What's next for Voter ID?

Host Catherine McKinnell hears from Dr John Ault, Director of Democracy Volunteers, an organisation which observes elections and reports their findings to improve electoral practice in the UK and abroad. His team fielded over 150 observers at more than half of the council's holding elections and he highlights key findings from their work.  

Two select committees have tracked the progress of Voter ID closely. Their Chairs join the podcast to consider what can be learned from the recent elections and the challenges ahead.  Clive Betts MP chairs the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee while William Wragg MP chairs the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

Listen and subscribe

Committee Corridor is available wherever you get your podcasts. Subscribe directly by selecting the relevant channel below, or by using the RSS feed. 

Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Amazon Music
Google Podcasts
Audible
Subscribe via the RSS feed

Transcript

Catherine: Hello, and welcome to Committee Corridor. 

No photo ID, no vote. 230 councils went to the polls on May the 4th this year representing 8,000 council seats. Some local authorities elected mayors.

It was the first time that voter ID was enforced in England. Photo identification such as a driving licence or passport will be needed to vote in the forthcoming parliamentary by-elections in July, future recall petitions and police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales.

And from October, everyone will need photo ID to vote, full stop. 

Today, we are looking at voter ID. What is it? Why is it needed? And looking forward, how will the experience of the local elections scale up in a general election?

I'm Catherine McKinnell. I'm the Labour Member of Parliament for Newcastle upon Tyne North, and I chair the House of Commons Petitions Committee.

For many of us, voter ID is a new aspect of going to cast our votes, though not in Northern Ireland where it's been in place for many years. 

The government has already committed to an independent review of voter ID at the local elections with the findings due in November. And future reports will come following the next two general elections. 

Two select committees have been watching this closely.

Later, we'll hear from Clive Betts, the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. And William Wragg, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

But first, we're going to hear from Democracy Volunteers. This impartial organisation observes elections and reports their findings to improve electoral practice in the UK and abroad. The team fielded more than 150 observers out and about on May the fourth at more than half of the council's holding elections.

Dr. John Ault is the director, and he joins me now.

Q1 Let's start with how voter ID works. Tell me what has changed and what are voters now required to do and why now, in your opinion?

John: A1 Well, in some ways, the changes are actually quite simple. Instead of the previous situation where an elector was not required to take any proof at all of who they were, not even their polling card in practice, they now have to prove who they are.

Until now, that has meant the UK is actually something of an international outlier. The OSCE, ODIHR (trust me, election is a world of acronyms, I'm sure you know) has previously recommended that the UK adopts an ID requirement to vote on several previous elections.

So, the last general election, the one before that, they've actually recommended we adopt this. Of course, unlike all those countries like France, Spain, Germany, countries in the EU, the UK doesn't have a national ID system.

So, the ability to implement a policy is much more complicated. You can't flick a theoretical switch in a polling station and say, “Oh, we now have ID,” whereas previous we didn’t.

So, now, voters are required to show an official form of ID. There's a long list, trust me, a very long list, but mainly, driving licences and passports were the norm that we saw on polling day.

Those without ID could also apply online for something called the Voter Authority Certificate or VAC, as it's sometimes called. 

The reason now is that the passing of Elections Act 2022, which I'm sure you know about, of which this is one of the key proposals.

Of course, this only affects those elections, which Westminster is responsible. So, English local elections, next year's Police and Crown Commission elections in England and Wales and for Westminster Parliamentary elections, of course, coming up.

Catherine: Q2 

So, your team was on the ground across England on May the 4th, and you've produced a report. What are your immediate thoughts on how it went?

John: A2

Yeah, we went to over half the councils in May, ranging from rural Devon to Central Newcastle, from the commuter belt to around London, to metropolitan Midlands and the north of England. We saw staff trying invariably successfully to deliver the policy. 

However, like all new policy, the effective testing in live is always going to be a challenge. By the time we got to May the 4th, the electorate were generally aware of the new requirements, about 94% they estimate based on some of the surveying they did.

We saw 1.2% of those voters we observed turned away because they lacked ID. The number differs from that given by the Electoral Commission because we spend between 30 to 45 minutes in each polling station. And as such, we don't remove those people who can return later. 

But that said, at least we saw 1.2% of those voters inconvenienced by the new policy, and some clearly excluded. 

Catherine: So, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has questioned the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators because their provisional figure suggests at least 14,000 people got as far as the polling station but didn't vote. So, that's 0.25% of potential voters.

