MICHAEL Gove struggled to justify voter ID laws which have been described as a “brazen attack on democracy”.
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities could not reveal figures which he claimed proved identification measures would not disenfranchise voters.
Watch: Michael Gove can't justify voter ID laws with facts and figures pic.twitter.com/1yRapAdC2l
— Hamish Morrison (@HMorrison97) March 1, 2022
The Government will introduce a system of identification checks at polling stations in UK elections.
READ MORE: UK urged to scrap controversial voter ID plans by Tory-led committee
Tory MP William Wragg, the chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), asked Gove to reveal the criteria by which the Government decided the policy would not bar people from voting.
Gove – also the minister for intergovernmental relations – squirmed and said he would “labour even more intensively in the vineyard” to make the data public.
But Wragg hit back saying: “It shouldn’t require too much labour if it’s readily available because you made a decision based on it.”
He asked the minister if he would have to “come up with” the figures – suggesting the Government pushed ahead with the plans against the evidence.
Gove replied: “I know it is the case the overwhelming majority of people can easily access voter ID.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson completes 'attack on democracy' as 'power grab' election reforms pass
“There are many people who would think when you’re doing something as important as voting we should know who you are.
“When it comes to judgments about how we back up this policy, we are an open book; whatever we’ve done, we will share with you.”
Responding to an accusation from SNP MP Ronnie Cowan that the policy would stop people from voting, the minister said he couldn’t “see any problem” with the measure.
Cowan (below) told The National: "The facts and the research shows that voter ID will result in fewer people voting.
"We should be doing everything we can to expand the electoral franchise if we want a truly representational democracy.
"There is no evidence that voter ID does that and the UK Government that there is a problem with voter personation just doesn’t stack up when you look at the numbers."
He added charities such as Age UK, the Electoral Reform Society, and the Runnymeade Trust have all criticised the introduction of voter ID cards.
Gove claimed there were currently “no barriers to any citizen from exercising their democratic rights”.
But opponents of the bill have raised concerns the controversial Elections Bill has done just this.
Dr Nick McKerrell, senior lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, told The National last year: “I think the agenda is to make it more complicated to vote.”
It passed the Commons in January and will now be debated in the House of Lords.
Other parts of the bill would give Downing Street more power over the independent elections watchdog.
READ MORE: These Scottish Tory MPs voted to introduce Voter ID at elections
PACAC members – the majority of whom are Conservatives – called on the Government to ditch the bill late last year.
The Electoral Commission has recommended since 2014 the rest of the UK takes up photographic ID for elections.
It is already in place in Northern Ireland, where the commission said it has found little evidence it affects voter turnout .
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel