Agenda item

6.1

It was formally moved by Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs, and formally seconded by Councillor Lisa Banes, that this Council:-

(a)     notes that the Government wants voters to present identification (ID) before being given a ballot paper in an attempt to combat “voter personation”, with five local authorities trialling this for the upcoming council elections in May;

(b)     notes with concern this development and highlights that a coalition of charities and academics has warned the Government that plans to enforce voter ID at the upcoming local elections could ‘damage turnout and undermine engagement’;

(c)     contends that Electoral Fraud is a serious crime and should of course be combated, however, it is this Administration’s belief that there is simply not enough evidence of voter fraud in the UK to justify these potentially damaging pilots, which threaten to disenfranchise members of some of the most vulnerable groups of society;

(d)     notes that in 2016 there were 44 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 64 million votes, reflecting just one case for every 1.5 million votes cast, and that last year there were only 28 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 45 million votes - one case for every 1.6 million votes cast – with only one of these allegations resulting in a conviction;

(e)     contends that whilst the Government has stated that anyone can apply for a Certificate of Identity, if without an identification document, this is still disadvantageous to many and those less likely to possess approved photo ID for a variety of socio-economic and accessibility reasons, and that international studies confirm this assertion;

(f)      argues, therefore, that voter ID reforms could affect young people, older people, disabled people, transgender and gender non-conforming people, BAME communities and the homeless and there is a great risk that these reforms would exclude far more people than the tiny few attempting to undermine the result;

(g)     notes that the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society has stated that “electoral reform is a serious issue – but mandatory voter ID is a sledgehammer to crack a nut”;

(j)      supports the sentiments of Slough MP, Tan Dhesi, that 'the Tories are trying to introduce this not to tackle election fraud, but basically just to knock out not hundreds, but millions, of voters and disenfranchise them';

(k)     notes that there are only a handful of cases of voter fraud but, as the Association of Electoral Administrators have pointed out, the new set-up will require extra training for the staff at polling stations to make sure that genuine voters are not being turned away;

(l)      believes that even if the pilots go smoothly, it will remain debatable whether voter ID in its proposed form will even be effective in tackling fraud;

(m)    notes that in Britain we have electoral officers and a highly-respected judicial system to prevent abuses, and contend that these should be strengthened to tackle electoral fraud rather than potentially disenfranchising millions, as the Government is proposing; and

(n)     believes that, ultimately, the biggest threat for our democracy does not come from a tiny few electoral fraudsters but a Conservative government determined to make things difficult for an electoral base unlikely to vote for them – it is, in effect, gerrymandering at its most dangerous and callous and a real threat to the democratic process in this country.

6.1.1

(NOTE: With the agreement of the Council and at the request of the mover of the Motion (Councillor Chris Rosling-Josephs), the Motion as published on the agenda was altered by the deletion of paragraphs (h) and (i).)

6.2

Whereupon, it was formally moved by Councillor Andrew Sangar, and formally seconded by Councillor Adam Hanrahan, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:-

1.       the addition of new paragraphs (g) and (h) as follows:-

(g)      notes that Liberal Democrat MP, Tom Brake, called the change “a completely unnecessary move that risks undermining our democracy by preventing millions of people from voting”;

(h)      notes that the Lib Dems have consistently campaigned against ID cards, a scheme introduced by the previous Labour Government, and successfully abolished the scheme in 2010 and with that the deletion of the National Identity Register, the database which contained the biographic and biometric fingerprint data of card holders;

2.      the deletion of original paragraphs (h), (i), (j) and (n), and the re-lettering of original paragraph (g) as a new paragraph (i) and original paragraphs (k) to (m) as new paragraphs (j) to (l); and

3.      the addition of new paragraphs (m) and (n) as follows:-

(m)    welcomes Sheffield Young Labour’s requests for the Council to review its strong leader model and “embrace a model which encourages debate and dialogue”, for example the proposed committee system in the Liberal Democrat Group’s budget proposal; and

(n)     believes that voter participation would increase and that local democracy would be enhanced by adopting the following measures:-

(i)       giving the vote to everyone sixteen years and older; and

(ii)      introducing a proportional representational voting system to council elections, such as Single Transferable Vote (STV); a voting system already used in Scottish council elections.