Can we ever have a finite number, and what would you say is enough to cause concern?

John: Well, I think it's important to drill down further own into those figures, and to check what they actually mean.

Those figures are based on those who were turned away by the presiding officer and officially recorded on the BPRL — told you it was a world of acronyms (The Ballot Paper Refusal list). That data was collected by the councils themselves for the Electoral Commission.

It's officially recorded by the staff in polling stations and should be seen as the official estimate. However, we collected data, which suggests there were more informal methods of people being turned away, and we need to sort of drill down into those a bit more.

So, we then identified greeters, people who were there, members of staff from the council to greet people at the polling stations when they arrived. And we saw those at 43% of polling stations.

Invariably, they routinely asked voters if they got their ID ready, so they're prepared when they went to the desk. If they didn't, some of those turned away, long before they reached the desk. They're not in the official figures.

We identified party tellers at 28% of polling stations. Now, you know what they do. They collect the people's numbers so that you and other people like you can get out the vote later in the day. But they also have a chat with voters quite often. They don't stop people going in, but they'll say, hello, how are you? Especially if they know them.

I mean, it's not impossible to believe that those people also mentioned, “Don't forget to have your ID ready.” And those people may never have even made it into the polling station, and they also don't appear in the official figures.

Finally, we also identified signage concerning the requirement to show ID at 94% of polling stations. And importantly, we identified signage outside 56% of polling stations.

If someone had forgotten it, then presumably, they wouldn't have even got into the polling stations: “Oh, no, I've forgotten my ID card, my passport, my driver licence, I'll go home and get it.” Or maybe they thought, “Oh, I don't have it.” So, those people also don't appear in the figures.

So, I think it's a much more nuanced picture than simply those recorded at the desk. So, I think the baseline is the 14,000 the Electoral Commission suggested. I think actually, it's probably substantially more than that.

Catherine: What can we know about the voters that were turned away at the polling station?

John: Well, this is precisely what we conjected before the elections ourselves. We try and problematise some of the things that we're going to see at polling stations.

And we spoke to people like The Runnymede Trust and The Diversity Trust and sought guidance about how we as observers, independent, non-partisan and voluntary observers, could assess the types of people being turned away, because we wanted to get beneath the data that we knew lot of people were producing.

And it was recommended to us that we try and keep our definitions as simple as possible, simply because people's ethnicity is not as simple and it's fraught with difficulties.

So, we adopted the descriptions of white passing (bluntly, people who look like me) and non-white passing, people who don't. And I know it's a blunt instrument, but one that we thought was an effective way of identifying the types of people who might be excluded.

And of those people we saw turned away, 53%, over half, were non-white passing, far outstretching their representation in the wider community. As well as that statistic, we also asked our observers to note anything memorable. I'm going to read a few things out for you because I've written these down.

And remember about the cases that we saw, simply because I want to give you three examples because instead of just data, I think actually looking at some of that sort of qualitative information is as important as looking at the quantitative information.

And I actually observed this myself with my observation partner in Kidderminster. The first person was an elderly lady who entered with a guide dog. Now, obviously, she doesn't have a driving licence, and she probably doesn't go abroad. She was quite elderly. She didn't have a suitable ID.

She only literally had a photograph of her with the dog. And the staff were very apologetic. But after some time, she simply left. Well, that was a waste of time and said, “What was the point of me coming?” And I don't think the policy is intended to exclude someone like that, but she didn't get the chance to vote.

The second two are troubling in a different way. The second one's in St. Albans where our observers saw a couple of Pakistani origin, they showed Pakistani ID, passports, and it was not accepted.

The man was slightly irritated because he didn't know it was not invalid. If you looked very carefully in the handbook that people get/polling stations are given, it explains that it is valid. So, that person was turned away incorrectly.

And finally, another elderly lady in Peterborough was turned away despite having a Pakistani passport, and she was told it wasn't valid. And of course, as well, it was valid.

So, I think you've got to drill down some of the detail of what we're seeing. And some people were incorrectly turned away, and the elderly lady in Kidderminster, there needs to be something that sort of reflects on how she can be given access to the process because she'd done nothing wrong.

She'd obviously voted since, no doubt, the 1950s, but she wasn't able to vote. So, it was something that needed some thought, I think in her case in particularly.

Catherine: Yeah, that's very worrying to hear. On the voter ID requirements that were used, do you think there's a fair selection of identification documents that people can choose from and are valid?

