Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to the Representation of the People and Recall Petition (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 and the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2023. I ask that the three statutory instruments, laid before the House on 6 July and 4 September, be approved. The changes set out in these instruments deliver on our manifesto commitment to protect the integrity of our democracy, as legislated for by Parliament through the Elections Act 2022.

I will set out the key provisions of the instruments, turning first to the Representation of the People (Postal and Proxy Voting etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The Elections Act introduced a requirement to reapply for a postal vote at least every three years in Great Britain. This will help electors stay alert about the arrangements that they have in place, ensure that a person’s eligibility to vote by post is reviewed on a regular basis and reduce the risk of redundant postal ballots being issued. To make this transition as smooth as possible, this statutory instrument allows existing long-term postal voters’ arrangements in Great Britain to continue until 31 January 2026, giving those postal voters more time to make a fresh application under the new system.

Existing postal voters will be clear on when and how they need to make a new application, as electoral registration officers are required by the instrument to make those whose postal vote is due to expire aware in advance and outline the new application process. This will then remain an obligation on EROs for future postal voters. I appreciate that this will mean a change for long-term postal voters, but empowering them to stay informed and in control of their vote is a positive step. This measure will also help to prevent voters from being unduly pressured into having a postal vote and using it under duress.

There is concern that, under existing arrangements, electors can be coerced into appointing a proxy to control how they vote. The new arrangements will ensure that the scope for fraud is reduced by limiting the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. The instrument therefore introduces a limit to the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy to four, of which no more than two can be domestic electors—that is, an elector who is not registered as an overseas or service voter. It will update all relevant prescribed forms to make sure that the new limits are set out.

This statutory instrument also introduces an identity check at the point of application or reapplication for a postal or proxy vote. The elector will be required to provide their national insurance number, which will be checked against DWP data, or, where they cannot, they will need to give a reason why as part of the application. Where an individual does not have a national insurance number, the electoral registration officer may request other specified documentary evidence or an attestation to demonstrate their identity. This process is one that electors are already familiar with and has been in place for the register to vote service since 2014.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive introduction. We have to think about the context in which we are considering these statutory instruments. I will contain my remarks to the first one, about postal and proxy voting overall.

The context is that, just this month, the Electoral Commission’s report on the May elections noted that there had been a significant exclusion of people who wanted to vote from being able to vote by the process of voter ID. The Electoral Commission concluded that poorer people, people with disabilities and those from minoritised communities were significantly over- represented among that group. The Electoral Commission said that hundreds of thousands of people could be excluded from exercising their vote in the next general election. I note that, like many Members of your Lordships’ House in debates on the Elections Act, the commission made urgent recommendations to allow for a wider list of documents for voter ID and to allow other voters to attest to the identity of a voter who is with them at the time. In this context, can the Minister explain why, in its reflections on the election, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities failed to mention any of the Electoral Commission’s criticisms and described the rollout as “very encouraging”?

That is important in the context of these changes, which I now come to the detail of. First, under Section 3 of the Elections Act, we are looking at a time limit of three years for postal voting, when there is currently no limit. It is possible to look at this in two ways. The first is people being reminded that they have a postal vote. I am sure that some Members of your Lordships’ House have knocked on people’s doors and said, “Have you got a postal vote?”, and they reply, “Oh, I think so. I am not sure”. Obviously, people being reminded of where they are and being reminded to renew is not a bad thing. However, I also think of the many, often but not always elderly, voters who have a pattern: they know exactly what their involvement in elections is and they have been doing it for decades. This is a disruption that could see them lose their right to vote, if they are unable to leave the house to go to a polling station on polling day and they expect their postal vote to turn up, but it does not—and, the day before, they ring the council and it is all too late.

My Lords, before I make any comments, I wish my noble friend Lady Scott well since she handles election matters in most circumstances. I think the whole Committee would wish to do so. Although she was not necessarily due to handle this Committee, I think it is appropriate in these circumstances so to do.

I will follow the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in relation to elections by looking at elections in the context of two major changes that we are seeing. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, touched on one: the range of changes we are seeing in relation to elections law as part of the Elections Act, which I broadly support.

The other is that we are watching the development of election events, almost. Historically, people used to register on the electoral roll and that was an ongoing process. What we see nowadays is an immediate massive surge in registration at the point of an election, whether a local or a general election. The implications of that are that EROs and elections administrators face an enormous burden. We should not underestimate that burden, particularly because as legislators we are imposing ever more elections on the system. One thinks of mayors and regional mayors, and we now have environmental plans. Two years ago people in Liverpool went to vote in five different elections; they had multiple votes to cast. That is likely to continue. Therefore, the burden on elections administration is very substantial indeed and seems to be ever growing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the Electoral Commission’s comments in relation to voter ID. There has been pressure from other directions. The Electoral Commission not only referred to possible qualifications in terms of documents that may be produced but made other recommendations. I would appreciate an indication as to whether the Government intend to work with the Electoral Commission and other bodies to introduce any of the changes that are referred to in its report before a general election or the next local elections. The other day I discussed this with the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Wallace, and the timetable would be very tight, but it is another part of the burden that we are imposing on electoral officers in councils.

What concerns me most about the proposals before us today is that, as I have argued on a number of occasions, reducing the burden on elections officials would most effectively be achieved by allowing voters access to the register on a read-only basis. I referred just now to a substantial electoral event when literally millions of people go online and try to register, but have no way of knowing whether they are already on the electoral roll. The research that has been undertaken shows that somewhere over a third of all applications made to register online were unnecessary because the people were registered beforehand.

