level, it would have been picked up by party activists who would report it to us and to West Midlands police.

[The Chair]

Louise, do you have anything to add to that?

Louise Round: Just to echo what Rob said: the incidents of personation in all the years that I have been doing this have been zero—at least, that we have known about. There is a question about whether the cost and extra administrative burden of voter ID is strictly speaking necessary. As Rob said, it does not mean that it does not happen; we just do not know whether it has ever happened.

Elections Bill (Fourth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Alan. As always, it is good to debate with you and really good to have your expertise.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Q We have spoken to various witnesses, including a former electoral commissioner, over the last couple of days about the statutory policy statement. No one seems to have been aware that this proposal was coming. Were you aware of it being trailed or discussed privately with either the devolved Administrations or in academic circles, to see whether the changes would enhance and improve the independence and the working of the Electoral Commission?

Dr Renwick: No, I was not. I would not expect to have been aware necessarily of all the consultations that might have taken place, but I do not recall being aware of the proposals before they were announced by the Minister in June. To be honest, that is problematic. I have expressed concerns about the substance of the proposals, but procedurally there is a difficulty here as well because of the point that I have already alluded to. With the best will in the world, and with full respect to you as MPs, the fact that you have a vested interest in this issue means that it is incumbent upon you to proceed with particular care when you are thinking about electoral matters generally, and particularly the governance of the Electoral Commission.

I think the procedure that ought to be followed in such a case is that there is an independent review before any recommendation such as those that have been introduced here are put forward. That was the case in 2000; the introduction of the Electoral Commission stemmed, if I remember correctly, from the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The changes in 2009, introducing, among other things, the partisan commissioners, reflected recommendations made in, if I remember correctly, the Eleventh Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. There has been no comparable process in this case. I do not think that that is an appropriate way to introduce significant changes in the governance of the Electoral Commission.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Q Can I ask you then to speculate on why it has not been done as you would have expected and as it has been done in the past? Why do you think it has been done in this way?

Dr Renwick: I do not think it is for me to speculate on that to be honest. I regret that it has happened in this way. I have great respect for the Minister, and I hope that there may be scope for reconsideration of some of these aspects. For example, as you will all be aware, the CSPL published a report just two days after the Bill was published on the regulation of election finance, which of course is part of what the Bill covers. I would very much hope that the Government have been considering the recommendations made in that report, and might introduce amendments to take account of many of them. I thought it was an excellent report. I hope that there is scope to change elements of the Bill in order to reflect the views that have been heard since its publication, because I do think that steps up to that point were too hasty.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Q Finally, increasing public trust in electoral systems and the institutions that support them has been a recurring theme throughout this evidence session. Do you think that the proposal from the Government will increase or decrease public trust in the independence of the Electoral Commission?

Dr Renwick: The main point is that the governance of the Electoral Commission should stand up to proper scrutiny, and should be appropriately independent. Frankly, I am not sure whether it has much impact on public perceptions. I suspect that most people have higher priorities in mind. Certainly, the measures diminish the integrity of the electoral process, or will do if introduced, and that ought to be regretted. Quite what effect that has on public opinion as such, who knows?

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, thank you, Dr Renwick, for your evidence. It is much appreciated. The Committee will next meet at 9.25 am on Wednesday 22 September to begin clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(David Rutley.)

Elections Bill (Instruction)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Instruction
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister and welcome him to his place, temporarily or otherwise. I was incredibly surprised by the length of the introduction he gave on this important change to this Bill. During my time in this Parliament, the first occasion we have had an instruction motion was last week, when the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) moved one. To his enormous credit, he was thorough, considered and detailed, and he gave a lengthy explanation as to why he wanted his instruction to take place. The Minister has absolutely failed to do that this evening. It is astonishing. Just when we thought the Government could not be any more obvious or blatantly self-serving or go further than what is already contained in the Elections Bill, here they are trying to change the rules for their own electoral advantage. Not content with silencing judges, stripping power from the Electoral Commission, privatising critical media, banning public protests and cleansing the register, the Government now want to do away with an electoral system that promotes plurality of voice, encourages participation and, more importantly, delivers a fair result. It is pretty obvious that the Conservative party has absolutely no interest in fairness, plurality or the extension of participation; the Conservatives seem interested only in retaining power, and they are prepared to change the rules and game the system to make that happen. In short, the Conservative party is quickly becoming a danger to democracy.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend says that the Conservatives are prepared to game the system; they are gaming the system not only by changing the electoral system but by using this instruction to change the way the House is supposed to scrutinise the Bill. It is totally outrageous that they are changing the scope of the Bill once we have already begun its consideration.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely agree. If this was a casino, we would demand that it be shut down and the owners arrested for loading the dice, marking the cards and allowing the croupiers or whoever to have an ace hidden up their sleeve. Why should we accept that a party in power can get away with giving itself every conceivable unfair advantage to remain in power, including by changing the voting system on a whim? The Tories are undermining the electoral watchdog and introducing barriers to voting, particularly among folk who would see hell freeze over before they would vote Tory. Throughout our discussions of the Bill, we have been told, “It was in our manifesto—that’s why we’re obliged to do it.” It is remarkable that Government Members can ignore the absurdity of that argument, given the manifesto commitments we voted on earlier.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The voter ID pilots suggested that 0.16% of people who tried to vote were sent back to get identification, but in the London mayoral elections 5% of ballots were rejected because of confusion. Is that not the loss of franchise?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I share the confusion of the 5%, because I have absolutely no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Confused on what point—that they could not understand how to use proportional representation? Just because people cannot get it right the first time round does not mean that we should bin an entire system. Elections have to be fair and people have to trust the election system in place. This instruction is a retrograde step. It is about turning the clock back to an outdated, past-its-sell-by-date voting system.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) asked, where was this proposal when all the experts spoke to the Bill Committee? For four sessions over two days, countless experts came and talked to us about the Bill. The Government must have known that, like the dodgy croupier, they had this idea up their sleeve, waiting to come out; where was it? Why was it not presented before now? Why was the Bill Committee not allowed to investigate this topic and question experts on it? The Government had ample opportunity to float the idea but decided to wait until the Committee had started to sit and not allow a single opportunity for us to question expert witnesses on why it was appropriate. I would love to say I am shocked by this behaviour, but let us be honest, none of us are shocked by it. It has become par for the course.

Are Conservative Members really going to allow this to happen? Is a healthy, robust democracy really worth sacrificing on some vague promise of achieving short-term personal electoral gain? Are Conservative Members really going to meekly acquiesce and turn another blind eye to another full-on attack on our democracy? If they do, it will confirm what many of us on the Opposition Benches have suspected for quite some time: that in its deal with the devil, the Conservative party has given itself over completely to the UK Independence party and retained only the naming rights. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of that Faustian pact.

Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research at the Electoral Reform Society, has said that this is a backward step, and she is of course correct. Is anyone surprised? Everything that this Government do is a backward step. It is like they are indulging in a desperate search for a better yesterday, to the extent that on the same day as they introduced this piece of ridiculous jiggery-pokery they announced that we would all be able to buy our spuds by the stone—assuming, that is, that we can find a supermarket with any tatties left. If it was not so dangerous, it would be laughable. This is opportunistic populism: give the punters what you have told them they want and you can pick their pockets and rob them of their democracy at the same time.

Let us be in no doubt that to resurrect a regressive and antiquated electoral system that belongs in the dustbin of history is nakedly and brazenly partisan. This motion to allow the Committee the powers to introduce first past the post has not been parachuted in because the Government think it will make democracy better or elections fairer, or be more representative—no chance. The only reason it is before us is because it will make it much easier for the Tories to win, while at the same time shutting out small parties on those few occasions when they can make an electoral impact.

Let us not pretend that this instruction to the Bill Committee is anything other than a tawdry attempt by this Government to ensure that, even if they fall out of favour with the public, the Tories will not fall out of power. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he explains when it was decided that this provision would be put in the Bill. Who decided that? At what point and at what level was it decided, after the Committee had met and after the experts had been dismissed, that it was appropriate to parachute this in? How does he expect the Committee to be able to function under the circumstances in which it now finds itself when a colossally important piece of the Bill and an addition to the scope of the Bill has been introduced at this stage after the experts have gone?

Quite remarkably, this makes a thoroughly rotten Bill even worse—something that I never thought possible. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of exactly how and why this was allowed to happen.

Elections Bill (Fifth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I have had no communication from the Government. Regarding more time, it is perfectly in order for the Committee to come to an agreement, either between the usual channels or by way of an amendment, to allow more time. I will leave it to the hon. Lady to discuss with her colleagues and the Government whether they want more time. I am sure that my colleagues and I will be perfectly open to that, but it is entirely up to the Committee. We are in your hands.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. It is outrageous that the Government should seek to parachute in something in addition to the scope of the Bill without any debate. There was no debate on Monday night, because the Minister, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), did not engage with the House. He turned up and read a pre-prepared statement. He did not engage. He did not even take an intervention from his opposite number. It is farcical that it should happen in such a way that no questions were answered and there was no scrutiny. This did not appear from thin air. The Government knew that this was happening; yet I believe they held it back from the Committee. I think it is only right that the Committee should have a chance to bring back expert witnesses so that we can have testimony from them on what this crucial part of the new scope will mean for the entire Bill.

[The Chair]

I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. That is a perfectly fair point, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table an amendment to that effect, I am sure that the Government will listen very closely. I am completely in the hands of the Committee.

We will start with clause 1, and the question that it stand part of the Bill. Members will note my grouping and selection, and that several detailed matters relating to voter ID will be covered in debates on amendments later today. Clause 1 introduces the schedule on voter ID. I would be grateful if Members could please restrict their remarks to the principles of the proposals. That is quite important. I am sure that we can have a very wide-ranging debate that will be more like a Second Reading debate, but remember that there are loads of amendments later, so there is no point in getting into detail now. We will have plenty of time to discuss the detail.

Clause 1

Voter Identification

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

The situation in Northern Ireland actually came about over a much longer period. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute somewhat of an expert on these issues, but in Northern Ireland we did see huge swathes of personation going on in the 1980s. The politics in Northern Ireland in the 1980s was very different from the politics that we see in England, Scotland and Wales in 2021.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I have been trying, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to tease out where the Northern Ireland comparison comes from and how the Government believe that the situation we have in the United Kingdom in 2021 in any way resembles that in Northern Ireland in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, which led to the change. Nobody has managed to give me an answer to explain what the similarities are and why the Northern Ireland example is being used to advocate this change.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Can I come in on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Lady says that there were only four cases. Of course, there were only four cases that we are aware of. That goes back to the point that was made throughout the evidence sessions: it is an incredibly easy thing to do, so we do not know the quantity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have to ask her what an acceptable level of voter fraud is. Are four cases of fraud okay? Do we just let that go, and say, “It’s fine. There’s a cost-benefit analysis to a bit of electoral fraud.”? How many election results have to be overturned before we say that this is actually an investment worth making?

[Brendan O’Hara]

None of them has been overturned.

[Cat Smith]

I do not think that any elections have been overturned, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute says from a sedentary position. We have to work on the basis of what we know, and what the facts are. We can only go on the cases that are reported, but we know that 758 people in just a handful of councils were turned away and did not come back. That is an unquestionable fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and my—what a lively start we have got off to!

I intend to speak to the principle of the Bill, because we will come to amendments later. Despite my point of order, it is interesting that the American electoral system keeps being referred to, because it speaks to the wider issue of faith in elections. We have seen some disgraceful activity by the former President in America, which leads to an undermining of the basis of democracy.

There is no doubt that electoral fraud has taken place in this country, and I struggle to think of another crime that we would be willing to say we do not need to do anything about. I struggle to think of another crime where we say to the victims, “Well, it wasn’t many of you, so we’re not going to bother with it”. There is a very important principle about where we stand in this place.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that currently there is no law to stop electoral crime. Laws to stop electoral crime are in place at the moment and they seem to be working; as we have heard, Tower Hamlets and other elections have been refought. Does he accept that there are existing laws to tackle exactly what the Bill intends to tackle?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because, of course, Richard Mawrey said in his evidence that the threshold for proving in electoral law as it currently stands is too high to really get over the bar. By bringing in an extra set of checks and balances, we hopefully get away from the point that we would have to try to prove these cases to get over what is a very high electoral bar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The point I am making, drawing on the comments that have been made, is about faith in the electoral system, and this clause creates those levels of faith. It is all very well trying denial and complacency about where we are today, but we have to accept that we now have a mass media system in the world that makes it very easy for conspiracy theories to grow and be built very quickly. We must be in a position to ensure that our elections are deemed to be as safe and secure as possible.

