Some of the last votes in the House of Lords before they join their Commons colleagues in recess were on the Report stage of the Election Bill, the Government’s flagship legislation purporting to boost election security and strengthen our democracy. Those who have been about for a while will be familiar with this legislation, and in particular our misgivings about it, particularly around the astonishing lack of any real public engagement or consultation on many of its more controversial provisions.

One of the most controversial elements of the Bill, and one of the ones we specifically covered and identified in the Parliamentary Briefing we gave to peers a couple of weeks ago, was the proposal to mandate photographic voter ID before citizens could vote at polling stations. Although the Government claimed a manifesto commitment to introducing the measures, critics pointed out that in fact the manifesto commitment had been to merely introduce ‘ID’ rather than photo ID.

This week, peers passed an amendment increasing the types of ID acceptable to vote beyond simply photo ID. With the original proposals criticised as a disproportionate solution to a near non-existent problem, which was likely to impact more heavily on disadvantaged groups less likely to have easy access to photographic ID, the amendment purports to make it easier and less expensive for any who do not have such forms photo ID to vote.

During the debate, multiple peers raised the lack of consultation on the measure, and the seeming inadequacy of the evidential basis on which the Government were instituting the measure. This was one of the criticisms we had mounted, which (combined with others) ultimately lead to us calling for the Bill to be withdrawn entirely. In our Parliamentary Briefing, we pointed out that though there had been some (extremely limited, so much in fact as to render it of dubious use) public engagement over the last decade on voter ID requirements, none of it had been focussed, none of it was recent, and none of it was with specific reference to photo ID.

From our point of view then, this change should be welcomed, but with a hefty caveat. Even though more engagement has been done on voter ID more generally than on photo ID specifically, it has still been woefully insufficient for a change which could have a significant impact on the franchise, and particularly on disadvantaged and protected groups. The Government really needs to make a change to its attitude towards consultation and engagement on policy, to stop avoiding consultation on potentially controversial issues, and to take seriously the need for supporting information and evidence in policy-making.

For the Government, this particular issue might well have been a good place to start to demonstrate new attitudes. Voter ID as a whole is reasonably popular, and it would be easier to deflect criticisms if they could demonstrate wider public support through consultation and engagement. Even if they didn’t receive public support, the Government could at least have learned useful information from it to modify proposals and make adjustments to address criticisms and potential issues. Without a change of attitude, the Government will continue to resemble an administration fearful of its public’s views, and run the risk of further accusations of authoritarian behaviour. We hope they start to learn these lessons soon, and we’ll see what the Commons says on this particular issue.