Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly by referring to the example of Suffolk. I entirely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about these issues. I draw attention to the fact that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and support the Norfolk and Suffolk Development Forum, although I do not chair that. But for these purposes I am speaking simply as a Suffolk resident.

There we were in Suffolk, keen, certainly from my point of view, to progress the devolution priority programme for Norfolk and Suffolk. We were then told that the mayoral election for the Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority was to be delayed. That decision has not been revoked. The decision to delay or to postpone the county council election in Suffolk has now been revoked, which means we will have county councillors, who I think were originally elected in 2001, serving all the way through to 2027—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

You mean 2021. You said 2001.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Did I? Sorry—2021, serving all the way through to 2027, maybe even to 2028 in practice, and overlapping with unitary councils that are to be established with elections taking place in May 2027.

As I think I have demonstrated through my difficulty in trying to follow all this, these are unnecessarily extremely complicated processes for trying to move devolution forward and get us to the point where we are in a strategic authority with unitary councils. The lack of pace in a Government who are always telling us everything is happening at pace seems to have led to an unnecessarily complex situation, not least for the voters and residents of Suffolk. With local government reorganisation taking place at the same time, we are going to end up paying more for the processes of managing this overburdensome democratic situation. I hope that in the context of this debate, the Government will say that they will look very hard at ensuring that they compensate local authorities and support them in managing the delays that they have occasioned.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

Briefly, I make a plea to the Minister that she takes personal oversight of all those councils where the delays may have an impact on staff’s ability to step up and do the right things for the election. Clearly, they will all bust themselves to try to make sure everything is perfect, but it will be worth the Government making sure that they take a closer interest in all of those councils and finding down the back of the magic sofa in Marsham Street some of that spare change that they have that they can bring out occasionally if it is necessary. I do not think the teams running the elections will be waving a shroud, but if they genuinely need extra resource to be able to pay extra money to recruit people that they need at short notice, or shorter notice, the Government should be prepared to provide it. Like my colleagues on the Front Bench, I have some regrets about this, but not for the same reasons that they do.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, may I pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made just now on precedent? I do not think I have heard reference to precedent elsewhere, but there is no question but that there have been occasions when elections have been delayed. However, what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was referring to here was the most amazing set of circumstances, whereby one week we were asked to consider an order for delays in elections on 30 local authorities, and those delays were at a point only weeks before one was heading towards notices for the election, nomination day and the like. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, two weeks later, because of an apparent legal reconsideration of circumstances, the policy was completely reversed. As far as I am aware, there is no such precedent and, tragically, we have yet to receive an apology from the Government for the confusion—and that is all it is. It is total confusion, within a period of a few weeks going from one unclear policy to another, with the net result of substantial cost.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, identified, democracy is a frail flower, and playing around with it in the way that the Government have in the last few weeks is unacceptable. It is unacceptable not just to the public at large; we have to bear in mind the burden faced by the returning officers and their staff in the local authorities. They do a truly fantastic job in difficult circumstances. It is regularly the case that, where there are not elections in one local authority, it loans its staff to a neighbouring authority which has elections. It is not easy to find polling clerks, and what is happening is that one local authority provides the facilities for another. Here we have a position whereby people who might have been loaned to another authority are suddenly called back. There are all the other associated difficulties with calling an election, cancelling an election and then restarting an election. I will not go into them in detail, but I think most of the people in this House are only too well aware of the problems that are thrown up in the face of the EROs throughout the country by the policies that have been followed over the last few weeks.