John: As a non-partisan group of observers, we usually try hard not to get involved in the conversation about what is fair and what is not. We observe the process based on what is supposed to happen and what actually happens, making recommendations as we see appropriate.

However, in this case, we have actually made a recommendation. There are some issues that might be faced especially next May, especially in London, where there does seem to be a difference between the acceptability of one form of the Oyster card and another.

This perhaps needs to be looked at, bluntly because it seems odd that there's a discrepancy between the two. But there's also odd exclusions, which might make even less sense.

The badge I'm actually issued by the Electoral Commission for observing polling stations, I can go anywhere within a polling station, I can go into the count, I can go behind the scenes of the count.

Despite needing a passport or a driving licence to prove that's me, is not a valid ID to vote in a polling station under this legislation. Your parliamentary pass that allows you to enter the Palace of Westminster, bearing mind all the security checks Parliament has - is not valid ID.

So, there clearly are some ways of improving the policy going forward, which legislators like you should look at. But I think that also those ones issued by official organisations like the NHS, work establishment, might be ones that could be looked at.

Catherine: So, the Voter Authority Certificate, which you mentioned earlier, did you see that in use? And how important do you think that is for voters in these elections?

John: Only about 56,000 were actually issued. We saw very few used on the day itself. In fact, I think awareness of them was very limited. The Electoral Commission recorded themselves that not many were used.

I mean, it's my guess that lots of people, in the elections have actually applied themselves to see what the system is like to make sure, essentially try and see that the destruction testing of the process worked.

I know a number of people who’ve checked the system themselves to apply for one. 

I think it could be well be a lot more important in the future, but it's aimed at those that are computer literate and have the capacity to apply for such things. We also had to be aware the deadline of VACs five days before the election.

Bear in mind that Monday was a bank holiday, so lots of people may not even have heard about it by the deadline or in time to receive one. And then don't forget, with the Westminster general election with 20 days’ notice, that's quite a tough timetable for election administrators to get through especially as a five-day deadline. There might be bank holidays in the process as well.

I think it could be an important part of the process, but I don't think it's yet been (for want of a better phrase) destruction tested.

Catherine: So, that leads me on to the other question I was going to ask, which is, do you think the electoral authorities had enough time to roll out voter ID to manage this process? And was there enough time to prepare the electorate? Was there enough done to reach out to everyone that needed to hear the message?

John: Well, I wrote a paper for the Constitution Society last November about the forthcoming implementation of voter ID. And that paper suggests that 45% of councils were not at all confident or not so confident about training their election staff ahead of the elections for the new rules.

In response to another question, an election administrator said 23 of the 64 that responded to this one, said they were not at all confident that they would be ready for 2023 because the secondary legislation hadn't been published. Another 26 out of the 64 said they were not so confident.

The organisation, the AEA, which represents election administrators believes, and I'm quoting them, “The Gould principles should apply, and voter identification only enacted if all necessary legislations made at least six months before the election.”

Elections are seen as being a sort of no fail part of what councils have to deliver. And I think this tested them to a high degree. I think a Westminster election would test them more.

So, essentially, they didn't think themselves that they could go ahead in 2023 based on that that report I issued. But I think the second question is I suspect not, honestly.

I mean I feel it would be almost impossible to reach everybody out there because the evidence Electrical Commission issued themselves suggested that 94% of voters in those areas that had elections were aware of the new changes. But as you imply, that means that 6% weren't.

I suspect those hard-to-get people are equally hard to get in opinion surveys. So, I think we can't guess those people that can't be reached by it.

Catherine: Isn't the difficulty here though, because I know from my own talking to voters around the recent local elections, that a number of people said to me, “I won't be voting, I haven't got ID.”

And that without having that clear figure of not who's turned away at the polling station, but who is put off voting altogether, without having a clear picture of that figure, we can't really assess the true impact of this on our democracy.

John: That’s a fair comment. And the Electoral Commission in their recent sort of interim report issued some data on that. They did some opinion surveying of voters, and they estimate 4% of people didn't go because they just thought they didn't lack that sort of ID. Another 1% refused to go because they disagree with the policy.

So, I don't like to use the phrase chilling effect, but there clearly is a chilling effect on some people because they simply don't have the ID. Now, that's why I think there should be things like off-ramps.