I was disappointed on Second Reading that, when I intervened and asked Members about the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, those recommendations were pretty much dismissed out of hand. It was argued that they did not apply in this country, but the OSCE has made it clear in its reports that the security of our elections cannot be guaranteed without voter ID, and that is a very important point.

Those who have done election monitoring will know that many countries in the G20, let alone the G7, ask for voter ID, and I fear that we are in a period of history where democracy—which is a precious thing, and must always be developed and worked on—is under threat from those who refuse to accept election results. I am basing those comments more on what has happened in the United States than what has happened in this country, but what happened there is pervasive because of mass media. This Bill is trying to ensure that the perception of the security of elections, which is a very important thing, is clear in people’s minds.

From the very beginning, there has been entrenched opposition to the idea of voter ID. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—who I have a great deal of respect for, as she knows, and I enjoy serving on these Committees with her—talked about cuts to local government funding, but my council, Leeds City Council, is spending £10 million on the European city of culture campaign. The council bid for it before the referendum, then we left, so it is not getting the money and it is spending £10 million on it. It cannot say that it is being starved of funds when it is spending £10 million on something that is pretty irrelevant and certainly creates some lively debate in my home city.

When we come to debate the voting age—I know that we are not discussing that now—there will be some very important points to make about how the UN defines who is a child by saying that anybody under the age of 18 cannot fight on the frontline. Again, it appears that we are dismissing international bodies to suit the argument that is being made on the day.

I end my remarks by simply saying that this clause is a very important part of the Bill, ensuring that people have faith in our electoral system and that we do not allow a growth in voter fraud. We heard in evidence that bringing cases of voter fraud to court involves meeting an exceptionally high bar and that the financial constraints mean that people are not willing to bring those cases forward, so we cannot close our eyes and say that voter fraud is not happening because it is not getting to the courtroom. The proposals in the Bill go a long way to making people feel that when they cast their ballot, they have an equal say in those ballots, compared with people who may want to act criminally.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I always suspected throughout the passage of the Bill, whether on Second Reading or in our evidence sessions, that there was absolutely no evidence that voter ID cards would address an identified problem. In the evidence that we heard in four sessions over two days, not even the Government’s star witness said that personation was a sufficiently big issue to make voter ID cards essential to tackling it. Overwhelmingly, every single person who spoke to us about the subject said that the issue that needs addressing is postal vote fraud.

[Paul Bristow]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to Councillor Peter Golds during the evidence session, who turned around and said on a number of occasions that personation was a relevant thing in Tower Hamlets. Was the hon. Gentleman asleep during that evidence?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not asleep; perhaps he should temper his language somewhat. I suggest he reads Councillor Golds’s evidence, which I will come to in a moment. He talked in such great detail about postal vote fraud: it was the biggest issue in Councillor Golds’s extremely detailed and voluminous file. In fact, he was reduced to anecdotal evidence about personation and a gentleman with large feet and red shoes. That is the nub of where he was. Every person and even the Government’s star witness, as I would class Councillor Golds, was unable to give any evidence that personation at polling stations was a major problem.

[Aaron Bell]

The hon. Gentleman dealt with Peter Golds there, but what about the case in Peterborough? Surely the requirement to introduce CCTV that Gillian Beasley told us about says it is not an anecdotal problem. It is a real problem. That step has had to be taken in Peterborough for deterrence. The Bill enables deterrence without the expense of CCTV.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Again, I will not use the language that the hon. Member for Peterborough used, but read the evidence. Gillian Beasley said that

“we have seen less personation”—[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 21, Q23.]

in recent years; she followed that up by saying that postal voting is her concern. The Government are looking in the wrong place and they know that. They are doing it for reasons about which one can only speculate.

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is one clause in the Bill on voter ID and there are five clauses on postal votes, so it is not right to say that the Government are looking at the wrong place. The Government are addressing all the issues with our voting system.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Again, it came out from the evidence session that postal vote fraud is the major issue and that is what is concerning the vast majority—if not all—of our witnesses.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for the second opportunity to address this. We heard from Mr Mawrey QC, who is also an election judge. In his judgment in the Birmingham cases, which I referred to during the evidence session, he said that

“there is likely to be no evidence of fraud if you do not look for it.”

The whole point is that we need to look for it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, if a Government ignore the problem in front of their nose and then run about trying to find evidence of a problem when there is no evidence that that problem exists, I suggest they are wasting their time. The problem to be addressed is around postal voting. Richard Mawrey said that Birmingham, Slough and Woking were all cases that involved postal vote fraud; voter ID was “neither here nor there.”

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are wasting their time looking for something of which there is no evidence, but he also says that it is a waste of time to look for evidence of it. Would he clarify his position?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely will. My position is that there is no evidence whatsoever. Policy must be made on the basis of evidence. We have a limited time in this House in which to act and legislate. It is a waste of that precious time, I believe, for a Government to run around looking to create a problem to find a solution for. We should address the problems that we know exist, and those problems that have to be attacked.

Even Lord Pickles, in his evidence, said:

“I did not recommend photo ID”. ––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 16, Q13.]

He also said that fraud

“is not endemic within the system”,––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 8, Q5.]

However, somehow, Lord Pickles has now embraced this voter ID card with the zeal of a convert. It is further evidence of a Government with a solution looking for a problem.

Councillor Golds gave chapter and verse on the problems of postal voting in Tower Hamlets, and he was extremely convincing. Fair play to Peter Golds and the people who he has been working with—they have identified a serious problem—but to try to segue that into pretending that ID cards at polling stations will somehow solve what we saw at Tower Hamlets is frankly nonsense. It is not there.

[Tom Randall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will in a moment. Ailsa Irvine, of the Electoral Commission, admitted that

“we are starting from a high base of public confidence.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 46, Q64.]

There is confidence in this system—that the system works and is sufficiently robust.

[Peter Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will in a moment. There is nothing perfect. There is no way on earth that we can stop every sort of crime, but this Government and this Committee should concentrate on identified problems, rather than seeking to find problems and then provide a solution as they see fit. Now, there were two hon. Gentlemen bobbing.

[Tom Randall]

Just briefly, on Councillor Golds’ evidence, he did make reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been marked as having voted on the register in the polling station when, of course, they would not have done. I appreciate that it was anecdotal evidence, but does that not go to the heart of how difficult it for someone to realise that they are a victim of electoral fraud? If a non-voter was a victim of personation, they would not go to look for it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Nobody on this side of the room is saying that electoral fraud should not be punished. It absolutely should be punished. It should not be tolerated and should never be tolerated. Any victim of it deserves justice. However, that must be evidence-led and proportionate. This is neither.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

[Peter Gibson]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to provide clarity, in respect of the report by Lord Pickles. I have a copy in front of me. Recommendation No. 8 states:

“The Government should consider the options for electors to have to produce personal identification before voting at polling stations. There is no need to be over elaborate; measures should enhance public confidence and be proportional. A driving licence, passport or utility bills would not seem unreasonable to establish identity. The Government may wish to pilot different methods. But the present system is unsatisfactory; perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution.”

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. He did not recommend ID cards. He did not. If he mentioned taking a utility bill, he is not talking about registering for and receiving a voter ID card. As he said, he did not recommend it. In the first bit of evidence, Lord Pickles says he did not recommend voter ID cards.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point, quite rightly, that there is electoral law in place that can be used to prosecute fraud, but we heard in evidence that there is a very high bar for people, not least financially. Prevention is better than prosecution. Preventing electoral fraud from happening in the first place is surely better than trying to prove it has happened and prosecuting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

At the risk of repeating myself, nobody is saying that we should not root out electoral fraud and that it should not be punished to the full extent of the law, but this Bill, and particularly voter ID cards, will not solve it. If there were a Bill in front of us that said, “We will beef up the Electoral Commission. We will give the police more powers of prosecution. We will allow greater transparency in how we find and prosecute people who are cheating the system,” it would have unanimous support, but the Government are trying to pretend that the introduction of voter ID cards will stop this, and that is simply not the case.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are different types of prevention of electoral fraud? One was outlined in the evidence from Peterborough. The witnesses said they could put up CCTV cameras, which would cost them nothing because they would borrow them from the police. That is a much more proportionate measure to prevent fraud, and there would not be the risk that it would stop people and put up a barrier to voting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I could not agree more. We do not support ID cards, but that does not mean we are turning a blind eye to electoral fraud. There are proportionate ways of preventing it. This is not even a way of stopping it. We are not even saying that this is the wrong way to stop electoral fraud; this is nothing. This will achieve virtually nothing.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is drawing on the evidence of Lord Pickles, who did not say that photo ID cards should be required to prove identity; he also included utility bills. The forms of ID listed in this Bill are very limited. When international examples are given of where ID cards are shown, they are often from countries that have a national ID card, so does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that this may be a back-door way of bringing in an ID card, which I am sure many Government Members would wring their hands at? The Prime Minister himself said that he would eat it if he was ever asked for it. Should the Government not be a bit more up front about their real reasons?

[Brendan O’Hara]

There is an argument to be had about what the hon. Lady says about the introduction of ID cards. Perhaps the plan is to introduce ID cards via the back door.

The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell spoke about the OSCE report. As I said on Second Reading, if we were inventing an entirely new system from scratch—if democracy was invented tomorrow in the UK—there would be an argument to be had and we could bat back and forth whether to do it, but to impose ID cards on to the system that we have at this stage, with all the democratic history that we have, smacks of something other than what we are being told it is for.

The politics of this is interesting. Rob Connelly, the returning officer from Birmingham, got to the nub of the political argument we are hearing when he said:

“I asked a senior politician…what evidence he had of personation, and his response was, ‘I haven’t actually got any, but I just know it goes on.’”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 55, Q82.]

That sums up the argument that we heard on Second Reading and in Committee this morning. There is no evidence—it is a hunch—and policy cannot be made without evidence. There is no evidence of this. Politicians believe it happens, and therefore we must go and do something about it. We gather the experts—the great and the good—and they tell us that it is minimal and inconsequential: it is neither here nor there. However, the Government decide to plough on regardless of the evidence.

Gavin Millar supported Rob Connolly when he said:

“It is not a problem of any great consequence in our system.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]

He explained that it is actually the most inefficient way to indulge in electoral fraud. The risks are enormous, the chances of detection are much greater and it is such a tiny margin that it will make no difference. The Government are looking in the wrong place, and they are pursuing it on a hunch. He was right to say that the Government should focus on registration instead of voter ID cards.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about following the evidence, but should the Government not also follow what is going on in the courts? Is he aware of the case in Braintree, where there was a voter ID trial, of Neil Coughlan, who had no voter ID? The Supreme Court is due to hear that case next year. The Committee might end up legislating on the matter before hearing what could be quite a useful verdict from the courts about the way in which the policy disenfranchises voters.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was unaware of that case, but it does seem to suggest that we are getting ahead of ourselves somewhat.

Moving on, what is the point of an evidence session if we are going to ignore the evidence? I refer the Conservative members of the Committee to the words of Baroness Davidson on voter ID—perhaps the only time her words were wise. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading; it is there for all to see if they wish to go back and find it. Suffice to say, Baroness Davidson was correct in her assessment of voter ID cards in May, and she is correct today.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a slight contradiction in his opinion. He said that there was minimal voter fraud and that we should take no notice of it. He has picked on one Conservative politician out of hundreds and used that as an argument.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I rise slowly to my feet, because I have no idea what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I will sit down as slowly as I rose if he wants to make that point again.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am merely making the point that to dismiss one argument because there are not lots of people coming forward with an allegation, to then pick on one person out of hundreds of Conservatives and say, “Therefore, this is why we should not do it,” seems slightly at odds with the balance of the argument.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Absolutely not. The idea that I would take any political lead from an unelected baroness is utter nonsense. I simply used her as an illustration of the deep divisions in the Conservative party.

[Cat Smith]

In the intervention the hon. Gentleman took, he was accused of using as evidence one Conservative politician. Have the Conservative members of the Committee not just taken the example of one Labour constituency party in Tower Hamlets, when there are 650 constituencies?

[Brendan O’Hara]

A good point well made. What was striking about the evidence session was that Conservative Members were reduced to asking the witnesses leading questions. If it had been a court, the judge would have slapped them down almost immediately. It was reduced to, “Motherhood and apple pie is good. Do you agree?” and “Yes, we do.” It was nonsense. The evidence session showed that voter ID cards are a priority for nobody but this Government.