I would have hoped that, at some stage, the Government could have apologised to the local councils, and particularly to the EROs and their staff, for the problems that they have caused, but, unfortunately, they have failed to do so. However, it is appropriate that one should identify that democracy and the way it operates need to operate on a degree of certainty, which in the last few weeks or months we have not had from this Government.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for laying the regret Motion. It is a privilege to stand in for my noble friend Lord Pack, who I know is deeply disappointed that he is not able to be in his seat today. I will approach this with the same conviction my noble friend has voiced throughout this saga: that local democracy is not a plaything for departmental convenience. Although we welcome the Government’s U-turn, the how and why of this retreat remains shrouded in a fog of administrative incompetence.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to be very clear that legal advice prompted the Government to reconsider and withdraw their earlier postponement decision. I have quotes from James Cleverly, who has been a shadow Minister in the other place and continues to have a role there, talking about postponement and not disclosing legal advice. It is a long-standing convention observed by successive Governments that the existence of and substance of advice from law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. The legal powers to postpone elections remain valid and there has been no finding against the Government in this instance. The focus is now on delivering legally robust and certain electoral timelines for councils. We have always said that decisions will be made on the basis of the evidence available to us and this is what has happened—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I support very strongly the position that law officers’ advice to government should remain confidential, but is it absolutely clear that the advice on which the decision to revoke the postponement of the elections was taken was markedly different from the legal advice provided previously? To be blunt, there is a suspicion in many people’s minds, probably quite reasonably, that it was the imminence of a judicial review four days after the announcement that resulted in the change of government position, rather than a change in legal advice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I feel that the noble Lord is pushing me to do what I have just said I cannot do, which is to disclose the legal advice—I am going to stick to that line. The decision was, as he rightly says, taken by another Minister in the department because the Secretary of State had already been involved in the decision. I think we put the guardrails in place to make sure that was done in accordance with what we would all expect to happen. We will stick to the convention of not disclosing the legal advice put before that Minister.

I wanted to talk about my noble friend’s comment about previous elections that were cancelled. There were 17 elections delayed between 2019 and 2022 by the last Government to prepare for local government reorganisation, including in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe in 2019 and Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021, so there was precedent for that. We took that into consideration when local authorities made representations to us.

I will just go into a little more detail on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The decision was updated following legal advice and the Government acted promptly and responsibly in light of that advice. Where decisions are revisited following legal advice, as I have said, it is entirely appropriate for a new Minister to look at that advice and now all 30 elections will proceed as scheduled in May 2026, and a revocation order was laid in Parliament in February to give effect to that decision. We engaged rapidly with councils and issued written confirmation without delay and are supporting them with their updated plans. This was done at pace. We have always said that a decision would be made on the basis of evidence available to us at the time and that is what has happened. The Government’s ambition remains to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the issue of town and parish consultation. I understand his point, but there was never an intention to cancel town and parish elections. I understand his point about finances and will give that further consideration. On his point about statutory inclusion of things in Explanatory Memorandums, again, I will take that away. I understand the point he is making, and we need to think further about how that might work.

In conclusion, I hope I have set out the Government’s explanation of the timeline and exactly what happened in this case. I hope I have responded to the concern of the House, both in what I have said today and in the action taken to put an amendment forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While recognising the concern that has been expressed around the House, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.

Business Improvement District Ballots: Digital Voting

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We absolutely understand the interest in online voting but, when it comes to electing representatives, the integrity and security of the process must come first. At present, serious concerns are shared internationally about the risks of online voting, including cyber threats, fraud and the challenge of ensuring a fully secure and anonymous ballot. That is why we currently have no plans to introduce online voting for statutory elections in the UK, but we are focused on strengthening the current systems for absent voting, such as postal and proxy voting, so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, is right about the importance of generating interests in BIDs wherever they may happen to be across the country, and there is inadequate participation in voting in general when it comes to BIDs. Can the Minister please indicate the timetable that she is talking about for the process of consultation, in relation to both trialling digital voting and other elements of the process of introducing BIDs?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord that BIDs bring very significant investment in the areas they operate in. There are now more than 340 BIDs in the UK; cumulatively, they invest more than £169 million each year in local areas. We need to ensure that we are doing our very best to ensure that those BIDs operate in a way that works for the people who are engaged in them. We want to get this consultation and its analysis done as quickly as possible so that, if we consider it possible and safe to introduce digital voting for them, we can get on with that and do it as quickly as we can.