Other international countries have ways of allowing people to vote differently. So, for example, Ireland recently introduced ID, and they have a one in four policy, the Republic of Ireland. Their test is to ask every fourth person about their ID.

Countries like Canada allow other people to attest on behalf of them. Actually, in Ireland, it might seem a bit old-fashioned; they have a Bible in every polling station that allows you to swear on the Bible that you are who you say you are, because an oath is quite an important thing as well as just being able to prove who you are with your ID.

So, there are methodologies that could allow it. Extension of emergency proxy voting is another possibility. Also, if you are with somebody from your household who does have an ID, that person can attest for you that you are who you say you are.

So, there are ways of, I think allowing this to bed in that would be softer, but they just need to be looked at by government and see if some of them are deliverable. 

Catherine: So, you mentioned some recommendation that you will be making in terms of ID, but what other advice will you be offering the Electoral Commission and the government ahead of these by elections that are coming up, and also, the upcoming general election?

How do you think this is going to work? As you mentioned, we're going to have much higher turnouts and a bigger challenge.

John: Well, you and your listeners can read our report, which is available on our website. 

We've suggested that other forms of ID would be a good idea, but also wider awareness of those that are already available. If people have been excluded with a valid ID, that seems an odd situation. So, obviously, better training will be required.

And I think the second question really gets to the heart of the matter. We need to keep monitoring those that are not voting and are potentially turned away. 

As I understand it, this data may not be officially collected at the Parliamentary by elections next May or at the general elections. So, we may not have the stuff that we're talking about now to actually reflect on. And I think that's a mistake. 

We will continue to collect that data ourselves through our election observation, but we don't think it's going to be collected officially by the Electoral Commission through the Council Presiding Officers.

And I suggested local elections important as they are, they're more for the election enthusiasts, the people who like these things. And general elections see a wider section of society engaged with the process. And this may lead to queuing, less awareness of the new policy, and possibly, even challenges and conflict.

I mean, one of the things that councils were preparing for in May was a potential conflict in polling stations with people who said, “I've always done it this way. Why do I need to change?” And there were things that we didn't see much of, but clearly, there was some dissatisfaction with the policy, including with some people trying to deliver the policy because they were nervous about delivering it.

Because in the past, the job has been one of welcoming people to the polling station saying, “Hello, how are you? And enter the poll,” and now, you're more the guardian of the process of your presiding officer, so the role has changed.

But I think it's obvious, isn't it, a general election is going to be the biggest test for this policy and everyone in the electoral community knows that.

Catherine: So, John, it has been said that voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. What are your thoughts on that?

John: Well, I think it's an interesting question. I mean, like I've said, we've been recommended by the OSCE, ODIHR for several general elections in a row that we introduced this in the UK to improve the integrity of our elections.

And I think there is a danger of assuming our elections are perfect. I mean, you perhaps know something called the Ballot Secrecy Act was recently passed by Lord Hayward, a private members bill coming from the Lords, which is a pretty rare creature indeed, to try and prevent people voting in polling booths together.

Now, you might not know that's a problem in Newcastle, but I've seen that in lots of polling stations. We see it in 40% of polling stations. In Northern Ireland, two people vote in the same polling booth together.

Across England, this May, we saw it in 17% of polling stations. So, that was a solution in search of a problem, and it hopefully will help solve it in the future.

I think the advantages of ID are ones that haven't been discussed, which is they bring us in line with international standards. There can be no problem if you have a national ID system showing your ID to vote, but that's where the problem lies, is that lots of people don't have ID, don't necessarily at this point, know they require it.

So, I think it's a complicated question, which people, more importantly like you should try and answer. But in principle, I think it's not a bad idea. In practice, it's not as deliverable as people think it is. It isn't just like flicking a switch in a polling station and people will behave differently.

Catherine: Do you think it's here to stay?

John: I think that's a really good question. I think obviously, we'll see it in the forthcoming by elections. We'll see it in May next year, where it could be challenging in London with much more diverse population, much more activist population, and potentially, a higher turnout.

We'll also see it in the next Westminster general election and next year's PCC elections across England and Wales. And the Westminster general election, I think will be the destruction test of whether people think it works or not.

If we see lots of people turned away or more concerningly, its results challenged by election petition because 500 people are turned away in a constituency, the result was a majority of 50, I think that's when you might actually see people question this a bit more openly.

But I think that's down the track. I think for now, I think it will exist until the next Westminster general election for certain.