Almost all the witnesses referred to the need to tighten up postal votes. That was summed up by Gavin Millar, who said that is

“hugely inefficient compared with other forms of fraud that have been perpetrated, particularly since postal voting on demand”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]

The Government are looking in the wrong place. There is no evidence that personation is widespread; that is based purely on anecdote. I went into the evidence sessions believing that the measure was a solution seeking a problem; I came out of them absolutely convinced of it. We will support the Labour party when the Committee divides.

[The Chair]

Before I call the next speaker, it is not in order to be tediously repetitious. The debate is proceeding extremely slowly. On the lack of evidence and on other points, if I have heard it once, I have heard 100 times. Try to keep speeches to the point and pertinent to clause 1. I call Aaron Bell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall]

An electoral card will be issued free of charge. I am sure that between the passage of this legislation and the introduction of that scheme there will be a lot of publicity surrounding it, to make sure that the new system that is to be introduced will be well understood. The Government are used to widespread publicity schemes. I see the point that the hon. Lady makes, but I am sure that can be addressed in the fullness of time.

The point was made that no significant election has been swung or affected by electoral fraud. I gently suggest that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, a London authority only 18 minutes from here on the tube, which has a directly elected Mayor and a multi- million-pound budget, is not insignificant when it comes to elections—it is very significant.

For my final point, I declare an interest as a former chairman of Poplar and Limehouse Conservative Association. I know Councillor Golds personally. I speak to him as a friend as well as a witness to this Committee, and he made a point to me in writing afterwards. I will read the email from him, which stated:

“When we were preparing the grounds for the petition we investigated personation. We were a small, cross party group acting voluntarily and at our own expense. I was doing most of the legal digging and the amount of time required to prove personation would have been enormous. We had evidence via marked registers but quickly found canvassing and potentially obtaining statements would have been incredibly time consuming. People who are disengaged from politics and voting are unlikely to wish to make statements for submission to a court of law. We did refer to some of the worst cases in various statements but personation…was not one of the nine grounds that we concentrated on.”

Tower Hamlets has come up a lot in this debate so far. The absence of personation as the main ground in that case should not be interpreted as meaning that there was no personation in that election. The point is that investigating it is incredibly difficult. The fact that it was volunteers working on it, who stumped up their own money, which they have not got back, is perhaps one reason why that ground in that claim was not gone into in such detail.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would have been helpful in his lengthy evidence session if Peter Golds had actually said that to the Committee, rather than saying it as an afterthought in a private letter? That is surely the whole point of holding an evidence session.

[Tom Randall]

I wish Councillor Golds had had a whole evidence session to himself, but unfortunately he had to share one and we had to listen to other witnesses, which I shall not go into now, but I think that was an unfortunate timetabling measure.

There is a fundamental weakness in the system as it stands. For that reason I will support this part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I think there is a slight difference between someone voluntarily taking part in different parts of the economy and someone exercising their fundamental right to vote. The Prime Minister himself has not ruled out vaccination certification, so we will wait to hear what those on the Government side of the House have to say about that a couple of weeks down the line.

The point that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton touched on there is the divergence across these islands. He is perfectly entitled to make that point. It is interesting, because in the devolved areas, rather than making it more difficult for people to vote, we have been making it easier to vote and more proportionate. We will get on to more of this later in the Bill, but in Scotland the franchise has been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, to all EU nationals with settled status and to refugees, and nobody is being asked to turn up with voter identification in the devolved areas. We will have people on increasingly different franchises—[Interruption.] I am glad this is of such interest to Government Members, because they are supposed to be defenders of the Union, and they want to keep this glorious country, as they see it, together and keep us in a United Kingdom. Actually, what they are doing is increasing divergence and showing that Scotland and Wales can adopt a far more liberal, all-encompassing and participative approach to democracy. Here it is being made more difficult and increasingly narrow. That is a challenge for people who want to protect the Union.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Scotland extended the franchise to the groups that my hon. Friend mentioned, but one that he did not mention was people in prison with 12 months or less to go on their sentence. Would I be correct in saying that, by extending the franchise, Scotland achieved its higher ever turnout at the elections in May and ensured that people have faith? It is not just about creating rules; it is about creating faith in the system. The Government do not have to go down this draconian ID card route to create faith in the system; they just need people to believe that what they elect is what they get, and Scotland is doing that.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Compare that to the “Oh no, here we go again” response to the sequence of snap elections and uncalled for and unprepared for ballots that have happened in the UK in recent years, because of the utter chaos and incompetence shown by the Conservatives.

My hon. Friend brings me on to my next point, which the Labour spokesperson touched on. We as elected politicians are not impassive observers, as perhaps parliamentarians can be on other aspects of legislation, where we can take an objective view. All of us have an active interest in who elects us and how we get elected. I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood in paying tribute to election administration staff in councils up and down the country—later in the Bill we will talk about the role of the Electoral Commission and who gets to mark our own homework. If it has been tough south of the border, it has been even more so north of the border, where there has been another referendum, local elections and the devolved Parliament elections, on top of all the UK-wide ballots and plebiscites that have had to be administered.

I also pay tribute to our party activists and volunteers, as I am sure everybody in this room will—perhaps we can get one point of consensus. They are in many ways the backbone of the electoral process and political engagement of this country. They are the people who stand outside the polling stations in the pouring rain and the blazing sun—sometimes in Scotland that can be within the same 10 or 15 minutes. We can have all four seasons in one day or even just a couple of hours—that is certainly true of the last couple of elections we have had. These people play an incredibly important role. If there was widespread personation, with people turning up in dodgy rain jackets, funny moustaches and thick eyeglasses to repeatedly impersonate other voters, it would kind of be noticed. That is the point of having the system we do.

We have polling agents, counting agents and voluntary observers. That is a hugely important part of trust in the system. It happens at counts as well, when we watch how the ballot papers come out and how they are sorted and so on. We have heard examples of electoral malpractice and intimidation outside polling stations. Exactly: we know about it because it has been witnessed and reported. It has been covered on the news, because it makes for a bit of drama if people are shouting at each other outside a polling station—the cameras like to go and see that. It should not happen, and that is why people have been punished for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

There we go: that is the benefit of having these evidence sessions, and we should thank, congratulate and treat with respect all the witnesses we heard. I echo the points of order that were made earlier on: I hope we get to have more evidence sessions when it becomes appropriate, so we can hear about the extension to the Bill’s remit that the Government have made.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Looking back at the evidence given by Maurice Mcleod, it got to the point that the Government are aiming at the wrong target with this Bill. Does my hon. Friend not agree with Maurice Mcleod and, indeed, Gavin Millar, who both said the Government should prioritise a registration drive, increasing participation and opening up? As Maurice Mcleod said:

“I do not really understand why you are not automatically registered. I remember turning 18; you get your national insurance number because going out to work and paying your…tax”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 88, Q133.]

However, people are not automatically registered. Does my hon. Friend not think this Bill should look at automatic registration rather than seeking to disenfranchise people?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes. I hope as the Committee progresses we will be able to look at precisely that issue. That brings me quite neatly on to what I hope will be my final point of concern: what is really needed is a massive voter education drive. We need a new wave of civic engagement, helping people to understand the critical role they play in democracy and decision making in this country. As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, irrespective of our views on a matter, we as politicians should be able to express those views, and try to convince the voters and win as many of them over to our side of the argument as possible. That is what is vastly needed, and that need for civic education and massive voter registration drives in order to encourage as many people as possible to take part came out in quite a lot of the evidence, as well. That requires us to live up to our promises, not make false promises and pretend that things are going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow]

No, no—a very brief one. Hon. Members have doubted the evidence of voter fraud and personation, as a very small thing, but I encourage them to look at some of the evidence we have from Peterborough. When walking down busy streets in Peterborough, we often see large crowds gathering, with people chanting, singing and handing out various leaflets. That is not on a Saturday when we are watching Peterborough United; that is on a Thursday afternoon, when people are marching towards the polling station. We have had evidence that a number of councillors and activists in Peterborough who have gone to prison as a result of voter fraud are now acting as tellers and counting agents, participating in the democratic process.

A lot of people have talked about the advantages of the CCTV that was offered by the chief executive of Peterborough City Council. I ask hon. Members who have said that this was a good thing why they feel it was necessary for Peterborough City Council to install CCTV at polling stations. It was there in order to combat personation.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that Peterborough council has the right to implement a bespoke solution for what it may or may not perceive to be a particular problem, but that having a blanket ID card from Truro to Thurso and beyond is completely and utterly disproportionate? If Peterborough council wants to introduce CCTV, then let it. I imagine that Argyll and Bute Council has no intention of introducing CCTV or anything else, because we believe our democracy is quite robust.

[Paul Bristow]

The people of Argyll and Bute probably have great satisfaction with, and faith in, their electoral processes, down to the quality of their Member of Parliament. I am sad to say that in Peterborough, people perhaps do not have that faith, so CCTV is there in order to give people faith in the security and integrity of the ballot. That is the point I am trying to make, because I think that rather than suppress democracy, voter ID cards give people greater confidence in the electoral process and the idea that their vote will count. We hear that not just in Peterborough, but in Tower Hamlets, Oldham, Birmingham, Slough, and across the country. These are not isolated incidents: they happen across the country, and they undermine our democracy.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Elections Bill (Sixth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Whether this is about socialism or whatever else—we can debate that—we have just come out of a personal protective equipment scandal. So much of this Bill has been predicated on public trust and on building public trust. In light of the fact that the public have been so horribly stung in that PPE scandal, we have to rebuild trust. The idea of the landlord of a Minister’s local boozer saying, “I can make those cards for you,” runs a shiver down our spines. In the interests of building public trust, this surely has to be taken in-house, because if it is not we will be in grave danger of repeating the scandal we have seen with PPE.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that straw man argument, which shows that he did not listen to what I just said. Does he seriously think that all the ballot papers and poll cards that are being printed are being produced by mates—

[Brendan O’Hara]

rose—

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I am not giving way any more. I would say that he does not think that. An ideological point is being made, and we will not have it.

The hon. Member for Putney made a point about GP surgeries having our data. GPs are private contractors. This conflation of what is private and what is not, and this lack of understanding of how services are delivered, is poor. The Carillion argument in particular is a specious one. Many organisations both private and public fail occasionally. We have debated these issues on the Floor of the House many times, and there is no point in my repeating them, but public sector organisations also fail. We do not then decide that we are going to rip up everything and that they will no longer provide any services; we try to fix what has gone wrong. I do not accept those arguments at all.

Government and local authorities will, as ever, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland said, seek to ensure best value for money for the taxpayer. That is the right thing to do, rather than the ideological ping-pong that we are seeing here. I say to the hon. Member for Putney: nice try, but we are not accepting the amendment. If any aspect of the production or administration of either of these documents could best be served in the private sector, then that must be an option that is available. We are not being prescriptive about how we are going to do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

On the length of time, so much of what we heard on Second Reading and today was about the integrity of the ballot and about ensuring that every vote counts and that no vote is there wrongly, but suddenly we seem to have a pivoting on this point, with convenience somehow trumping democracy. The Minister accepted that queues will be longer, because people will have to produce a voter ID card, so are we really saying that the inconvenience of having to check the veracity of somebody’s vote—that it is absolutely correct—is more important than them actually having that vote?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I do not think so. I do not think that the point the hon. Gentleman is making applies to this amendment. Of course, we want every single vote to be counted, but as the amendment is drafted, how long would we have to wait, and what would the procedure be under it?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The answer would be that we wait as long as we need to get the right result.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Exactly—that is the point I was coming to. As the amendment is drafted, it could be a way in a marginal election of unduly delaying the announcement of a result. We want to ensure that people do not have their votes taken away and used by others who should not be using them. The examples we saw in Tower Hamlets and so on are part of the reason for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I can actually answer the question, because I asked it myself; I thought it was an interesting point. The reason is that the requirements when applying for those types of card are different. Getting a 60+ Oyster card is a significantly more stringent process. People need a passport, driving licence or combination of different proofs of age and address to apply for the 60+ Oyster card. People do not have to have that for the 18+ Oyster card, for example. We have gone through and looked at what the basis for stringent checks would be. The point I am making is that we considered the level of security checks required to get each type of identification and the likelihood that someone holding further forms of identification would already hold one of the permitted types of identification. That is why this is the case.

