house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1167 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1168 for personal identification is natural. They are so used to it that they do not think that this matter should be controversial. Frankly, at this time of night we are not going to have a substantial debate, but we may well wish to return to this issue at Third Reading. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to what could be done, because there is a genuine concern that if we are to move in this direction we need to ensure that it works as effectively as it does in Northern Ireland. Lord Bach: 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. 10 pm 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. Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that that was satisfactory. I am minded to consider what to do about it in due course. At three minutes past 10, I will spare the noble Lord a Division on this matter, because I suspect that the response that we might get might not be representative of the feelings of the House. I think that there is a problem here. I have certainly been advised that there is one. I do not think that it would be a problem for people to bring some form of identification. Most people have some form of identification of one sort or another on them most of the time. We suspect the Government want ultimately to make that compulsory by bringing in ID cards. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, denies this and shakes his head. However, we know that ID cards are on the way. At least, the Government seem to think that they are on the way; I am not sure that they will ever happen. I will not go any further. The response was unsatisfactory. I will consider what we shall do with this matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 103 withdrawn. Clause 29 : Obligatory provision of identifying information Amendments 104 to 111 Moved by Lord Bach 104: Clause 29, page 30, line 34, after “above” insert “or by virtue of subsection (4C) above” 105: Clause 29, page 31, line 12, after “above” insert “or by virtue of subsection (1C) above” 106: Clause 29, page 31, line 47, after “above” insert “or by virtue of subsection (2C) above” 107: Clause 29, page 32, line 23, leave out from “keeper” to “, following” in line 24 108: Clause 29, page 32, line 36, at end insert “or checking a person’s entitlement to be registered in such a register”
1169 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1170 109: Clause 29, page 32, line 40, at end insert— “(4ZC) Provisions for the disclosure by a CORE keeper to a registration officer, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (4ZA), of information within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subparagraph.” 110: Clause 29, page 32, line 40, at end insert— “( ) in sub-paragraph (4A), for “such authority or person” there is substituted “authority or person within paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (4)”, and for “such records” there is substituted “any records within sub-paragraph (4)”;” 111: Clause 29, page 32, line 43, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— “(c) for sub-paragraph (6) there is substituted— “(6) But provision made under sub-paragraph (4ZA), (4ZC) or (4A) may not permit information obtained by a registration officer or CORE keeper under that provision to be disclosed by the officer or CORE keeper except— (a) for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (4ZA) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (4A), or (b) for the purposes of any criminal or civil proceedings, or, in the case of information obtained by a registration officer, to a person to whom the officer may delegate functions.”;” Amendments 104 to 111 agreed. The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen): My Lords, as Amendment 111 has been agreed to, Amendment 112 should not refer to page 32, line 44. Amendment 112 Moved by Lord Bach 112: Clause 29, page 32, line 44, at end insert— “( ) after sub-paragraph (6) there is inserted— “(6A) In sub-paragraphs (4ZA) and (4ZB) “CORE keeper” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006.”;” Amendment 112 agreed. Amendment 113 Moved by Lord Bach 113: Clause 29, page 32, line 45, leave out paragraph (d) and insert— “(d) sub-paragraph (8) is omitted.” Amendment 113 agreed. The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment 113 has been agreed to, Amendment 114 should not refer to page 32, line 46. Amendment 114 Moved by Lord Bach 114: Clause 29, page 32, line 46, at end insert— “( ) In paragraph 13 of that Schedule, for sub-paragraph (1ZA) there is substituted— “(1ZA) Provisions making a person who discloses information in breach of paragraph 1(6) guilty of an offence punishable— (a) on conviction on indictment, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both; (b) on summary conviction in England and Wales and Scotland, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both; (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.”” Amendment 114 agreed. Clause 30 : Provision supplementing section 29 Amendment 115 Moved by Lord Bach 115: Clause 30, page 33, leave out lines 29 and 30 Amendment 115 agreed. Clause 31 : Schemes for provision of data to registration officers Amendments 116 to 119 Moved by Lord Bach 116: Clause 31, page 33, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert— “(2) The purpose is assisting the registration officer to meet the registration objectives and, in particular, assisting the officer— (a) to ascertain to what extent those objectives are being met, and (b) to determine what steps should be taken for meeting them.” 117: Clause 31, page 34, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert— “( ) A person who discloses information in breach of subsection (7) is guilty of an offence and liable— (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both; (b) on summary conviction in England and Wales and Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; (c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.” 118: Clause 31, page 34, leave out lines 35 to 37 119: Clause 31, page 34, leave out lines 39 to 44 Amendments 116 to 119 agreed. Clause 32 : Schemes under section 31: proposals, consultation and evaluation Amendment 120 Moved by Lord Bach 120: Clause 32, page 35, line 36, leave out ““registration officer” and “scheme” mean the same” and insert ““scheme” has the same meaning” Amendment 120 agreed.
Page 1 and 2:
Vol. 711 No. 91 Wednesday 17 June 2
Page 3 and 4:
1057 Police: Funding [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 5 and 6:
1061 Sri Lanka [17 JUNE 2009] Banks
Page 7 and 8: 1065 Banks: Lending [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 9 and 10: 1069 Political Parties and Election
Page 39 and 40: 1129 Organophosphates [17 JUNE 2009
Page 57: 1165 Political Parties and Election
Page 61 and 62: GC 271 Arrangement of Business [17
Page 63 and 64: GC 275 Companies Act 2006 Order 200
Page 65 and 66: GC 279 Overseas Companies Regulatio
Page 67 and 68: GC 283 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009
Page 69 and 70: WS 69 Written Statements [17 JUNE 2
Page 71 and 72: WA 207 Written Answers [17 JUNE 200
Page 77 and 78: Wednesday 17 June 2009 ALPHABETICAL
Page 79: Volume 711 Wednesday No. 91 17 June
show all

house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?