 

Catherine: Well, thank you very much for your input today. It's been really interesting. Thank you.

John: Thank you.

Catherine: The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee launched its inquiry into electoral registration in November 2022. Just last week, they held a debrief with the key agencies involved in the local elections.

It's chaired by Clive Betts, the Labour MP for Sheffield South East. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is chaired by William Wragg, the Conservative MP for Hazel Grove.

In 2021, it called for the government to stop the passage of the elections bill, which introduced the requirement to show photographic ID to vote at polling stations. The committee has also reported on the work of the Electoral Commission.

Clive, Will - welcome to Committee Corridor.

QP1 Will, I'll come to you first. Your committee has published a report on the work of the Electoral Commission. You warned that the commission faced challenges to support voters, campaigners, and electoral administrators to understand and navigate the changes ahead of this May’s local elections, and use voter ID for the first time.

The commission told the Levelling Up Committee last week that the elections were safely delivered by the skin of their teeth. Is that good enough?

William: Well, thank you Catherine. I don't think anything being done so important such as the conducts of democratic elections should ever ideally be done by the skin of anybody's teeth.

And so, I would hope therefore, that things might have been more properly thought through. I'm not surprised that they were done barely by the skin of teeth, given how delayed final guidance was, as to the nature of the types of voter ID that might be admissible.

So, I would say rather than having a sort of all-right on the night kind of attitude to elections, we should really try and aim for something slightly better than that.

Catherine: So, I mean, we've only had the elections and we've just had the initial findings, and obviously, there will be further information that helps us to understand where some of these challenges were.

But disabled voters seem to be more affected than others. Also, unemployed people and some ethnic and minority groups, language may well have been an issue. So, from your work on this, are you surprised by these initial findings?

William: AP2 No, we're not surprised. Our report, you've mentioned,   really highlighted this as an issue that we thought was likely to crop up from all of those different groups that you mentioned, for a variety of reasons. Not least the likelihood that they would have a form of admissible photo ID.

And so, to us, it wasn't a surprise. And I know select committees of the House pride themselves of possessing great foresight of being able to see what will be on the other side of the hill.

But given that we recommended it in our report, we'd hoped that people might have paid some attention to it. We didn't just do it for its own sake. It was based upon the evidence we took. And sadly, much of that came to pass.

Catherine: Clive, do you think we could have prepared better? Your committee recently heard from the Electoral Commission. How do they feel their awareness campaign went?

Clive: Well, I think they feel it went as well as it could have done in the time period, but Will's put his finger on it. The problem was that the guidance that came out from government to help the administrators of elections at local council level was just too late.

So, they were rushing around to get a very important change in place without proper advanced notice of what the details were going to be. We heard from evidence that we had that one of the things that was brought in was the certificates people can apply for who haven't got any other form of ID.

Apparently, that was quite easy for people to apply for them. But at the other end, the system where electoral administrators were processing those applications virtually collapsed in the last few days. So, that really wasn't very good, and it was just all too rushed.

Catherine: So, there was an interesting snippet from your session about Voter Authority Certificates, which is a form of ID which people could apply for in advance. Instead of trying to use a passport or a driving licence, the Electoral Commission said they expected 250 to 350,000 applications, but around 90,000 people applied for them.

So, they can't be precise, but it seems only around 25,000 of these certificates were used on the day. I don't think your committee's come to a view yet, but should we look at other forms of ID, should work photo IDs be accepted? So, for example, NHS workers or police warrant cards?

Will, have you got a view on this as well?

William: We did explain the sort of discrepancies. And so, for example, a senior person's bus card, I think was admissible, but I'm not sure if a student union card was. And so, I think there was rather arbitrary. Lots of things are arbitrary, of course they are. But there didn't seem to be a correlation really in the types of ID for different groups. It was a concern for us.

Clive: Yeah, I think we're going to have to persuade the Government to have another look at it. And we haven't come to a view yet.

But I actually made the point in asking a question, in the House of Commons, that I thought it was really perverse that an elderly person's travel pass — and I produced mine to show I got one, could be used as ID, but a young person's travel pass couldn't.

And a police officer with a warrant card, that's pretty clear evidence the person is who they say they are, couldn't be used. So, let's have another look at it to see if we can broaden it.

But even then, I think we've still got a great deal of work to do to try and get the message across as to what voter ID is required and what won't be counted.