[Brendan O’Hara]

My question is on the specifics. We have been talking about a card that is accepted by the Scottish Government and, indeed, by Police Scotland. Why specifically is the Scottish young person’s national entitlement card not accepted for this purpose?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am sorry, but I do not know the details of the Scottish entitlement card. Perhaps if I can see the reasons and the application process for that, I might be able to give an example. I have given the basis for how the decisions were made. I cannot comment on various forms of identification used in various places, I am afraid.

The list of identity documents that will be permitted for the purpose of voting at polling stations that is included in the Bill is already broad. That said, it is recognised that available forms of identification will change over time, and that is why the Bill includes provisions to allow the list of acceptable identification to be updated through secondary legislation. For example, there are plans for online provisional driving licences, which will be considered for inclusion if appropriate. We completely understand the need to make sure that as many people as possible are able to get the ID that they need, and we feel that this provision and the free voter card are enough to make sure that voters will have the identification required, so we will not support the amendment.

Elections Bill (Eighth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North on tabling this amendment. It was so good that I tried to table exactly the same amendment a day after him, but he beat me to it, so he is nimble on his feet as well. We share the concerns that he and the RNIB have raised that the Bill weakens protections for blind and partially sighted voters by removing the limited legal protections that used to exist. Removing the requirement to provide tactile voting devices leaves blind and partially sighted voters somewhat to a postcode lottery.

I see where the Minister is coming from, but I disagree. While she sees it as prescriptive and stifling innovation, I see it as providing a baseline for a level playing field. That does not stop returning officers being innovative. Obviously as technology advances we will come across things that will help us to make voting more accessible for people of many disabilities or impairments. The legislation as it stands creates the risk of a postcode lottery with different systems being used in different areas. Although that might open up to innovation, it risks leaving some blind and partially sighted voters without adequate systems in place to help them to vote in secret and independently.

The RNIB has been consistent and has done excellent reports after every major national election outlining just how few blind and partially sighted voters get the opportunity to vote independently and in secret. It is something that I have raised many times over the years and I had higher expectations for the Bill. I am disappointed that clause 8 does not go far enough. We support the general gist of the clause in terms of making voting more accessible for those with disabilities, but it really only scratches the surface of the quite radical action that is needed to make our democracy more accessible to disabled people.

I share the concerns of the disability charity Sense that the Bill could have the dangerous consequence of removing the fundamental principle that electoral staff must enable voters to vote without any need for assistance. Although a broader duty designed to enable all disabled people to vote is a good thing, the wording of the new duty does not carry over the previous requirement to enable voters to vote without any need for assistance. As a result, I think polling stations will not be required to ensure that disabled people can vote independently. I seek the Minister’s clarification on that.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, though I am greatly disappointed both in the Minister for not having met with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and in my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. She said that she listened carefully to his argument, and if he had just been more persuasive, this could have been the first time in 38 years when a Minister was persuaded to change her mind. Really, Minister? Let us be honest: this amendment is never going to pass because the Government have an entrenched position on it, and they were never going to listen to reasonable and decent arguments put forward by a reasonable and decent charity.

Fundamentally, voting is a visual exercise, and the frustration and humiliation felt by blind and partially sighted people at their inability to vote independently and in secret has been an open sore for many years. This afternoon, Government Members have talked extensively about secrecy and the privacy of the ballot, but that does not seem to extend to blind and partially sighted people. There are currently 350,000 voters in the UK who cannot vote without having to share their preference with a returning officer or anyone who happens to be within listening distance. Four fifths of blind or partially sighted people said that they were unable to vote independently and in secret.

Respondents to the RNIB survey said such things as:

“The voting booth was right beside the queue for the check in desk; it wasn’t closed off and I had to verbalise my choice to my partner…a person, waiting in the queue beside the booth, audibly sighed. I don’t feel I get privacy”.

Another respondent said:

“My helper disagrees with my vote and I have no way to be sure she voted as I wished”.

Another said that

“it’s a totally humiliating experience from start to finish,”

and the whole thing is predicated on

“assumptions that everyone can see.”

Things are far from perfect at the moment, but the RNIB, which is the UK’s leading sight loss charity, is extremely concerned that the Bill will make a bad situation even worse, as it weakens the protections that exist and could make it even harder for blind or partially sighted people to cast their vote independently and in secret. Could the Minister tell me what experience the Government have and what expertise they drew upon in reaching their conclusion that the RNIB does not have? What sources of evidence did they seek to get to this point that the UK’s leading sight loss charity, which she has not met, does not have?

Elections Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

In many respects, supporting good causes is done by campaigning. For many charities, the causes of the symptoms they are seeking to address will be back in Government policy. The policies that we decide all the time obviously have an immediate impact on people on the ground. Charities work with those people and need to change the policies to change the issue they are addressing.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that charities by their nature have expertise and understanding—for example, of homelessness, third-world debt, climate change, or whatever—that we in this House have to learn from? The idea that they should be restricted simply to raising funds to alleviate an issue, rather than trying to engage and inform the debate, is simply preposterous.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. For example, during this Bill Committee, we have relied on expert advice from the Royal National Institute of Blind People about the impact of these changes on people who are blind or partially sighted across this country. As the representative organisation of those people, who will be affected by the Bill in how they vote, the RNIB should be giving us expert advice. In the future, having to work out how much money it has spent jointly and severally with other organisations, which tier it falls into and whether it will get on to the list will all have an effect on whether or not we receive that expertise, which helps us to be much better decision makers.

When we consider that the Conservative party spent £16 million in the last general election, we see that lowering the spending threshold for groups to register during an election from £20,000 to £10,000 is clearly aimed at deterring smaller organisations, community groups and single-issue groups, which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, such as groups concerned with refugees, disability rights, women’s rights and LGBTQ issues. Community groups campaigning on a single issue in our constituencies may fear running afoul of changing election rules, which will have that chilling effect.

I ask the Minister whether there will be a review of the impact of the lobbying Act as we go forward with the Elections Bill, because I think that they go together. To know what impact the lobbying Act has had on campaigning will be very instructive. Perhaps there has been such a review already, and I did not know about it. If not, will there be a review of the impact of that Act and this legislation on campaigning, particularly single-issue campaigning?

If existing party activity is redefined as joint campaigning, smaller unions that spend only very small amounts on regulated activity and do not come close to meeting the threshold for registering with the Electoral Commission could find themselves having to register and submit a complex and comprehensive return, despite having not spent any of their own funds on a campaign. Should not they be spending their money on frontline service provision and advocacy, rather than filling in complex and comprehensive returns that do not add to transparency but only decrease our democracy? This will be a huge bureaucratic burden on small organisations; it is both completely unnecessary and overly burdensome.

Labour’s amendment 76 seeks to reduce the chilling effect and remove the burdens of additional regulation by exempting registered charities and community interest companies from the notification and registration requirements. In the community organisation that I worked for just before I became an MP, there was a fantastic organisation called SEN Talk—special educational needs talk.

For years, I supported it in becoming a CIC. It is a long process. The organisation had to go through a lot of measures and have a lot of transparency. It was doing a lot of frontline work with parents and children with special educational needs, but also it was advocating to the council for the changes that it needed in order to operate on behalf of parents, and to the Government, and working on Select Committee reports, for example. If that organisation were asked to then submit returns but did not know exactly when the election period was and feared falling afoul of this, it would have to cut down on its frontline services or not take part in the advocacy that really does help it to stand up for children with special educational needs. It would put that organisation in a real bind, and it is just one example.

This proposal has also, as I have mentioned, been called for by Bond—the overseas aid network—and several other third-sector organisations. Setting up a registered charity takes considerable time and effort, and these entities must already, by law, identify their trustees—or, in the case of CICs, their directors—and publish their accounts. There are already robust transparency initiatives regulating charity governance, so it is highly unlikely that those seeking to exert undue influence in elections would pursue this approach as a means of evading regulation. I would like to know how many conversations the Minister has had with CICs, in particular, about the effect of the Bill.

Registered charities cannot exist for solely political purposes, and charities that do engage in political activity in pursuit of their charitable objects are already closely monitored by the Charity Commission. These organisations would still have to register with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner if they met the existing spending thresholds.

Amendment 77 would recognise the need for all campaigners at elections to submit to electoral regulation by the elections regulator, and to be transparent about their purpose if they are seeking to campaign to influence voters at election time—but without duplicating the compliance burden for those organisations that already routinely are required to be transparent.

I urge all hon. Members to support these very reasonable amendments, which would allow small organisations and single-issue campaigns to continue to campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. Where are those decisions ultimately made? Here, in rooms like this one. We are engaging with charitable organisations on this Bill. We are being advised and lobbied on matters in the Bill by organisations that are making representations to us, have frontline experience, and are delivering in a whole range of sectors. We have heard from domestic organisations and from Bond, the international development network.

I am sure all Committee members have diligently read the written evidence submitted by Bond, EB14. I strongly encourage them to do so, because it explains the challenges and difficulties faced by these organisations, which are having to comply with election registration regulations and reporting requirements, and finding it incredibly difficult. There is evidence in that document—we heard it from the hon. Member for Putney as well—that many organisations are already choosing simply to step back, so their voices are not being heard. That goes back to the narrative of what exactly the Bill is trying to achieve, in terms of suppressing debate and political participation in this country.

Although clause 24 is not quite as draconian as clause 23, it is still pretty oppressive. Amendment 96, tabled by the SNP, could achieve much the same as the Labour party amendments in exempting registered charities from these incredibly stringent new reporting requirements. The threshold of £10,000 could easily be reached once everything that had to be calculated was taken into account, such as staff time, resources, and collaboration with other organisations.

It would be easy to hit that threshold, potentially unexpectedly. The charity would then face another burden if it was sanctioned. There have been examples, referred to in the written evidence, of charities that inadvertently crossed the threshold and did not report that appropriately, and then faced fines. That is fair enough, if that is the regime, but it is another cost. That is money that people have given to those charities. It might be taxpayers’ money, received through gift aid, that has to be spent on fines, compliance and regulation, deterring the charity from political participation and delivery of frontline services, when it already exists in a rightly strong and tightly regulated environment.

The Government should accept the amendments. If they genuinely believe in levelling up, surely they want to hear from organisations that have frontline experience of the difficulties and challenges being faced by ordinary people day to day, and that are identifying solutions that will help to raise standards in society and level up. In fact, we are seeing a levelling down, suppression of debate, sticking with the status quo, and a message not to challenge anything coming from the Government who happen to be in power now.

We have learned in this Committee and in others that the chances of an amendment succeeding are middling to none. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points.

[Brendan O’Hara]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, though I admire his endless optimism that the chances are middling to none. He is far more optimistic than me that the Government will ever move an inch. That does not mean that the arguments cannot be made. Indeed, there is every reason for the arguments to be made.

At general elections, every single one of us has been made to think, question and commit one way or another to an idea coming from a third party or campaigning organisation. That is exactly how it should be in a democracy. When we put ourselves forward for election, people have a right to know where we stand on the big issues of the day—whether that is homelessness, third-world debt or support for those suffering domestic violence—and where better to do that, for a charity or third party organisation, than a general election? People are not asking us just as individuals; they are asking all those who put themselves forward for election in this country where they stand, because our public have an absolute right to know that.

The real question is about the motivation of the Government in introducing the measure in the first place. Campaigning is a core function of many organisations. It allows them to highlight areas of concern and contribute to the wider public discourse, from a position of authority and experience, from which every one of us benefits. We have all heard from numerous third party organisations of their concerns, but these measures will make an already complicated area even more confusing and burdensome for those issue-based campaigning organisations. They face new rules that may see them inadvertently fall foul of legislation and, as a result, step a long way back from their activity. They will shrink back from that public debate, which can only harm our democracy. That will dampen public debate, and the voice of those marginalised groups they represent will be further diminished.

Organisations will quite rightly engage in campaigning 12 months prior to a general election, but the vast majority of that campaigning will not be focused on that general election. Those organisations campaign every day of the year, every year of a decade. That is what they are there to do; they are there to inform and to advocate.

What is really troubling here is the purpose test and whether it can be passed. It is confusing. The legislation says that the purpose test can be passed if it

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or do not support particular policies”.

That is all well and good, but the confusion arises because that is not the intention of the charity of a third sector organisation. The interpretation comes from someone else, and it is their perception of what counts as political campaigning. Even if the charity is clear that that is not its intention, it could be decreed by someone else that it is. The result is that the charities will shrink from those areas of concern—homelessness, domestic abuse—for fear of falling foul of the legislation. Many of us on this side of the Committee think that that was probably the Government’s intention from the start.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Amendments 76 and 90 would exempt from the transparency requirements provided by the lower tier of expenditure registered charities, charities exempt from registering with the Charities Commission, and community interest companies spending more than £10,000 across the UK but less than the existing notification thresholds. Amendment 77 would allow those groups to forgo the usual notification process for the lower tier and instead provide only their charity or company number.

