Political Parties and Elections Bill

My Lords, the amendment would require electors to produce evidence of their identity in order to be issued with a ballot paper at a polling station in an election. The purpose is to strengthen the security of the voting process at polling stations. Of course, voting at polling stations has traditionally been conducted without the need for any personal identification to be produced. However, as we have been told, it is an offence to attempt to vote in place of another elector. That is personation. The Electoral Commission has provided guidance for returning officers on the actions that polling station staff should take if they suspect that a person requesting a ballot paper is not who they claim to be. It has encouraged returning officers to supply copies of this guidance to all presiding officers. The commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers have also worked together to produce guidance for police officers on how they should respond to any incidents of personation at polling stations. Any proposal to require voters in polling stations in Great Britain to produce ID as envisaged under the amendment would need very careful consideration. Though the amendment provides for a wide range of documents that may be produced as evidence of identity at polling stations, the Government remain of the view that requiring identification might present considerable barriers to voting at elections for some individuals. I note from the Electoral Commission’s briefing note that it is also of this view, stating: ""While we would welcome such consultation, we believe that the benefits of moving to a system of ID in polling stations would need to be carefully considered before deciding on whether legislation should be introduced, so as to examine the risk that it could disenfranchise some electors"." The requirement to produce evidence of identity would be a significant change; we must ensure that any approach is aligned with other reforms to the registration and electoral processes that are a part of this Bill. It would be premature at this stage to introduce identifiers in order to vote before we have had the chance to scrutinise the feasibility and any subsequent effectiveness of moving to a system that requires identifiers to be produced in order to register to vote. It is perhaps worth mentioning the recent information published on 1 May by ACPO and the Electoral Commission, which allows us for the first time to examine the extent and nature of allegations of electoral malpractice. From the information published, it is evident that there were 13 alleged cases of personation at the 2008 elections, with no further action being taken in at least six of these cases. While any instance of personation is unacceptable, these figures must be seen in the context of the 16 million votes that were cast at those elections. Any response must be proportionate. Our view is that, while not rejecting this out of hand, the available evidence does not justify the potential barriers to voting that the measure proposed by noble Lords might well put in place. This Government are prepared to take forward significant reform of the electoral system as, I hope, the introduction of individual registration clearly demonstrates. The approach we have taken to ensure that we strengthen the integrity of the system on a step-by-step basis, in the light of available evidence, in a way that does not disfranchise those electors who are entitled to cast their vote, is the right one. We do not think this amendment fits in with that. The great worry is that people will turn up at the polling station without any identification and then be turned away. That is the problem that we need to overcome. That is what I have to say on the matter on behalf of the Government tonight. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.