Catherine: On that point, the Prime Minister has defended voter ID as entirely reasonable after former minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg suggested the policy had backfired and kept some Conservative voters at home.

Does he have a point?

William: Well, I only wish if that was his view, they'd voted the same way that I did along with David Davis as the two Conservative rebels who voted against the introduction of voter ID.

The reason I voted against it is because I think it's a solution in search of  a problem. The evidence base for it is flimsy at best, I would suggest. And there may well be real issues with voter fraud, but I tend to think that's found around postal votes as opposed to impersonation at a polling station.

So, it's all very well-reflecting on that now, but if that's what Jacob Rees-Mogg thought at the time, I only wish he'd voted accordingly.

Catherine: So, looking ahead, in the UK's 2019 general election, voter turnout was 67.3%. In Northern Ireland where there's been voter ID for some time, the overall turnout was 54.7%.

The turnout for mayoral elections this year was no higher than 36.5%. So, is it possible to predict if vote ID will help or hinder public engagement in future elections?

Will, have you got a view on this?

William: AP7 Well, mathematically, it's the case. If 14,000 people who had been turned away and didn't come back then, then certainly that's a reduction in turnout, isn't it? However small.

But my concern, thinking ahead to the next general election, the idea that somehow this was a trial run. Well, local election turnouts are generally low, aren't they? We understand that.

But it can't be seen as a trial run if at the next general election, you get those people who turn out every four or five years for a general election who haven't been through this process. They haven't been through this trial.

And so, my concern is that you have the potential for greater numbers of people to be turned away in this manner.

Catherine: Clive, coming back to you, there's far less notice about general elections and for local or mayoral elections because the Prime Minister can seek to dissolve Parliament with very little notice.

So, local elections tend to have voters that are most engaged with politics, and so are most likely to look out for or see advertisements or look out for how they might ensure they get their vote in.

How would that impact on local authorities and their resources given a general election you need to much more proactively reach out to the electorate to encourage them to vote. Is there a risk of the public just losing their confidence in voting?

Clive: I think it's a very, very big problem that you've got, Will’s absolutely right, you've got people who don't turn out as often for general elections. They just come probably once every five years.

There're probably groups of people who turn out for general elections that don't come to local elections very often, like younger people, like people from the private rented sector where it's sometimes harder to communicate through correspondence with them.

These people are going to vote at general elections, hopefully, probably won't be as well-informed about the new processes. The Electoral Commission will have far less time to get messages out.

And then if we're still round to this issue of these voter certificates being applied for with the local authority — what tends to happen in the general election, people rushing at the last minute and say, “Oh, I want to vote. What do I have to do? Oh, I need to get a certificate now.”

And local authorities could be deluged with last minute applications in a system which didn't prove very good this time. So, I think there's so many challenges around, and councils told us on this occasion that they were struggling in many cases to get polling staff.

A lot of people who'd done it for years didn't want to do it, were concerned about the changes. Some local authorities borrowed staff from other local authorities who didn't have local elections this year.  At the general election, everyone has an election and it's going to be harder for local authorities to get the necessary staff in as well.

Catherine: And do you think they've made it more complex for local authorities? The voter ID is just one of the many changes in the Elections Act 22. I mean, it is one of the biggest changes, but potentially, there are further changes coming at a general election.

Do you think it's changed the nature of what electoral services do, and it's changed that relationship with the voter in a sense, at the polling station itself, it's become about checking rather than welcoming into the polling station, which is how it was previously?

Clive: Yes, I mean, the whole effort before had been, let's get more people to vote. And now, it seems to be wait a minute, you can't vote because you haven't got this piece of paper.

So, I think it is a change of approach. And also, what we were told by the Electoral Commission and the electoral administrators at the committee, was some of the other changes, which are probably less high profile, less well-known about having to give identification when you apply for a postal vote, only keeping a postal vote for three years, not five before you have to renew it.

And then the open house for people who have moved abroad to be able to register in perpetuity to vote, nobody knows how those things are going to work out. They haven't been done yet. They haven't been tested, they're all going to come in. We're not sure when they're going to be coming. We are not sure how much advanced notice will be given for councils to prepare for all these changes, often coming in in very short order one after the other.

I think these are major challenges and we just do not know. It could really block the whole system up with administrators and their staff who already are struggling with the changes brought in so far.

Catherine: So, the Chair of the Electoral Commission, John Pullinger, said last week that voter ID would only be successful if accessible. One person turned away is too many in his words. Do you agree with that, Clive?