The Government are clear that any group spending significant amounts in UK elections should be subject to scrutiny. That is essential to ensure transparency for voters and to maintain the level playing field for all participants in elections. It is therefore right that all types of third party campaigner should be subject to the same sets of rules where they are trying to influence the electorate. The amendments would undermine those principles, and the Government cannot accept them.

Additionally, third party campaigner regulations do, and should, focus on the purpose of campaigning activities conducted by all organisations, not just specific types of organisation. Charities and CICs can always choose to spend less than £10,000 in the period before an election if they do not want to register with the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

I simply do not accept the argument made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. He asked how charities would know when an election was forthcoming, but he also said that charities specifically are doing that around election time. He is making two almost mutually exclusive points. The fundamental point made by SNP Members was about charity participation in elections, rather than political finance transparency, which is what the Bill is about.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I ask the Minister a very, very simple question. How will a charity or any other organisation—

[Patrick Grady]

Or a Back-Bench MP.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Indeed, or a Back-Bench MP—how will they know when they are in that 12-month period before a general election?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The fact is that we all have a fairly good idea of when an election will be. Although snap elections can be called, the fact is that everybody will be in the same situation.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am not giving way again on that point. Third party campaigning groups will not have any special intelligence. People will need to take that into account when they are campaigning politically. People seeking to influence the electorate should all be subject to the same laws.

The debate is not about whether charities are nice groups or nice individuals, which is 50% of the argument made by SNP Members. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like Opposition Members want charities to make their political arguments for them, because they think they are more acceptable.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am no longer giving way on that point.

That is not how we want to regulate our politics or our electorate. Charities should make points on their own—not in the way that SNP Members are saying, as if there are other political reasons that would be helpful to them, rather than the Government. They accuse us of playing politics, but it sounds to me as though they are the ones doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady knows that I cannot answer any questions about when elections are forthcoming. That does not change the premise of our argument. I do not know; she does not know; charities do not know; no third party campaigners know. The law is equal for everybody. I am afraid we simply do not accept the argument that there should be special rules and exemptions for particular groups.

Charities can supply the relevant information, and the amendment would increase the administrative burden for the Electoral Commission—a point it has made several times—and not allow it to obtain all the necessary information covered in the notification requirements. Under the amendment, charities and community interest companies would not have to provide the name of a responsible person. That information cannot be obtained through Companies House or the Charity Commission because it is specific to electoral law.

It is important to identify a person who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with electoral law. Naming a responsible person also acts to protect third parties from being liable for expenditure that has not been authorised by that person. Allowing charities and community interest companies to be exempt from that requirement would risk their duty of compliance and protection falling away, which would not be right. In the light of the reasons I have given, and the minimal burden on charities that the measures will generate, we oppose the amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I have a question for the Minister, which I think is a perfectly reasonable and fair question to ask on behalf of charities. How do they know right now that they are not 12 months out from a general election? How do they know where their spending is in relation to the next general election, and that they have not already exceeded the threshold? The question is whether she thinks it is fair for charities inadvertently to fall foul of the legislation, with their having absolutely no way of knowing where they stand because the Government have changed the rules around about them. Will she address the basic issue of fairness to our charities?

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Third party campaigners are subject to limits on their controlled expenditure in the periods leading up to parliamentary elections in the UK, including devolved elections. The time during which those spending limits apply are known as regulated periods and are 12 months long for UK parliamentary elections and four months long for the relevant parliamentary elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Regulated periods can be longer where they overlap. It is right that any campaign that could influence the electorate at an election should be regulated and subject to a spending limit. While significant amounts of spending might take place following the announcement of a poll, elections are often known, rumoured or expected to take place long before the poll date is announced and a Parliament is dissolved, which is the point that we are debating.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Can the Minister explain how the House can legislate on the basis of a rumour of when a general election might be? How is that any way to run a country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is not what we are legislating on; that is a statement of fact. Just as with every intervention the hon. Gentleman has made, it is a point we all acknowledge that while elections are at expected times, they can happen at different times: earlier or there may be snap elections, though rare. That does not change the fundamental point under discussion.

Opposition Members seem to be annoyed that there is a regulated spending period at all. I am afraid that that is not going to change. Campaigning and political activity, which can occur up to 12 months or more in advance of an election, may have a significant influence on its outcome. Having a short regulated period, as proposed by the amendment, would mean that spending, which does influence the electorate, is likely to fall away from being regulated and reported. That fatally undermines the principle of transparency and spending limits.

Elections Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

In its current form, without the amendments, the Bill allows promoters of electronic material to avoid placing an imprint on the material if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so. Instead, it allows the imprint to appear

“in a location that is directly accessible from the electronic material.”

The amendment would make things clearer for voters so that material is more transparent, and allows voters to make more informed decisions.

As evidenced in Scotland’s recent parliamentary elections, the clause will in practice lead to almost all imprints appearing on a promoter’s website or home page rather than on the actual material. I do not feel that is strong enough. It cannot be classed as an imprint if the voter has to go and seek that information on the home page of a website. For most observers of the material, there will be no discernible change from the situation as we see it now—they will not be able to see a promoter’s details. It should be a requirement that imprints appear on the material itself. It would bring digital material in line with the imprints on printed material, where political parties have to include an imprint on every single piece of content.

While it is positive that Scotland’s recent parliamentary elections were the first in the UK to be conducted with a digital imprint rule in place, it was disappointing that a loophole was left in the legislation, which is now being carried forward into the Government’s Elections Bill. All political parties in Scotland took advantage of the loophole in May, placing an imprint on their home page and not necessarily on the material that was being promoted. This provision does not provide any security against sharing, downloading and re-promoting, where many voters will see material second or third hand as organic content as it spreads over social media.

Numerous stakeholders wrote to the Minister to highlight their concerns. I have certainly seen concerns expressed by the Electoral Reform Society, Fair Vote UK and Transparency International, who have highlighted to elections offices in Scotland that there is a risk that the imprint may be lost or removed, deliberately or accidentally, when the material is shared. A significant amount of sharing happens off the platform, as users download videos before resharing them on messaging apps that are often encrypted. The imprint is then, of course, disconnected from the content. This is a huge loophole; it could be the equivalent of attaching an offline political ad’s imprint using a paperclip. The first recipient would then clearly and inconspicuously remove it before showing anyone else. It is essential that the imprint be embedded so that it is always connected to the political advertisement. I urge the Government to close the loophole and make it clear that the video, image or online campaign materials must contain a clear imprint within the material, as is common practice with many political video advertisements in countries such as the United States.

These sensible and pragmatic amendments would close a loophole that we have seen in Scotland and stop the legislation being implemented for UK-wide elections with a glaring loophole in it.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Very briefly, we will support the amendments. There is no doubt that as a Parliament and a country we are behind the curve and are playing catch-up with those who are experts in digital campaigning. What we do have in our armoury is the demand for transparency. That is all we asking for here: transparency on who is funding and who is the source of these digital political advertisements. That is essential.

We have concerns about what the Government mean by “reasonably practicable”. We need a higher threshold than that. I fear that it would be far too easy for people who are expert in such matters to get around that and to present a convincing argument to the laity on what is reasonable and practicable and what is not. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was right that we have an opportunity to get this right, or certainly to start to close that gap.

The Scottish Parliament elections showed that parties and campaigners largely understood the regulations and were able to comply with them. Anyone who followed those elections, particularly on Twitter, could not have failed to see every candidate changing their Twitter bio during the campaign to explain that. People understood it and people did it.

We have to be alive to the fact that there are people out there who are far more advanced in their technology and their understanding than we are. We should be closing every loophole available to them, to ensure that transparency is increased and that there is no way for them to come out. So we will support amendment 87 and 88.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are opposed to amendments 87 and 88 because they seek to remove a much-needed element of flexibility in the digital imprint regime for campaigners. Under our proposals, an imprint must be included as part of the material being promoted. Only when it is not reasonably practicable to do so can the imprint be in an alternative location—one that must be directly accessible from the material.

We have looked at this issue closely. Clause 37 is not a loophole for campaigners to exploit, to avoid including an imprint in the material. Instead, it is a reasonable and practical provision that ensures that campaigners are able to comply with the requirement to include an imprint in digital material, regardless of the digital platform they are using. This is an essential provision that must be retained.

As Members will know from their own experience of campaigning online, there will be many instances where it is impractical to include an imprint within the material itself. For example, a text-based tweet on Twitter could constitute material that requires an imprint, but given the character limit, including an imprint would leave little room for anything else. That is why, under our provisions, where it is not reasonably practicable, a promoter could instead comply with the rules by including an imprint in a location directly accessible from the material. That could be done by including a hyperlink in the material or by placing the imprint in a user’s Twitter biography.

The Government are mindful that the digital imprint regime must strike the right balance between increasing transparency in digital campaigning and having a regime that is proportionate and enforceable. The Opposition’s amendments would undermine those efforts as they do not provide for any flexibility on the location of the imprint. That could have the unintended effect of incentivising campaigners to avoid certain digital platforms or mediums for a campaign, due to the unreasonable burden of doing so.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said that there was another loophole in terms of material being republished that would not include the imprint. That is not the case. Clause 37 does cover republished material—I am not sure whether she has a different interpretation—and I will come on to republished material when we debate clause 37, when I will explain more fully how the clause does that.

Digital campaigning has become an integral part of campaigners’ efforts to communicate messages and ideas to voters. It must continue to be facilitated, while providing the electorate with increased transparency about who is promoting campaigning material online and on whose behalf. Our provisions do that. For all the reasons that I have outlined, the Government oppose the amendments

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

To be fair, I have already made that point. I am very happy to submit myself to the electorate under any proportional system that the Government want to introduce. The hon. Gentleman can be sure of the SNP’s support for a Bill introducing such a system; we have said that many times in this House.

The experience of preferential voting in Scotland is that results can change, and that has not always been to the SNP’s advantage. In fact, owing to the nature of Scottish politics at the moment, there is a clear trend with transfers. Where the SNP is a voter’s first preference, they cast their vote for that party. That is the very clear trend. In fact, in the ward that I mentioned, the SNP won the vote in the recent by-election, under first past the post; we got the most votes. We had an excellent candidate in Abdul Bostani. He got the most first preferences, but because of transfers, he lost out, so that ward is now represented by two Labour councillors, one Green councillor and one SNP councillor. It was a Conservative vacancy, incidentally; I say that for anyone who has not turned up to enough of the Committee sittings. That proves my point on the issue on which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was trying to catch me out. It proves the value of preferential voting systems.

Ultimately, it is for England’s Members to make a determination about what electoral system is used by their local authorities, but Government Members have to think very carefully about the consequences of this.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any lingering doubt that any of us may have had about the Government’s motivation in introducing the Bill is done away with by the parachuting in of this new clause? It is utterly self-serving, completely politically partisan and fundamentally undemocratic. Furthermore, does he agree that we and our colleagues should get out of here as quickly as possible, because Scotland needs to escape this nonsense?

[Patrick Grady]

If by “here”, my hon. Friend means the Union, yes, I entirely agree; if he means this Committee Room, I am afraid I do not agree, because I know how desperate Sir Edward is to chair our final sittings next Wednesday, so it is important that the Committee takes as long as it can to consider every one of these new clauses in great detail. I therefore look forward to all the speeches from the Conservative Back-Bench members of the Committee, who will now rise in defence of this major constitutional change that the Government want to bring forward. When they do, I urge them to reflect on the growing divergence that we have spoken about. This is not a levelling up or a coming together, but a growing apart of the constituent parts of the country, which have pretty fundamentally different perspectives on how democracy is, and should be, done. Although it is not for SNP Members to tell Members from England how their local elections should be determined and run, they ought to think about the issue carefully before they cast their vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

To correct the record, I said that it is utterly self-serving, and completely politically partisan, and fundamentally undemocratic.

[Kemi Badenoch]

And I still reject the hon. Gentleman’s point. The fact is that we have a Labour Mayor at the moment; we have had more Labour Mayors than Conservative Mayors; and first past the post gives accountability and strength to the people who are elected.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Automatic Voter Registration—

“(1) Registration officers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers to enable them to fulfil their duty under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to the following public bodies—

(a) HM Revenue and Customs;

(b) the Department for Work and Pensions;

(c) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

(d) the National Health Service, NHS Wales and NHS Scotland;

(e) schools and further and higher education institutions;

(f) local authorities;

(g) HM Passport Office;

(h) police forces;

(i) the TV Licensing Authority;

(j) Job Centre Plus;

(k) the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Local Communities;

(l) the Department for Transport;

(m) the Department for Health and Social Care;

(n) the Home Office; and

(o) the Ministry of Justice.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may also apply to other public bodies.

