Voter ID is an expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

The government has launched a call for councils to join a second round of trials of its costly and controversial voter ID scheme.

Campaign group the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has described the first round of pilots as a ‘dangerous distraction’ from more serious problems. Government sources though have described them as a ‘success' and now want to expand the next round to cover a wider range of communities.

At the local elections this year 350 people were denied the opportunity to vote because they could not produce photo ID. Ellie Reeves, MP for Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich, one of the five areas selected taking part in the trial tweeted ‘just been to vote, was informed that two people had already turned up without ID this morning so had been unable to vote', adding that this was ‘very worrying and backs up all the evidence that voter ID pilot in Bromley is plain wrong' (source: News Shopper, May 2018).

Writing in an article published in the ERS website Darren Hughes says it is ‘welcome' that the government has decided to expand its trials to cover a more economically and socially diverse test group, however he questioned the level of insight this will provide into the likely impact of voter ID on marginalised groups.

The ERS have highlighted concerns that providing photo ID at the polling station might be a barrier to participation for people in low income communities, many of whom do not possess passports or driving licences.

There is also a possibility that following the Windrush scandal members of BAME and immigrant communities might be reluctant to vote for fear that producing ID could put their residency status at risk.

LGBT campaigners have also expressed reservations, earlier this year Ruth Hunt, Stonewall, told the Pink News that ‘for trans and non-binary people in particular this has the potential to cause significant problems, as some may not have photo-ID that reflects their identity'.

Personation, the type of fraud introducing the requirement for voters to produce ID was intended to combat, is scarcely a feature at UK elections. At the 2017 general election just 28 claims of personation were made resulting in a single conviction.

If introduced nationally voter ID would cost, according to cabinet office figures reported by the ERS, between £4.3 and £20 million, with investigating possible cases of personation, were rates to match 2017, costing £700,000 per case.

Writing on the ERS website Willie Sullivan says the government has ‘its priorities all wrong, forking out millions of pounds of taxpayers money on this sledgehammer of a policy', adding that doing so is ‘not just unwise, but irresponsible too'.

Despite the concerns expressed the government is committed to pushing ahead with further trials, minister for the constitution Chloe Smith described the policy as a ‘reasonable and proportionate measure’ and said the trials had been a ‘success’.

A position challenged by UK fact checking organisation FullFact, who are quoted on the ERS website saying that ‘in a single day across five councils twice as many people didn’t vote due to having incorrect ID as have been accused of personation in eight years in the whole of the UK'.

Requiring voters to prove their identity in order to exercise their democratic rights seems like a clumsy, expensive and possibly counterproductive way to address a problem that barely exists.

As Darren Hughes writes ‘to lose one honest voter is an error. To lose thousands is a tragedy and one we can avert. For all minister’s efforts to rope councils into this policy, we can’t help feeling they’d be better promoting improved engagement, not creating additional barriers'.