My Lords, we now move back to the beginning of the Bill, to Clause 1 on voter identification and the Government’s proposals to introduce photographic voter ID at polling stations.
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, for their support for Amendment 55. Amendments 55, 61, 62 and 92 all concern cost, finance and what it will mean if we are looking to deliver the requirement for voter identification of electors at polling stations. Some amendments are to do with making Statements to Parliament on the estimated cost in order that Parliament has proper oversight. There are also amendments around local authority finances because they will have a serious role to play in ensuring that this is delivered appropriately and on time. Amendment 62 concerns the public purse.
First, whenever legislation is brought in that has serious cost implications for local authorities, it is really important that those costs are properly understood and considered. We know that local authorities are under huge pressure at the moment. Such new legislation impacts not just on finances but on resources as well. This is not just about money; it is about people and expertise.
The first three amendments in this group relate to Schedule 1. Amendment 92, to which I shall come later, concerns Schedule 3 but is still about costs. When PACAC held its witness evidence sessions on the Elections Bill, it explored the practical and cost implications of implementing the voter ID proposals.
I just wanted to draw attention to the evidence given by Peter Stanyon, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators. He described the cost as:
“Effectively unquantifiable in many respects.”
I find that quite concerning when you are looking at the impact on local authorities. He said that the Bill is
“light on the practicalities because that will come in secondary legislation down the line”.
I am sure the Minister is aware that some of our concerns about the Bill are about the amount that is to come later in secondary legislation. What this means is that noble Lords and Members of the other place are being asked to pass this legislation with a large amount of detail about the cost implications pretty much unknown.
The impact assessment on the Bill, carried out by the Cabinet Office—and discussed at Second Reading, if I recall correctly—estimated the total cost of introducing photo ID at £120 million over 10 years. That includes £15 million to produce the free voter ID cards for those who have no other photographic ID. That £120 million was a best estimate within the ranges that were looked at. The top end was £180 million. We all know how costs tend to go up rather than down with anything brought in by government.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, these costs include £55 million on larger, more detailed polling cards, which will have to be posted in envelopes for the first time, and another £15 million on producing plastic voter cards for the estimated 2.1 million people who may not have suitable ID. Does the Minister believe that this is really a good use of public money? It is worth noting that this is at a time when our NHS, for example, is under immense stress; £120 million could buy 10,316 hip operations or 3,986 new ventilators. I ask again: is this really a good use of public money at this time?
In the evidence to the Committee stage in the other place, Virginia McVea, Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, was interviewed. She gave evidence about when voter ID was introduced in Northern Ireland. She said that in the early stages “the costs were considerable”. She drew attention to the fact that there was a time cost as well as a financial cost and a resource cost, particularly during election times. In fact, she startled the Committee by saying that she needed 70 extra staff during the election period.
The Local Government Association has said that individually each new provision is technically achievable. However, the Association of Electoral Administrators has highlighted that the cumulative impact of these changes to an already fragile system will create capacity and resilience issues. Due to the increasing complexity of registration and election processes over the last 20 years, electoral services teams already work incredibly hard in the run-up to local elections, with significant amounts of overtime and weekend working. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament also know the extraordinary amount of work that goes on in the run-up to general elections.
There were extraordinary elections in May 2021. Then, many councils used what they call the one-council approach, meaning that they drew capacity from across the council to run local elections, with election staff acting as experts on the process. However, there are concerns that this would not be sustainable in the long term. It also fails to account for the added complexity created by the new provisions, which will also require specialist knowledge to navigate, certainly in the early days.
These changes, which add complexity and further duties for returning officers and the election teams, will also put additional strain on the finite election resources in councils. As a result, additional funding and other mitigations may be required to build capacity, maintain the capability of staff in the registration and election system and ensure—this is really important—the resilience of our electoral processes.
5 pm
The Bill must guarantee that local electoral authorities are properly resourced and given what they feel they need to carry out any new duties and responsibilities. During the evidence session in the other place, it transpired that local authorities had not already been asked for their estimates of what this would cost. How can the Government know what it will cost to fund local authorities adequately if they are not working closely with them on these matters? It is essential that any additional burdens associated with the introduction of new registration and electoral processes are centrally funded on an ongoing basis, so local authorities know exactly where they stand and what finances they will receive. Will this be the case and how will it work?
Are the Government planning any voter education and outreach programmes to inform the public about the changes, and to give people who do not have suitable ID the opportunity and time to apply for the new card? If this is the case, what will be the estimated cost? Have the Government looked into this? If they are not planning to do this, why not?
Another cost to local authorities will be the training of staff to ensure that the new voter ID laws are administered fairly, accurately and efficiently. Local authorities may want to supplement existing training with ID-specific materials and guidelines, and this may require increasing the overall electoral official training time. When photo ID was trialled in 10 areas holding local elections in 2019, over 2,000 people were turned away from the polls. The Government have refused to give any estimate of how many eligible voters could be turned away in a general election due to a lack of photo ID. My concerns are that if we do not have proper training, do not give proper information and enough time and do not build in the costs of that into introducing this legislation, we could have more people being turned away than should happen. No one should be turned away, but it is more likely to happen if those things are not in place.
It is hugely concerning that the Government are proposing very expensive changes to our electoral law that could disfranchise a great number of people. As Unlock Democracy says, this money could be spent on making it easier for people to vote, not harder. In Committee, the Minister, Kemi Badenoch MP, said, when looking to justify the proposals,
“Just because someone is not regularly burgled does not mean that they stop locking their front door.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/9/21; col. 127.]
In response to this, Liberty eloquently said in its briefing:
“The unintended implication of this analogy of course is that the person in question’s modest security measures seem to be working, leaving them with no reason to change what they are doing. Like our elections, their house is safe and there is no need to spend £180 million on a new lock.”
My Amendment 92 asks the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of Schedule 3 on local authority finances within six months of the passing of the Act. Schedule 3 regards the proposed changes to the period in which a person can apply for a postal vote. As it will again be local authorities implementing and administering this change, we believe the Government should have a clear understanding of the cost implications on our hard-pressed local authorities.
In this regard, the Local Government Association has said that registration costs relating to all-year-round registrations, postal and proxy votes are entirely the responsibility of registering authorities. Therefore, they cannot be recouped from the relevant authority, as with election costs. This is apparently the case for all election types, including unplanned snap general elections. Has there been any assessment of the likely costs of this? How will the Government fund local authorities to ensure compliance with the new rules?