In evidence to a Select Committee on which I served, the Government identified the notional cost of read-only access. I think we indicated at the time that we did not believe the figure we had been given, and I still do not. It was an excessive figure. If Ireland can do it in a relatively small economy, we can do it also. I foresee a problem with people registering online for their postal votes. They will be registering without knowing whether they are on the electoral roll and then applying online for a postal vote. This burden will be in the middle of an election period, when the returning officers and their staff will be facing a massive task. We will now have people trying to register to vote when they do not need to and trying to register online for a postal vote when they probably cannot.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, identified, people will still be able to apply by paper application. I am fairly sure—speaking as somebody who has been involved in elections in the Tory party with my noble friend Lord Mott on previous occasions—that the political parties will not stop encouraging people to put in paper applications. Of course they will not, so all the applications online will come on top of all the paper applications. People will be trying to register when they do not need to and trying to apply for postal votes when they possibly already have a paper application, and we could have local elections and a general election on the same day. The risk of over- burdening the staff in these circumstances is substantial.

I conclude with another observation. I was written to on 21 July indicating that this review of online applications would begin in 2024. Some time at the end of July or in early August, returning officers and the software companies responsible for this were told, apparently without notice, that it would be not 2024 but 2026.

I am not sure why the change has been made. I can see some advantages in doing so, but it was somewhat odd to receive a letter on 21 July saying that it would start in 2024, and then, something like 10 days later, for returning officers and the software companies to be notified that it would be two years after that. If possible, can my noble friend indicate what the thought processes were, if it is clear? As I say, there may be benefits in doing so but the notification that people received was slightly surprising.

I have covered a number of issues. I do not mind if my noble friend writes to me on one or two of them, but I think they are relevant to the matters before us this afternoon.

My Lords, I want to address the point about the retention on the electoral register in Northern Ireland of the 100,000 electors who would otherwise be removed from the register at the end of the retention period—that is, 1 December this year—but who will remain on the register for a further year under the draft representation of the people and recall petition regulations.

I think the Minister indicated that people were satisfied, the Electoral Commission included, that those people were eligible to remain on the register. I would be grateful if he could just elaborate on how that has been established. If it has been established that they are eligible to be on the register other than by sending in the completed return, what lessons can be drawn from that in terms of people being registered generally? If that can be done easily, and these people can be checked, can we learn something from that process?

I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Northern Ireland Office about a more permanent solution to this issue, and the NIO responded that it was working with the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland on a plan to get these individuals successfully re-registered, including engaging with the Northern Ireland political parties, registration drives, writing to the individuals concerned in the latter half of next year, and so on.

Can the Minister indicate whether any consideration has been given to the ideas the Electoral Commission was talking about even in today’s newspapers in Northern Ireland, about providing a means by which, for instance, when people register for new driving licences, and so on and so forth, information can be shared in some way, either directly or indirectly, to speed up the process of registration? Today in the newspapers the Electoral Commission was talking about a fifth of all eligible voters in Northern Ireland—300,000 people—being either wrongly registered or not registered at all, and it suggests that this is one way of increasing the number of people registered. But I note that when the NIO responded to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it did not mention that particular idea among the various initiatives that it talked about. Instead, it talks about

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining the purpose of these instruments.

To take a step back—the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made these points—the process of registration and indeed now voting with ID is becoming more complicated, both for the voter and for those who administer elections. Some of us have some degree of suspicion about the Government’s motives, which is why it is important to scrutinise these things and ensure that what is being done is administratively sound rather than politically expedient. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, alluded to the concerns raised over the local elections.

We need to be clear that what is being proposed here, first, is fair and objective in increasing efficiency and, secondly, will not make it more difficult for people to register or to vote. Millions of people are not registered. Sadly, Scotland has the lowest number of registered voters at only 81%. Clearly, if being on the register or being a postal voter has to be renewed, for example, that might make it more difficult to maintain that degree of participation. All voters should be encouraged as far as possible to register and to vote; no regulations should be brought in that discriminate against any particular class of voter, if I can put it that way. The feeling at the moment is that this is not the Government’s position.

In passing, on the limitation of proxy voters to four, two of whom could be domestic voters and two overseas, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that I sometimes think the Government are more interested in getting votes from overseas people who do not live here than making sure that people who do live here actually vote. To that extent, I am not sure whether restricting the proxies to two domestic voters has practical implications that will effectively exclude people who are currently able to vote perfectly legally and properly. It is a question of whether the bureaucracy is excessive or justified and proportionate.

I think I can say, as an aside, that my former agent has just been appointed to the Electoral Commission on the basis that it wants to hear more about the practicalities of activism. I know that she will certainly raise her voice. Whether she will change the dimension I do not know, but there have been occasions when the Electoral Commission, in my view, has shown itself remarkably lacking in political understanding. It is important that it gets a little sharper at that.

That said, of course we support these instruments. The Government need to know that they will be scrutinised —by people such as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and my noble friend Lord Wallace; this is not my area of specialty. We value very much what the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, does in this area. He goes into it in detail, and I am confident that he will go on doing so, as will my noble friend Lord Wallace and others. The Government need to be on notice: we accept this, but we will watch closely to see what the outcome is and whether it is fair, just and proportionate in its application.