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.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is going to raise the burden of overseas voter registrations —which will come at some later stage—but, just in case he is not, I do so on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, while I have the floor. It is a fairly complex matter. I have been in communication with the Government because, with all-party support, I was lucky enough to get the Ballot Secrecy Act through this House and the other—it has become legislation. That is another burden that will be imposed on electoral officers in councils.
I have written to my noble friend Lady Scott about my legislation and she has indicated that there will be an SI at some stage. Can my noble friend indicate when that will come forward, as that will be yet another piece of legislation? When writing to my noble friend Lady Scott, I raised the Ballot Secrecy Act; I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to respond to this, but I questioned whether the briefings provided were accurate and consistent and raised other issues around elections, referenda, recall petitions and the like. I got answers to questions I had not asked, rather than to those I had. In one case, I did get an answer—I did not like it, but I accepted it—but in two others I got answers to questions I had not asked. My noble friend Lady Scott has offered to discuss this further with me. At this point I formally say, “Yes, please”, whether that is with her or another Minister, and with officials.
4 pm
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.