Ballot Secrecy Act: Breaches

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We do not want to see breaches of electoral law at any time, whatever the outcome of the election. It is very important that voters going to cast their vote can have complete confidence in the system that is operating, whether it influences the outcome of the election or not. It is also very important that we all want to see, both in practice and in the policy that sits behind it, that elections are safe and secure and that people can cast their vote knowing that the elections are above board and legal.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for identifying my involvement in the passage of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, but may I say that it was passed with all-party support throughout this House and the other Chamber? That was very important. In relation to family voting, it should be recognised that Democracy Volunteers identified that this was a national problem at the last general election. It was identified in places such as Stirling and Strathallan, Ceredigion Preseli, and Camborne and Redruth, so it is not new and it is not concentrated solely in certain places. The Minister will be aware, as I am, that urgent discussions have been taking place with the police, the returning officers, the Electoral Commission and Democracy Volunteers. Is this not the opportunity to urge all concerned to concentrate their minds so that we get it right on 7 May?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the work he did on the Bill in 2023. Of course, it is completely right that it should receive cross-party support; none of us wants to see corruption or any kind of illegal activity around our democratic processes. He makes a very valid point about the local elections taking place on 7 May. I know that the Electoral Commission will want to work with Greater Manchester Police to make sure that any lessons that can be learned from that by-election can be carried forward as quickly as possible so that we get any additional steps we need in place before the elections on 7 May and for all future elections.

Donations to Political Parties

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on obtaining this debate, although I am going to follow a substantially different tack. I should add that my first declaration in the register of interests in the House of Lords was a ticket to the rugby World Cup final in 2015 given to me by the referee.

I want to make two points. One is on—noble Lords will be aware that I have been pursuing this issue for a number of years—the funding of opinion polls, which are, in effect, campaigning. A few years ago, YouGov took on a poll and the Telegraph displayed it in full, but we were unable to establish who had actually funded it and the circumstances around it.

I have given notice to the Electoral Commission again that I intend to pursue it when we get to debate the legislation, which I understand has been tabled in the Commons in the past few minutes, but I could not get a copy of it before the debate started. That is one matter of concern, because effectively opinion polling is used as a substantial manner of campaigning.

The other item that I wish to raise is relevant in light of the events in politics this week. It is not in a general election but at least one potential candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party is supposed to have already a war chest of £1 million. Any campaign that relates to funding for a post in government or as Leader of the Opposition should be subject to the same requirements as election campaigning in general. At the last leadership election in the Tory Party, Robert Jenrick received £75,000 pounds from a tax haven abroad. I made it absolutely clear that I thought that that should be declared and treated in the same way as overseas funding, because it has a direct bearing on British politics. Those are the two items that I wished to raise.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for not participating at Second Reading and speaking on this occasion, but the circumstances between Second Reading and now have changed very substantially. I intend to concentrate on the amendments relating to delayed elections.

Before I do so, may I make an observation? I shall go no further at this stage than making it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others that I do not support their proposals in relation to changing the voting systems. Although I know that they pursue this matter on a point of principle, I warn them that, under the current political circumstances, trying to change the electoral systems will be portrayed by one political party in particular as denying it the opportunity to be represented on councils. I make that observation in passing.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in principle. I have tried to make contact with the Association of Electoral Administrators to establish its view on this but, unfortunately, its excellent chief executive, Peter Stanyon, who is normally enormously helpful on such matters, is currently off in ill health. So I could not get any clarification, but I am sure that, in broad principle, it would want to follow what this amendment is pursuing.

I turn now to the nub of this whole issue, which is the delay in elections. I first spoke on electoral matters in the other House in 1984. I voted against the then Conservative Government on a three-line Whip—I was one of the first new boys to do so—because I believed that the Government were, in the process of abolishing the GLC via the paving Bill, interfering with democracy. Looking back on that proposed Bill, I still take that view and am pleased that I voted against the Government on that occasion. It is interesting that the Government dropped the specific proposal against which I voted after the House of Lords passed its opposition to that same clause by a majority.

Since that time, I have never given consideration to the possibility of deferring elections for up to seven years. If somebody had suggested to me that that was going to happen in this democratic country, I would have said that they were positively insane. The history of the last few weeks has really called into question my faith in the legislation that we have on our democratic process. On 18 November, the Minister’s response to me and others was that the intention of the Government was to hold the elections as identified in full. We received the same response on 8 December.

