My Lords, in answer to that question from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, keeping the numbers at four and not allowing anybody to have as many proxy votes as they like will help control this sort of behaviour. We all know that it happened in the past.
I will get an answer on why postal votes are to be in guidance and proxy votes are in the Bill, and write to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven.
I turn to the amendments concerning the measure in the Bill designed to strengthen the current arrangements for proxy voting. Currently, somebody can act as a proxy for up to two electors and for an unlimited number of close relatives in any constituency in a parliamentary election, or any electoral area at a local election. This can give rise to situations where somebody could cast an extremely large number of proxy votes, over which they could also exercise undue influence. This is where the issue of care homes and such like comes into play.
The Bill introduces a new limited of four on the total number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy in UK parliamentary elections or local government elections in England. Within this figure, no more than two may be domestic electors—that is, electors who are not overseas electors or service voters. All four may be overseas electors or service voters. This approach will tighten up the rules on proxy voting, while also providing appropriate support for overseas electors and service voters wishing to appoint a proxy.
9.15 pm
We of course intend to phase in the measures for existing proxy voters, so that all voters will have advance notice of the changes to enable them to prepare for their new requirements. We currently intend to phase in this change over the course of a three-year period. We will work with the Electoral Commission and electoral stakeholders in order to publicise the changes and the new requirements. Electoral registration officers will also be required to send a reminder to existing proxy voters in advance of the date they cease to have a proxy vote under current arrangements, and will provide information on how to reapply for another proxy vote.
Turning to the amendments, I have heard the concerns which motivate the amendments that we are debating and I will address each amendment in turn. With respect to Amendment 96E, the Government share the concerns that the new requirements should not have an adverse impact on voters, particularly voters with disabilities. I can reassure noble Lords that it will still be possible for a disabled person to apply for a permanent proxy vote to enable them to participate in the democratic process. It is only the number of voters on whose behalf a proxy can vote that will be affected. We are also carrying out extensive engagements on these changes, alongside the rest of the measures in this Bill, including with disability groups, to ensure that they are aware of any changes.
I note the proposal in Amendment 96F to reduce to three the number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. While two was the original recommendation in the Pickles report, we have, as I set out, expanded this to four, in recognition of the particular needs of overseas and service voters. I am not persuaded that a reduction to three would strike the right balance.
Amendment 96G would amend the statutory question that may be put to a person voting as a proxy when applying for the ballot paper, which asks if they have already voted as proxy at an election for more than four electors. It will be the electoral officers who will ask the question, so they will remind the person that they have four. If they have done more than four, it is an offence. The amendment would add the word “knowingly” to the question. We consider this as unnecessary, as a person will know how many times they have voted, and on whose behalf, and so will be able to give a clear answer to this question if it is put to them.
I now turn to probing Amendment 96H, which seeks to add to the list of questions that a returning officer can ask a proxy voter whether they have been convicted of offences under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and have been sanctioned. The statutory questions which the returning officers will be required to ask proxy voters are designed to establish if the proxy is seeking to vote in breach of electoral law—for example, by voting on behalf of more than the permitted number of electors. I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, but it would be inappropriate to require polling station staff to ask questions that do not relate to the elector’s ability to vote or act as a proxy. For this reason, we cannot support the amendment.
Finally, Amendment 96J would provide that the proxy voting measure does not apply in relation to parliamentary by-elections. Once the measure is commenced, we see no good reason why we should specify that the new proxy rules should not apply in UK parliamentary by-elections. The reasons for introducing the measures are equally strong for all elections. I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.