Clive: Yes, because there'd be so few examples of in-person voter fraud — why we brought all this new system in to deal with that is really questionable. But what the electoral commission has said is they favour voter ID, but they said it should have been brought in gradually.

First of all, you should have said you need voter ID at the polling station, but then, a few elections with a grace period. And then only after that, once people got used to the idea of bringing the ID with them, should they have been told, “Right, if you don't have it, you won't be allowed to vote.”

But bringing it all in together, together with a new system of voter certification, if you hadn't got other forms of ID, was just too complicated and the messages were too difficult to get across so that everyone understood them.

Catherine: Will, the government has really driven this voter ID; should decisions on voting and electoral change be in the hands of the government?

William: Well, I think, with my constitutional hat on, Catherine, I'd say it was for members of Parliament to vote upon legislation, which is indeed what they did. And just because the vast majority of them follow the whip at any instance, that's a fact of life.

However, I think the important thing about anything to do with electoral reform and the administration of elections should be done on a cross- party basis. I think it's regrettable, and it gives entirely the wrong impression as well when party politics is seen to be brought to the fore in such a debate.

The mechanisms by which we are elected and colleagues at local government level, et cetera, I think there should always be a respect and a confidence in that process that should be beyond party politics.

So, it's entirely proper that MPs vote. And of course, legislation tends to be introduced by the Government, but it should be done in such a way that commands a broad consensus.

Catherine: There's a lot of analysis still to come about what happened, but is it your sense that voter ID is here to stay?

Clive: I think it probably is. Can we make it work better? Can we probably reconsider some of the other changes that are coming in that might just overwhelm the system before the next general election?

And then just echoing Will's point there, about how we could do things on a cross-party basis. One of the big challenges I think that so far hasn't been addressed, and I hope we can do it through our committee on a cross-party basis, is to look at electoral registration.

Because the really big challenge in our electoral system is not the two or three people a year who get prosecuted for voter fraud, but the 8 million people who could be registered to vote and aren't even registered. That to me is a big challenge, and I think there, we have got a lot to learn from other countries.

Catherine: So, Will, can I put the same question to you? Do young people today see the prospect of voter ID with them for many years to come?

Will: I never say never to things, going back to how they were. And it's not that long ago that you didn't need voter ID. So, I never say never, no Parliament can bind its successors.

Given that I voted against it, it probably won't surprise you to know from our rather contrarian attitude as well, that this year, I applied for a postal vote rather than show my ID at the polling station. But that's just the sort of person that I am. I can't imagine everybody else is as difficult as me.

Catherine: We heard from Democracy Volunteers that they'll be offering their findings to people who legislate for, administer, and oversee elections. What's next for your committees?

William: Well, if you'd like me to go first with that one, I think one of the things that we have long called for in various reports is the need — it's not particularly a glamorous idea, but the need for consolidation of electoral law, much of which is disparate, it's spread all over the place.

And frankly, quite often, it's volunteers who are involved in politics. It's not always professional agents. It is people who are approaching it as volunteers. I think there's a need for it to be easier to navigate.

And I think that can only be achieved by legislation that consolidates the rather confused picture that there is at the moment of electoral law. So, I think as a committee, we'll be continuing to reiterate that point.

Catherine: And for yours, Clive?

Clive: And that point again, was made to us by the Electoral Commission at our recent hearing. It seems very sensible, completely agree with what Will says. Volunteers trying to look at the situation, try to make sure they stay on the right side of the law is really very challenging when it is so complicated what the law actually is.

So, clarifying the law, probably completely rewriting it, the Law Commission's already done work in this area, I think will be a sensible step forward where you could then sit down, hopefully, get cross-party agreement on what a new law for the elections for the future would actually be.

Catherine: Well, Will, Clive, thanks so much for your time today and for the work that you're doing on this very important issue.

My thanks to all my guests today. If you'd like to find out more about the work of either of the committees who joined me today, search for PACAC or the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, plus UK Parliament.

I'll be back next time with a special episode on the work of the Petitions Committee, which I chair. We'll be looking at how petitions work in Parliament and hearing from people who've presented petitions and the value of them.

I'm Catherine McKinnell, and this has been Committee Corridor. Thank you for listening.

Further information

• Women and Equalities Committee
• Petitions Committee
• About Parliament: Select committees
• Visiting Parliament: Watch committees
  
  Image: Tim West/UK Parliament