On 18 December, the day we went into recess, the Government issued a letter to 63 councils asking whether they wished to defer the elections. Please do not tell me, or other Members of this House or the other, that no consideration was given on 18 November or during the five weeks that followed—or even on the night of 17 December—to the fact that there might be delays in elections, because nobody will believe you, I am afraid. It is a question of competence and honesty in relation to the processes. I have come to the conclusion that, sadly, we are witnessing a serious erosion of our democratic principles in this country by silence at different stages.

I do not mind which amendment we adopt, in what form, but we have to ensure that, as a democratic country, which I believe the United Kingdom to be, we are never again in the position where a Government announce their actions in the way that they have, with the result—as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and others have said—that people who have a vested interest in not facing re-election are taking the decisions on those elections. I despair of what I have witnessed over the last few weeks. I ask the Government to be more honest and open throughout, because it is not acceptable that I find myself, for the first time in 40 years of reviewing elections, seriously questioning whether a Government can interfere with elections when they really should not.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak a little about the proposals to change to a supplementary vote. I have some memories of how this came to be, since I was involved between 1996 and 1998 in some of the discussions between the Liberal Democrats and the then Labour Government about voting systems. The Labour Cabinet was divided on the subject; Jack Straw was one of the strongest opponents of any change in the electoral system and the most he was prepared to accept was the sort of bastard form of half way towards an alternative vote, which is the supplementary vote. It is neither one thing nor the other.

Now that we are in a multiparty system, we have to face up to the implications of where we are. For most of the last year, we have had five parties in England getting between 10% and 30% of the vote and no party getting over 30% of the vote. The elected Mayor of the West of England received 25% of the vote to become mayor. I think the record for the lowest percentage of the vote won by a winning candidate happened in a Cornish local by-election, in which the Liberal candidate was victorious with 19.5% of the vote in a six-party contest.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

The noble Lord is correct.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

We need to recognise where we are. If we want mayors to have public acceptance and credibility, they had better not be elected on less than a quarter of the vote. If we have a five-party system, the opinion polls—my nerdy noble friend here does his best to educate me about public opinion polls and I therefore follow them in some detail—show that if you look at second preferences for Reform, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters, they are very diverse, and one cannot guarantee that votes will easily transfer from one party to another definite party. Jack Straw was prepared to accept the supplementary vote in the belief that, in London elections, the Liberal Democrats were more likely on the whole to vote Labour as their second preference than the Conservatives, and therefore it was acceptable. The supplementary vote is half way to where we need to go but it is neither one nor the other.

I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that the old argument that the English people would not understand something more complicated than first past the post is for the past. The Irish understand a more complicated voting system very well, as do the Scots. The idea that the English education system is so poor that our voters will not understand simply does not begin to stand up.

If mayors are going to be key elements in devolution, we need to face up to a system that will provide us with the assurance that mayors will be elected in such a way as to gain the acceptance and credibility they need to have their posts. The current first past the post system does not guarantee that nor does the supplementary vote system. The Government need to recognise that that is where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment seeks to require certain candidates to provide electors with a means of contacting them. The Government recognise that the transparency of candidates seeking election to public office is important, and that the electorate should know about the candidates and policies being voted on. However, we believe it is responsibility of candidates and political parties to decide how they wish to campaign, promote themselves and engage with electors. We therefore do not support setting any requirements on how this is done. Candidates are already able to provide the public with their contact details if they wish to do so. We believe it is appropriate for candidates themselves to decide the best approach to take on communicating with the public, taking into account their individual preferences and circumstances. With these assurances and explanations, I hope that noble Lords and noble Baronesses will not move their amendments.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Between 8 and 18 December, was there no consideration whatever of the possibility of delaying the elections? If that is the case, what changed between 8 and 18 December that resulted in the letters going to the 63 councils?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have already outlined to the noble Lord that the sentence I used, whenever we discussed this and whenever I was asked, was that elections would not be cancelled unless there were substantial reasons for doing so. Local authorities made those representations, which is why the decision was taken.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There is clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisations are in progress. It can prevent costly and distracting elections for short-term posts that may soon be abolished. For example, between 2019 and 2022, the previous Government postponed elections in Buckinghamshire, Cumbria, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Somerset, and Weymouth and Portland. This responsibility has been delegated by Parliament to the Secretary of State.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, on Monday at 5.38 pm, the Minister gave details of letters that had been sent to four councils—Norfolk, Essex, Southampton and Oxford—and said that they were expected to reply by 10 am the next day, indicating their views. The Minister was asked just now about the timetable that is being followed. Given that we are now well beyond the limited timetable that was given to those four councils, why is it not possible for the Government to give a timetable on which they will take a decision for those who are entitled to a vote on 7 May?