(5) Registration officers must—

(a) use the information provided by the public bodies listed in regulations under subsection (3) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or

(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.

(6) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (5), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any incorrect information.

(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (5), that person shall be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.

(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.

(9) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.”

This new clause would require registration officers to enter eligible voters on the register, and provide for them to receive the necessary information from a number of public bodies.

New clause 13—Voter registration at universities and colleges—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require universities and colleges to provide to registration officers the information they hold that is required for the officers to register their students to vote.

(2) Universities and colleges must share with each student the information relating to the student that the university or college proposes to provide to the relevant registration officer, and must give students the opportunity to withhold consent to the provision of the information.

(3) If a student withholds consent under subsection (2), the university or college must not send their information to the registration officer.

(4) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.

(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers, universities and colleges on fulfilling their functions under this section.”

This new clause would require universities and colleges to submit to registration officers the information necessary to register their students to vote.

[Brendan O'Hara]

For all the rancour and argument that there has been in this Committee over the last few weeks, I think we all agree that voting is a fundamental democratic right that has to be protected. As it is a fundamental democratic right, surely it is incumbent on those in power to seek to maximise participation right across our society and to encourage everyone in society to have their say and make their voice heard. It is our job in this House to ensure that the citizens we represent can exercise that democratic right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 13, which are tabled in my name. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had discussions about the security of elections, and there has been much talk about whether individuals can fiddle results and how elections can be stolen. I tabled the new clauses with the hope of making our elections more secure, because we know that when the electoral register is more accurate and more complete, it is harder for malign actors to fiddle it round with just a few votes. At the moment, having 9 million voters either missing entirely or registered incorrectly is a weakness in our democratic system. It is a move to improve the security of our elections to have a more accurate electoral register.

I liked the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute: we do not register to pay tax, so why do we register to vote? I believe that it is very important to vote, and I tell anybody who will listen how important it is to take part in our elections, but I am aware that many people do not have figures like me in their lives—they are probably grateful for it. Given that we know we can have automatic voter registration and a more accurate electoral register, it strikes me as utterly bizarre that we would not want that—that we would not want a more accurate electoral register and not want to know that when we go to the country everyone who should be registered to vote can vote and hopefully does vote. I would like to see increased voter turnout, but at the moment people are falling at the first hurdle when they find that they are not on the electoral register.

New clause 13 is specifically about colleges and universities, because we know that younger voters are far less likely to be registered than older voters. There is a real gap.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady has reminded me of our very first evidence session and what she said to Richard Mawrey QC, which was that increasing turnout and participation makes fraud harder. Much of the Government’s case in this whole debate has been about stopping fraud and cheating, and in response to her question, Richard Mawrey said,

“that is absolutely right, because fraud is obviously a relatively risky occupation, and the more bogus votes you have to put in, the more difficult it is.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 11, Q9.]

He agreed entirely with the hon. Lady that to widen participation and to increase the franchise is to diminish fraud. Does she agree that automatic voter registration would do exactly that and exactly what the Government have been calling for?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for reminding us of the evidence that we heard at the beginning of the Committee, or that at least some of us heard—those of us who were listening or who were members of the Committee at that point.

The new clauses—I agree with that tabled by the SNP, too—are all about improving the security of our elections. We did not spend so many hours of our lives debating clause 1, on voter ID, with the Government arguing consistently about the security of elections, only for them to look at these new clauses, which deal with just that, and say, “Well, not those ones.” One could say that it is starting to look a little partisan.

I implore the Minister to look carefully at the new clauses. I appreciate that she is new to the role, and I would be very willing to open a dialogue with her to find ways to get those missing millions on to the electoral roll, because I believe that cross-party consensus can be found. I do not think any member of the Committee would argue that people should be missing from the electoral roll. Our electoral roll should be accurate in reflecting where this country’s voters are and whether they are registered, giving them the opportunity to go and vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections—

“In section 1(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for “18” substitute “16”.”

This new clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It gives me enormous pleasure to move new clause 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. The SNP believes passionately in this and has supported lowering the voting age for all UK elections since the 1960s.

Winnie Ewing, our first Member of Parliament, spoke about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in her maiden speech way back in 1967, so we come at this as early adopters of the idea. It was with enormous pride that the SNP Government introduced the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. That gave us all an enormous sense of pride.

To give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote is to say that they have an equal say and as much of a stake in the future of the country as any other age group—[Interruption.] Sorry, was there an intervention or was that just a general murmur? That Scottish independence referendum set a precedent: it said that 16 and 17-year-olds should have a say on all constitutional issues that affect them. Subsequently, their voting record in Scottish parliamentary and local elections has proven that they are no more or less capable than any other age group in society of making an informed decision. We are absolutely delighted that the Scottish example was followed very quickly by the Welsh Senedd. Now, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in elections for their own national Parliament.

The same young people, however, alongside their peers in England and Northern Ireland, cannot have a say on which Government is elected to this place. It is striking that the issue has become so divisive and partisan, particularly given that the last UK-wide lowering of the voting age—from 21 to 18 years old back in 1967—attracted little or no attention or controversy. It is even more remarkable not only because the UK was one of the first democracies to lower the voting age to 18, but because there is now overwhelming proof that lowering the voting age to 16 and 17 years old works. Scotland has shown that it works, so this is not a step into the darkness or a wander into the unknown, but unlike the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years old, it has become hugely controversial, divisive and partisan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not on the side I was looking for interventions from, but I will absolutely give way.

[Patrick Grady]

Indeed, but we have been arguing throughout the Bill that the Government are trying to suppress democracy, and this just goes to show that they are not even willing to allow their Back Benchers to engage with such a fundamentally important proposition. Is it not even more ironic that the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament supported votes at 16? Perhaps what that demonstrates is that the Government view the devolved Assemblies as lesser places, so they can have strange experiments and expand the franchise if they want to because they do not have the supremacy that this place enjoys.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I admire my hon. Friend’s powers of provocation, and still the Government Members slumber. Still nobody gets to their feet—[Interruption.] I will take that intervention. No, it was not an intervention. It was just a chuntering from a sedentary position. Perhaps the Minister could speak for them all. Can she explain to us why this is okay for Scotland and Wales? Why, when it has been so demonstrably successful in both of those devolved Administrations, are the Government so absolutely opposed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds? The Conservative party in Scotland is okay with it. Someone will tell me if the Conservative party in Wales is not, but, as far as I am aware, it did not oppose it. Why is it okay for Scotland and Wales, and not okay for young people in England and Northern Ireland?

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clause 8, tabled by me and my hon. Friends. It was good timing for the SNP spokesperson to open the debate on the age of enfranchisement. The Labour party would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Welsh Labour Government have done it, and we have seen it work well for a number of years in Scotland. We know that the record of voting in the Scottish parliamentary and local elections proved that 16 and 17-year-olds are more than capable of casting their votes and making informed decisions.

Since this year’s Senedd elections, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote for their Members of the Senedd. The experience of the Scottish referendum showed that, when given a chance, 16 and 17-year-olds have a higher rate of turnout than 18 to 24-year-olds, with 75% voting, and 97% say that they would vote in future elections. Only 3% said that they did not know. That flies in the face of some of the arguments that I have occasionally heard in opposition to this idea, although we have not heard any yet today, that say that young people would not be well informed. We know from analysis of the referendum in Scotland that 16 and 17-year-old voters accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group, so, arguably, they are incredibly well informed and not necessarily biased towards one political persuasion.

A lowering of the voting age has been called for many times over the years. I have called for it many times since I was elected. It would enable young people to have their first experience of voting, often when they are still in full-time education. I know from studies that I have read over the years that if an elector votes the first time that they are eligible to vote in an election, they are far more likely to go on to develop a lifetime habit of voting and engaging in democracy. Again, it comes back to security in elections. One of the best ways we can make our elections safer and more secure is by increasing turnout. A good way of increasing turnout in the long term is to maximise the number of people whose first opportunities to vote come when they are still in full-time education, when they are still very much supported to vote.

At the moment, with the voting age for England and Northern Ireland coming in at 18—it has been 18 for UK general elections, and in Scotland and Wales as well—for many young people their first vote comes at a time of great change in their lives. They might be starting out in the world of work, might have gone off to university to study, or might have recently moved out of the family home. It is far better that we give young people an opportunity to vote and give the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds so that we can increase the chances of an electorate that is engaged in the process and that votes. That is better for the security of elections.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who is clearly suffering from significant amnesia if he claims not to have heard the arguments on votes at 16. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, the subject has been debated time and again, certainly every single year since 2010. There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard. Given our manifesto commitment to maintain the current franchise at 18, and having been elected on that principle, the Government have no plans to lower the voting age. We will not support the new clause.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Yet again the Minister is outrageously dismissive. A part of her job is to answer questions in Committee. This is an important Committee. To say, “Go and ask an SNP researcher” is an absolute outrage. Minister, you have a responsibility to this House to answer direct questions and I am afraid you have been sadly lacking in doing that. We will not push the clause to a vote this afternoon, but we will test the will of the House on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less

‘In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after “Scotland” insert “or a parliamentary election”.’—(Patrick Grady.)

This new clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patrick Grady]

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

As with the other new clauses we are debating in this sequence, new clause 5 is about levelling up the franchise for election to the House of Commons with that of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 is a genuinely historic piece of legislation. It introduced the widest franchise that has ever existed in these islands, possibly in western Europe. In May this year more people were eligible to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections—indeed, more people did vote—than in any other election ever held. That is even more remarkable given the context of the global pandemic and the severe restrictions on the practicalities of voting and the challenges that people faced in terms of social distancing. More people also voted for the SNP than had ever voted for the SNP before.

The 2020 Act was remarkable. It included, as we have just discussed, votes at 16, and the extension that we will come on to. It also included a small number of prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. The Electoral Commission reckoned from electoral returning officers’ data that about 38 eligible prisoners had registered to vote in the election. It is a small number—probably it could be larger—but it is nevertheless significant. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on prisoner voting in the United Kingdom meant that the country was in breach of article 3, protocol 1, of the European convention on human rights. The Scottish Government therefore see the introduction of this provision as an important step towards compliance with that judgment and respecting the fundamental rights that exist even for people who have been incarcerated.

The legal system in Scotland also now exercises a presumption against short sentences, but that approach and the right to vote if serving a sentence of 12 months or less are both rooted in the principles of inclusion and a desire for rehabilitation. There is therefore not only a human rights imperative to the new clause—to bring the United Kingdom further into line with the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights—but the importance of aligning the franchise across the different legislatures of these islands. That is something that the Government ought to consider and support, although I suspect we will hear the opposite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

On the contribution that refugee communities can and do bring to Scottish society, will my hon. Friend join me in acknowledging and congratulating the contribution made by the Syrian community on Bute? They fled an atrocious, most awful situation in their homeland to come to Bute and are now business owners. Their children have grown, come through the school system and are now at university. These people work and contribute to Scottish society in every single respect, as every other Scot does. The difference is that they cannot vote when it comes to choosing a Government in this place.

[Patrick Grady]

I absolutely echo everything my hon. Friend says about the incredible contribution of Syrian refugees, particularly in his constituency but in others as well. Refugees from other parts of the world were delighted at the opportunity to take part in the Scottish Parliament elections in May and would dearly love the opportunity to make their voices heard in elections to this place, and indeed to stand as candidates. We spoke about a by-election held in a ward within my constituency boundary, Partick East/Kelvindale. Abdul Bostani, the SNP candidate who achieved a plurality of votes but was unsuccessful because of the preferential voting system, is a refugee from Afghanistan. Our proportional representation list in Glasgow was headed by Roza Salih, one of the “Glasgow Girls”, originally from Kurdistan, who has fought for the rights of refugees. What greater message of tolerance and inclusion can we send than by welcoming people in that situation right into the heart of our democratic system? Equally, what opposite message do we send when such people are excluded, denied the opportunity to vote and denied other fundamental rights that we should have as human beings—rights that cannot really be taken away from them but that are simply denied to them? The right to vote ought to be such a right.