6.2.1

(NOTE: With the agreement of the Council and at the request of the mover of the amendment (Councillor Andrew Sangar), paragraph (n)(ii) of the amendment as circulated at the meeting was altered by the substitution of the word “council” for the word “parliamentary”.)

6.3

It was then formally moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson, and formally seconded by Councillor Alison Teal, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of paragraph (n) and the addition of a new paragraph (n) as follows:-

(n)      believes, however, that having millions of voters living in safe seats is, in effect, the greatest disenfranchisement, and therefore calls for an end to the first-past-the-post voting system.

6.4

The amendment moved by Councillor Andrew Sangar was put to the vote and was negatived, with the exception of the proposed new paragraph (n)(i) in Part 3 of the amendment, which was carried.

6.5

The amendment moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson was then put to the vote and was negatived.

6.6

The original Motion, as altered and amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)      notes that the Government wants voters to present identification (ID) before being given a ballot paper in an attempt to combat “voter personation”, with five local authorities trialling this for the upcoming council elections in May;

(b)      notes with concern this development and highlights that a coalition of charities and academics has warned the Government that plans to enforce voter ID at the upcoming local elections could ‘damage turnout and undermine engagement’;

(c)      contends that Electoral Fraud is a serious crime and should of course be combated, however, it is this Administration’s belief that there is simply not enough evidence of voter fraud in the UK to justify these potentially damaging pilots, which threaten to disenfranchise members of some of the most vulnerable groups of society;

(d)      notes that in 2016 there were 44 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 64 million votes, reflecting just one case for every 1.5 million votes cast, and that last year there were only 28 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 45 million votes — one case for every 1.6 million votes cast – with only one of these allegations resulting in a conviction;

(e)      contends that whilst the Government has stated that anyone can apply for a Certificate of Identity, if without an identification document, this is still disadvantageous to many and those less likely to possess approved photo ID for a variety of socio-economic and accessibility reasons, and that international studies confirm this assertion;

(f)       argues, therefore, that voter ID reforms could affect young people, older people, disabled people, transgender and gender non-conforming people, BAME communities and the homeless and there is a great risk that these reforms would exclude far more people than the tiny few attempting to undermine the result;

(g)      notes that the Chief Executive of the Electoral Reform Society has stated that “electoral reform is a serious issue – but mandatory voter ID is a sledgehammer to crack a nut”;

(h)      supports the sentiments of Slough MP, Tan Dhesi, that 'the Tories are trying to introduce this not to tackle election fraud, but basically just to knock out not hundreds, but millions, of voters and disenfranchise them';

(i)       notes that there are only a handful of cases of voter fraud but, as the Association of Electoral Administrators have pointed out, the new set-up will require extra training for the staff at polling stations to make sure that genuine voters are not being turned away;

(j)       believes that even if the pilots go smoothly, it will remain debatable whether voter ID in its proposed form will even be effective in tackling fraud;

(k)      notes that in Britain we have electoral officers and a highly-respected judicial system to prevent abuses, and contend that these should be strengthened to tackle electoral fraud rather than potentially disenfranchising millions, as the Government is proposing;

(l)       believes that, ultimately, the biggest threat for our democracy does not come from a tiny few electoral fraudsters but a Conservative government determined to make things difficult for an electoral base unlikely to vote for them – it is, in effect, gerrymandering at its most dangerous and callous and a real threat to the democratic process in this country; and

(m)     believes that voter participation would increase and that local democracy would be enhanced by giving the vote to everyone sixteen years and older.

6.6.1

(NOTE: 1. Councillors Andy Nash, Richard Shaw, Adam Hanrahan, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Roger Davison, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Ian Auckland, Steve Ayris, Gail Smith, David Baker and Penny Baker voted for paragraphs (a) to (k) and (m), and against paragraph (l) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded: and

2. The Deputy Lord Mayor (Councillor Magid Magid) and Councillors Douglas Johnson, Robert Murphy and Alison Teal voted for paragraphs (a) to (g) and (i) to (m), and against paragraph (h) of the Substantive Motion, and asked for this to be recorded.)