As a matter of first principles, a secure electoral system is a vital component of a healthy democracy. The public must have confidence that the results of our elections are beyond reproach. Were that confidence to collapse the implications don’t bear thinking about.
Speaking as someone who has prosecuted to conviction councillors (of more than one party) for election fraud, this is a topic I take a particular interest in. It is a fact that over the last 10-15 years there have been a troublingly high number of attempts to subvert the integrity of the electoral process. Turning a blind eye to that would be dangerous.
It is perfectly legitimate of course to ask whether the proposed steps are proportionate. But I’m not persuaded that asking voters to bring ID to their polling station is unduly onerous. Voter ID is not new. Northern Ireland had required paper ID at polling stations since 1985, and photo ID since 2003. It has proved to be effective at tackling fraud and has not curtailed election turnout.
Second, identification to vote has also been backed by the Electoral Commission and international election watchdogs. After all, at present it is harder to take out a library book or collect a parcel at a post office than it is to vote in someone else’s name.
Third, I hope you’ll forgive me for pointing out that I understand that photo ID has been a requirement in many Labour Party parliamentary candidate selection processes for a number of years. I note that those planning to attend the Liberal Democrat Spring Conference this year were required to submit photos as part of the registration process. I don’t criticise the parties for that stance because I don’t think that modest requirement can properly be said to be discriminatory.
Indeed, in pilot schemes in 2019 and 2018 the overwhelming majority of people were able cast their vote without undue difficulty, and there was no notable adverse effect on turnout.
Moreover, as mentioned above, the Northern Ireland Assembly elections 2021, where voter ID is required, saw a higher voter turnout at 64.8% than the Scottish Parliament 63.5%, the Welsh Seneddd 48.6% and the London mayoralty 42%.
The Electoral Commission reported that "the experience of taking part in the pilot scheme appears to have had a positive impact on people’s perception of the security of the polling station process, and on their confidence in it...Polling station staff were satisfied with how polling day went and were confident that they could manage the process of people showing voter identification at future elections."
Under the Government’s proposals, anyone without an ID will be able to apply for a new free one – meaning that no voter will be disenfranchised.
Turning to the Electoral Commission, proper and robust scrutiny of the electoral process is important in a modern democracy – particularly in an era where online activities can create new vulnerabilities. The Electoral Commission has an important role to play in this regard – as indeed do the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
It is important that the various roles are not blurred, and that individual areas of responsibility are instead clarified and understood. As you may be aware, the Electoral Commission has sought in recent years to bring criminal offences before the courts – in other words to act as a prosecutor. But this is not a role that has ever been agreed by the Government or by Parliament. That is more properly a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.
There are good reasons why such a role was not agreed: it risks creating a conflict of interest, because the Electoral Commission is responsible for providing the very advice and guidance on electoral law on which the success of prosecutions may depend. In other words, they are at risk becoming witness and prosecutor at the same time.
It is instead the role of the police and CPS to uphold electoral law, and has been for many decades. Consequently, the Government intends to clarify this established position in legislation through the Electoral Integrity Bill before Parliament.
To be clear, the reforms would not affect the ability of the Electoral Commission to undertake other enforcement action as it deems necessary. Nor would they interfere with investigative, operational or enforcement decisions of the Electoral Commission. Nor would this in any way fetter the discretion of the CPS to prefer charges against an individual.
Separate consideration will be give to proposals from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee which are separately conducting inquiries into electoral regulation and the Electoral Commission.