Again, there are two principles behind the new clause. First, the right to vote—that innate right to participation and freedom of speech. In modern democracies, it is understood that the right to vote is part of that fundamental right to freedom of speech. Secondly, levelling up the franchise. I do not think the Minister properly addressed this point in her response to previous new clauses; maybe she can attempt to do so in her response to this new clause. Why are the Government content with, and why do they welcome, the diverging franchise? More people than ever before are able to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament, and indeed to the Senedd Cymru, whereas the overall effect of the Bill, as we said right back on Second Reading, will be fewer people having the opportunity to vote, because the Government are going out of their way to make it more difficult. Why do they see that diverging franchise as a good thing or something that they do not need to take an opinion on? I look forward to the Minister explaining why the Government want to continue the hostile environment for refugees in regard to their right to vote and responding to those other points on the divergence of the franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O’Hara]

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, who laid out a compelling and detailed case as to why extending the voting right to foreign nationals and widening the franchise is so important. What we have seen is a widening of the franchise in Scotland at exactly the same time as this place seeks to narrow the franchise.

In February 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation extending the vote beyond EU nationals and Commonwealth citizens to include foreign nationals with leave to remain and refugees, adding 55,000 people to the register altogether. That is in stark contrast to what is taking place down here at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament did so because Scotland wants to be that open, welcoming country and that place that is home to anyone who wants to call it home, and it wants to recognise the enormous contribution that EU nationals have made to our country, our society and our general wellbeing. We want to welcome those EU nationals who want to be part of Scotland and we want to give them a stake in, and a responsibility for, the future of the country. The Scottish Parliament has made the decision that anyone who is legally resident in Scotland will have a say in our future, and that is only right.

However, while the Scottish Parliament and Scotland in general seek to reassure EU nationals that they are valued and welcome and we view them as an integral part of our future, the UK Government, at best, use them as a bargaining chip and, at worst, see them as an inconvenience. They may be allowed to pick fruit, or to drive lorries in an emergency, but they most certainly will not be treated as equal or valued citizens. We have got used to having a wide, diverse and growing franchise in Scotland, because that is good for our country and for our democracy. I strongly advise the UK Government to look to Scotland for a lead and to make the status of EU nationals equal across the various Administrations of these islands, because that is ultimately the right thing to do and it is only fair that they do it.

[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.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the Minister for that pre-prepared paragraph. We will push this new clause to a Division.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

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

I am not sure how Sir Edward Leigh, one of the other Chairs of the Committee, will feel about this, because I know that he was looking forward to chairing the final session next Wednesday. I will just have to keep this going until the rise of the House, and then for both sessions on Thursday, so that he has the opportunity to hear the Committee conclude its considerations. Otherwise, we will just have to get on with it as quickly as we can—I think we all need a break.

This is a relatively straightforward new clause, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to its principles, because it reflects the concerns that were expressed earlier when we considered part 3 and the powers of the Electoral Commission. The Government had real concerns that it was not an effective regulator—that it lacked teeth and was somehow not capable of exercising either the deterrent or the punishment when electoral offences took place. The new clause is a way of giving the commission the powers for which it asked, and to change the relatively arbitrary upper threshold of £20,000 that it can levy as a fine for certain offences to a much more proportionate response, either as a proportion of the total spend of the organisation or individual being penalised, or to a maximum of £500,000, whichever is greater.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Has my hon. Friend, like me, barely slept at night since hearing the tales of widespread personation, voter fraud, intimidation and postal vote harvesting—all manner of fraud, theft and deception—that came from Government Members in the first two or three days, when they used to participate in the Committee? Does he share my confidence that they will look at what is contained in the new clause and support it in order to give the Electoral Commission the full force of the law, and so that the guilty will not go unpunished, as they have insisted throughout, and a £500,000 penalty is just the thing to do it?

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the point about proportionality is very important. We have heard about the rampant corruption in the UK electoral system and the complete inadequacy of the police, the Electoral Commission, local election returning officers and so on. A picture has been painted throughout the passage of the Bill. Why would the Government be content to keep the maximum level of fine at £20,000, when the Electoral Commission says it is really not adequate to provide either a deterrent or a punishment?

One example on which everyone in this room will find a point of consensus was when the Liberal Democrats were fined £20,000. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are not here to defend themselves—it is a wee shame. In all seriousness, the investigation that year found that 307 payments totalling £184,676 were missing from the Liberal Democrats’ spending return without a reasonable excuse. In return, they were fined £20,000, which was the maximum that the Electoral Commission could levy.

I would not suggest that is the mindset of the Liberal Democrats, but less scrupulous participants in our electoral process might think that £20,000 was a price worth paying for not reporting figures that were nearly 10 times that amount. To be clear, I am not saying that was the case with the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps other, less scrupulous participants might adopt that attitude.

We should adopt a more proportionate system by simply raising the maximum threshold. We are all familiar with the scene in “Austin Powers” where Dr Evil demands a ransom of $1 million as part of his nefarious plan to take over the Earth, and everybody laughs because it is not a huge amount of money in the modern world that he has woken up in. Similarly, a fine of £20,000 does not adjust for the rate of inflation and cost of inflation—not least the increases that we are experiencing as a result of the Tories’ disastrous Brexit policies.

A fine of £20,000 is not as high as it could be, so a maximum of £500,000 is slightly more realistic in the modern world, and then the proportionality of the 5% gives the Electoral Commission that extra flexibility and additional teeth that it might need to serve as a deterrent or to take action in the event of a breach. I have no doubt that the Minister will have lots of creative reasons for rejecting the new clause, and I look forward to hearing what they are.

Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Miller]

Because it will enable people to be part of the system, to register online and to have confidence in what is going on in our election process.

I want to probe the Minister on the length of election campaigns, which have, I believe—this is to the hon. Gentleman’s point—not served us well in helping to engage people in the election process. Many hon. Members who took part in debates on the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill made the point about the continual lengthening of our election campaigns being not a benign act, but an act that has potential consequences—consequences we are not that aware of. Emerging research suggests that longer election campaigns are potentially disengaging for electors. They mean that the interest of electors wanes over time—perhaps all of us who have knocked on doors have seen that over the last two decades, when election campaigns have increased significantly in length.

Will new schedule 1 and new clause 11, tabled by the Government, provide some sense of opportunity that at least the length of election campaigns will not increase? The former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, spoke about her understanding of the importance of potentially shortening election campaigns as well. Hon. Members will remember that in law at the moment election campaigns are currently 25 working days, and amendments that I and my hon. Friends tabled the last time these matters were discussed in this place considered shortening campaigns to 25 days.

Will the Minister update the House on the undertaking to consider research into the length of election campaigns, in conjunction with new clause 11 and new schedule 1? That could provide an opportunity for us to understand better how election campaigns affect voter participation, and how the length of campaigns may be shortened in a realistic and sensible way as a result of her new provisions. Will she help the House to understand how she will take that forward to ensure that our democratic process is as strong as it can be? The lack of consideration about the length of campaigns should be something that is of the past, and the issue should be central to the thoughts of the Government in the future.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, as well as new clauses 3 to 8, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) to his place. It is a pleasure to see him.

Before addressing the new clauses, I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who, day after day in Committee, went through the Bill forensically and exposed the fundamental threat to our democracy that is contained in almost every line of it. From restricting the franchise through the introduction of voter ID cards, to giving the Government power to set the strategy and policy of the Electoral Commission, abolishing a progressive, proportional voting system, and constraining how whole sections of civil society are allowed to campaign, this Bill has it all.

This Bill, which—let’s be honest—would not be out of place in the hands of Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro, should not be seen in isolation and has to be viewed in the wider context, as it includes plans to criminalise peaceful protest and to allow the Home Secretary to strip someone of British citizenship with the stroke of a pen. It places onerous legal constraints on journalists and whistleblowers. Ministers will be allowed to ignore legal rulings made under judicial review and there are plans to abolish the Human Rights Act. It was Peter Geoghegan, writing in openDemocracy just before Christmas, who said:

“This is what democracy dying…looks like. And we need to act now before it’s too late.”

That is why we opposed the Bill on Second Reading, why we sought to amend it radically in Committee, and why, unless Government Members wake up to what they are about to do and fundamentally amend the Bill today, we will oppose it this evening as well.

We in the SNP fully support new clause 1, which would simply bring the age at which people can vote in Westminster elections into line with what already happens in Scotland and in Wales. The SNP has advocated this for a long time—indeed, the legendary Winnie Ewing, when she made her maiden speech from these Benches 55 years ago during a debate on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, said:

“There are moral and intellectual reasons why it is good sense to make people responsible at the age of 18 if not sooner… I am absolutely on the side of youth.”—[Official Report, 20 November 1967; Vol. 754, c. 980.]

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future of this country would look entirely different, particularly when it comes to the climate emergency, if we lowered the voting age?

[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.

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with him. He and his colleague the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) did as much as to scrutinise every line of the Bill as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) did.

The hon. Gentleman talks about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Much of the case made for the Bill has been about making our democracy more secure. One of the ways we can make our democracy more secure is by encouraging more people to participate in it. The more people are voting, the harder it is to swing an election unfairly. That is what we heard in the evidence given to the Bill Committee. Does he agree, therefore, that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, who will go on to develop a far stronger commitment to voting, will actually strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in British politics?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady is absolutely spot-on. As she says, we heard from many witnesses who said that the wider the franchise and the more the people who vote, the less there can be untoward interference.

Why are the UK Government so opposed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote? Unfortunately, the Minister for Levelling Up Communities is no longer in her place. In Committee, I hoped to find out why she thought it was okay for Scotland and Wales, but not for England and Northern Ireland. Her reply to me was:

“There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 371.]

That was a Minister’s response on this very issue in Committee, and I am sorry she is no longer in her place to correct it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that Conservative Members for Welsh constituencies must be having a similar dilemma. If this is good enough for Scotland and Wales, why is it not good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom?

We want to say to EU nationals and those with the right to remain that, as an integral part of Scotland’s future, they should have a stake in and a responsibility for how we are governed. That is why Scotland has a thriving, healthy, robust democracy. It is telling that, while Scotland and Wales do everything they can to extend this franchise, those on the Government Benches do the exact opposite.

I will turn now to the last of our new clauses, new clause 8. In Committee, Conservative Members regaled us with tales of widespread personation, voter intimidation, postal fraud and the harvesting of votes—indeed, all manner of fraud, theft and deception—yet when they were asked to give the Electoral Commission the power to tackle those abuses and impose a meaningful fine on those found guilty, they refused to do so. Imposing a paltry £20,000 fine has been shown to be no deterrent whatsoever. It is viewed by the worst offenders almost as a cost of doing business. We believe that our proposal for a maximum fine of £500,000 or 5% of an organisation’s or individual’s total spend will give the commission far greater power to act as a genuine deterrent to lawbreakers.

As I said at the beginning, these are incredibly dangerous days for our democracy, and this Elections Bill is just the start of a process that, if passed, will take democracy into a very dark place from which it will be difficult for it to return. This is not happening by accident. The architects of this plan understand exactly where it will lead. Just last month, Elizabeth David-Barrett, the professor of governance and integrity at the University of Sussex, used the phrase “state capture” to describe what is happening. She described state capture as

“a type of systematic corruption where narrow interest groups take control of the institutions and processes that make public policy, buying influence not just to disregard the rules but also to rewrite the rules.”

That is where we are currently. It is extremely dangerous, but it can be successful only if there is a compliant legislature and a widespread public attitude that it could never happen here. But it is happening here, and it is happening here right now.

The parliamentary arithmetic means that only Conservative Members can stop this plan in its tracks, and tonight they have a decision to make. As the soon-to-be ex-Prime Minister heads for the exit door, are they really going to acquiesce meekly and allow his final act to be the fatal undermining of our democracy? Are they really content to have history record them as having been party to one of the biggest betrayals of our democracy, and to have done it at the behest of a man whose days are numbered and who will almost certainly go down in history as the worst and most self-serving Prime Minister this country has ever had? That is complete madness. I ask Conservative Members, please, to think long and hard before backing this dreadful Bill; the Prime Minister is on the way out the door, but they should not let him take their reputations with him as he goes.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I welcome some of what the Government have announced today, particularly the safeguards around postal voting. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who already indicated that the Labour party was in office when voter ID checks were introduced in Northern Ireland, and there we have not seen the impact that the Opposition are suggesting.

I start by opposing new clause 1. For me, the question is about who is actually doing the voting and who is making the decision. I just sat on a private Member’s Bill Committee on increasing the age at which people can get married from 16 to 18 in England. Who is making that decision? The argument was made, and basically accepted by the Opposition, that 16 and 17-year-olds are not making it themselves. That is quite an important point. Also, why are we not talking about 13, 14 or 15-year-olds? I cannot understand why 16 is being particularly aimed for, especially when other things—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to intervene, they can stand up.

We have already made big changes over the past few years to raise thresholds to 18, including for cigarettes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) mentioned, and for active service overseas in the armed forces. I think that with 18 we have hit a new level that we agree on, so I do not understand why we would want to open that up again.

[Brendan O’Hara]

If the 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds who voted in the Scottish independence referendum did not make their own choice, who voted for them? If the research that says that they looked for and discovered the facts and made their own choice is not true, who does the hon. Member think voted for them?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Member raises a very important point. A far higher proportion voted in that group than in the 18-to-24 age group. I ask again: will he not reflect on who was actually influencing those people voting?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I was asking you.

[Mr Holden]

Wait a second—the hon. Member can intervene again if he wishes. I know that he and the Scottish National party do not want to raise the age of marriage to 18; the Scottish Executive have not made it clear so far, but I think they should. Article 1 in part 1 of the UN convention on the rights of the child says that a child is a child until 18 years of age, so I do not understand why the SNP is still backing child marriage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

There is no doubt that this is a dreadful Bill designed to undermine democracy, but I put on record my thanks to everyone involved in its passage, particularly all those Members who saw the dangers that it poses to our democracy and sought to oppose it every step of the way. I also thank the staff of the Public Bill Office for, again, the remarkable level of professionalism and assistance they provided throughout the passage of the Bill through the House.

The Bill could have not passed without the support and help of the Committee Chairs, so the steady hand and experience of the right hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Neath (Christina Rees) were much appreciated. I put on record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his advice and support in the last few months and to Mr Josh Simmonds-Upton for all his work in preparing us for Second Reading, Committee and the debates tonight.

To my deep, deep regret, the Bill has passed. The irony that it has passed to the unelected second Chamber to try to salvage an element of democracy should be lost on nobody in this House. What has the United Kingdom become? Hopefully our soon-to-be independent Scottish Parliament will look at the Bill as a perfect example of how not to organise an electoral system.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I have at every stage of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is nice to be on the home stretch after so long, especially as she very bravely took over halfway through. I know today could potentially be quite a long one and we are all keen to get to Prorogation so that those of us with candidates can get out on the doorsteps campaigning in the local elections, so I will not take too long.

I spoke previously about my psephological exuberance, and I am afraid that today I will expose my psephological exasperation at some of the amendments that have come back from the Lords. I am, as we would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House of Lords, a keen advocate of the upper Chamber and the excellent work it can do in refining legislation, as has been the case here. As such, I do not intend to speak to the amendments the Government are accepting; I think they speak for themselves, but I do welcome the refinements they present. Instead I shall touch briefly on Lords amendments 22 and 23 in the name of Lord Judge and then on amendment 86 in the name of Lord Willetts.

On amendments 22 and 23, clauses 14 and 15 will allow the Government, with the approval of Parliament, to clearly articulate the principles and priorities for the commission to be guided by when discharging its duties, especially where primary legislation is not explicit and where the commission enjoys a great degree of latitude in priorities and approach. Fundamentally, we should have confidence that there is a clear framework underpinning the role and duties of the commission in its work. At present, just three of the sitting commissioners have any electoral history of their own and, however august their CVs may be— and I absolutely accept that they are—they are not experts in elections or electoral law, nor do they have any lived, practical experience that informs their decision making.

Setting appropriate thematic guidance is wholly appropriate and clauses 14 and 15 give the power to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to approve that guidance. Despite some of the alarmist talk about this part of the Bill from those on the Opposition Benches, this does not take away from the independence of the commission, and I think if anyone were to be truly honest they would agree that the commission has not steered entirely clear of controversy or perceived bias in its past. We know at least of one recent case where its decision was overturned, in relation to the referendum; in fact, a former head of the commission was actively campaigning in that referendum. I want a robust commission, not one that plays fast and loose with the rules and gives itself carte blanche to do as it pleases. That said, I will be supporting Government amendments (a) to (k), which refine the Government’s approach.

Amendment 86 seems, I am afraid, to be another attempt to override the voter ID provisions of the Bill. The specified list of IDs, including the freely available Government ID to be introduced, provides a wide-ranging yet robust range of options to validate the right to vote. We have heard some disgraceful attempts to paint voter ID as a form of voter suppression against certain minority groups. I was told by a member of the Labour party in the Bill Committee that I, as an LGBT Member, would not be able to vote because of this new provision; it was absolutely disgusting. This is dog-whistle politics at its worst and Opposition Members should be ashamed.

In fact, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on this matter and I will read from the judgment:

“I consider that if persons have confidence in the electoral system by the elimination or reduction in voter fraud then they might be encouraged to vote by virtue of their increased confidence in the electoral process.”

In other words, the Supreme Court thinks this makes it more likely that people will vote.

According to work conducted by the Electoral Commission, two thirds of voters support voter ID, just 4% of people surveyed did not have any of the qualifying ID in the Bill, and just 17% of those people said they would not take up the freely available ID. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) is chuntering from a sedentary position; if people choose to absent themselves, that is their choice.

Opposing or undermining this measure is at very best to turn a blind eye to the problem. I asked in Committee and on Third Reading and will ask again: what is an acceptable level of fraud? How many votes is it okay to steal before we feel we have to act in legislation? [Interruption.] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; I am sorry, but I have heard this argument several times and it is spurious. We should want to be the envy of the world by having the most robust electoral system, and that can be achieved by doing what Northern Ireland voters have been doing for a very long time, and what most voters who turn up to the polling station with their polling card think they already have to do: prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote where they are trying to.

3.15 pm

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that turning up with a polling card proves that we are who we say we are, and if that is the case why does he reject the long list from the Lords? If he accepts that a polling card says who we are, why not the list from the Lords?

[Chris Clarkson]

No, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. I said people turn up with a polling card; I did not say that that is an appropriate form of ID. People already assume they have—[Interruption.] No, I did not; I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard because he clearly was not listening. [Interruption.] No, he was not. An appropriate form of ID is something that will definitively prove who we are.

I can give a perfect example of this. I share an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes). His surname is the same as my stepfather’s. I could go and vote on behalf of my stepfather by taking something that demonstrates that I am him, because I can just take it off his desk. That is how unrobust this approach is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

As I have said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not know how many times this is going on. I ask the hon. Gentleman: how many votes is it okay to steal in Scotland? Is there a different metric—is there a Barnett consequential for electoral fraud? It is ludicrous that this is being opposed, and we have to ask what the motive is from the Opposition Benches; I am pretty sure most sensible people can infer why they oppose it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I shall seek to give a calm and reasoned response to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendments 22 and 23, which, as we have heard, seek to preserve the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission, as well as Lords amendment 86, which says that, if we have to go down the road of providing ID at polling stations, what is deemed as an acceptable form of ID should be greatly extended to allow as many people as possible to participate in our democracy.

Having sat through hour after hour of the Bill Committee searching for evidence that any form of ID was actually necessary, nothing—particularly, I have to say, after the hon. Gentleman’s contribution—will shake me from the belief that there is no need for this. From day one this has been, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, a solution in desperate search of a problem. From the very first day of our evidence sessions, many months ago, I was convinced—I remain convinced—that the desire to produce photographic ID at polling stations is nothing less than a cynical ploy to disenfranchise a sizeable section of the electorate, and to give the Conservative party an advantage on polling day.

I thank the Lords for their valiant efforts to rescue something from this utterly appalling Bill. I know that they did a great deal of work on it and have tried to remove or soften some of its more unpleasant and fundamentally undemocratic aspects, but as I said in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report, the Elections Bill is rotten to its core. The Lords could have gone through the Bill for a month of Sundays and it would still be rotten to its core.

I believe that, in a democracy, the best place for the Bill would be in a chamber of democratic horrors in a political museum, where it would be brought out—along with the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—to be shown to aspiring politicians with a warning that said, “Look what we nearly did to our democracy.”

When we sent the Bill to the Lords, it was an affront to democracy, and however it was amended, there was not a snowball’s chance in hell that it would return and be anything but an affront to democracy. However, in the spirit that something—anything—is better than nothing, the SNP will support the amendments made in the Lords.

One of the most egregious ideas contained in the Bill was always the plan to politicise the hitherto independent Electoral Commission by placing it under the direction of the Government and having Ministers set its policy direction and strategy. The independence of the Electoral Commission is fundamental to maintaining public confidence and trust in our electoral system. In a healthy democracy, the idea of the independent referee having its strategic direction dictated by the sitting Government beggars belief. Giving this or any future Government the power to direct the work of the commission is fraught with danger, and if the public, campaign groups, political parties and individuals start to believe that the decisions of the commission are politically motivated, or that they are tainted by party political bias, the commission’s trusted position of impartial arbiter will disintegrate in short order.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech with many good points. Does he share my surprise that those on the Government Benches are not prepared to take into account the fact that the Lords tabled a cross-party amendment to deal with the concern that he and I share about undermining the Electoral Commission? That concern is obviously shared in the other place. Perhaps the Government could take that into account before dismissing that amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns. Those great concerns are felt not just on these Benches, but in the other place, as well as beyond Parliament. Among non-government organisations, individuals, trade unions and political parties, there is a genuine fear that our democracy is being undermined.

On our first day of taking evidence in Committee, Professor David Howarth, who served on the commission between 2008 and 2018, said of the idea:

“This would have been unthinkable in my time… I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 39, Q51.]

He is absolutely right. It should be unthinkable, and even at this late stage, I urge Government Members to stand up for democracy, defend the independence of the Electoral Commission and join us in supporting Lords Amendments 22 and 23.

I turn to Lords amendment 86, which would greatly expand the number of forms of identification that would be acceptable for receiving a ballot paper. I have made the SNP position on the principle of voter ID quite clear. That position was confirmed in the Bill Committee’s earliest evidence session, when witness after witness made it clear that personation was not a problem. Even the Government’s star witness was forced to admit that postal vote fraud was a far, far greater problem that had to be tackled, but conveniently, it is not tackled in this Bill. Yet here we are creating solutions for a problem that no one really believes exists, and the Government are rejecting reasonable proposals from the Lords. I regret that the Lords have conceded on the principle of ID cards, but simply extending the acceptable forms of ID would have been a far greater and more reasonable compromise.

[Paul Holmes]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He keeps saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud when it comes to voter identification, so I will very calmly ask him again. If I go to a polling station with somebody else’s voting card and vote on their behalf—that is personation—and that person turns up afterwards to vote for themselves, it is very unlikely to be proven that that is what has happened. The lack of ability to prosecute on that basis is exactly why we need voter identification.

[Brendan O’Hara]

First, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is breaking the law, and he will, if caught, be punished. Secondly, there is no evidence whatever that that is a widespread practice, but there is great evidence that there are problems with postal voting fraud. The Bill does absolutely nothing to address them. It looks in the wrong place because it is more convenient to those on the Government Benches to look for a problem rather than address a problem, as they, and even their star witnesses, have identified.

I cannot fathom why the Government would object to people to bringing along a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, a credit card, a bank statement that is less than three months old, a national insurance card, a council tax demand letter or a mortgage statement. I just cannot understand.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will just finish this point. Would the Government really have us believe that there would be an explosion of forged birth certificates being secretly traded outside polling stations; that a thriving black market in dodgy council tax demand letters would emerge, fuelled by desperate party activists; or that eBay would be awash with folk flogging their national insurance card to the highest bidder in a key marginal. It is utter nonsense! They know it is nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Christine Jardine]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about birth certificates, like many other married women in this country, my professional name is different from my married name, but it has always been accepted by the Passport Office, the bank and every other legal authority I know that my marriage certificate, which has both names on it, is proof that I am the same person. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept it as identification when voting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. Sadly, as with so much of the Bill, there is no common sense—indeed, no principle is involved. It is grubby attempt after grubby attempt to game the system in order to secure short-term electoral benefit for the Conservative party. If the price to be paid is a lessoning of participation in elections, I am afraid that is the choice made by Conservative Members.

From the outset we have opposed the Bill as being fundamentally undemocratic. Rather than being improved by its progress through this House, it has become even more undemocratic. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give it legislative consent. I thank the Lords for their attempts to improve the Bill and, in recognition of their efforts, we will support their amendments, but as the old adage says, there are some things in life that you just cannot polish, and this Bill is most certainly one of them.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—