Local Elections

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, I am very happy to do that. The strategic authorities are being set up and we will have no delay in laying the statutory instruments—it is very important that those statutory instruments go ahead as quickly as possible. Those mayoral strategic authorities will have a number of functions available in the interim period to their mayoral election to make sure that they are working to encourage the investment that we all want in their areas. I will write to the noble Baroness with the detail but, just to run through quickly, they will have a general power of competence; a duty to develop a local growth plan; power to pay grants to constituent councils; power to borrow to an agreed cap; adult skills function powers; a health improvement and health inequalities duty; functions to acquire land, provide housing and build infrastructure; and responsibility for public transport and local transport planning. There is a lot for them to be getting on with.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, when we discussed these elections the other day, the Minister, for whom I have great respect, suggested that I was dancing on the head of a pin. I am a little surprised that, only a few days later, she should be coming forward and dancing on the head of possibly a very different pin. Does she agree with the comment in the other place from the Labour MP for Oldham West, who said

“we need to be better than this”?—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/25; col. 1166.]

Local leaders across the political spectrum have worked in good faith. They have put aside self-interest and differences and have done everything asked of them to secure a better settlement for the people they represent. They reasonably expected the Government to do the same. Why have the Government not done the same?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my honourable friend in the other place for all the work that he did in laying the ground for this local government reorganisation and the devolution programme. He is very committed to it, as I know only too well, having worked with him very closely. However, it was right that, when the new team came in, they took a step back and had a good look at this. I do not think that I am dancing on the head of a pin in terms of elections. All the elections that were due to take place in 2026 will take place; these are four inaugural elections for new mayors. It is right that we build that strong foundation of those unitary authorities before we go ahead with the mayoral elections.

Election Law

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, I understand the frustration about this, but the core scope of the review was to make sure that we pick up the main risks and issues related to electoral registration and the conduct of elections. A complete review of the electoral system would be a very complex and long-standing procedure and we wanted to do this on a risk-based approach, dealing with the challenges faced by the electoral sector rather than undertaking a wholescale consolidation. We have some pragmatic solutions to address the key issues and we are taking those forward.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the request for consolidation of election law made by the noble Lords, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack: it is a complete mess at the moment. I will pick up on the answer that the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, where she said that it was the intention that all local government elections will go ahead. Is she actually saying that the relevant authorities will have elections, or that it is their intention at the moment but we will be told in X number of weeks or months’ time?

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 5th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I first voted in favour of Sunday opening in Pembrokeshire many years ago. I could attempt the Welsh; I think I would probably get it correct, but I fear that there are others here who might be more precise on the pronunciation. I was then a parliamentary candidate in Carmarthen—my first effort to get elected to this Palace. I might describe myself as having come a distant extra.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord in introducing his Bill; I also hope it will reach the statute book and can be fully operational in time for the important elections next year. I echo the comments of Paul Holmes in the other place that it is

“a sensible and timely move to enhance voter access and uphold the integrity of our electoral system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/7/25; col. 595.]

That is a good summary of the Bill.

I will make only two comments on this legislation, one addressed to the Government and the other a broader comment on the process of Private Members’ Bills. The PACAC report HC 487 says in its opening summary:

“There is a clear consensus in our evidence around the necessity and benefits of simplification and consolidation of electoral law. We are concerned that the Government do not share this view and so have called on them to make their position clear”.


I think we will hear comments from all around the Chamber today advocating that electoral law is a mess at the moment and should be substantially consolidated as soon as possible. I welcome this legislation because it is a small step in that direction.

My other comment is addressed more to the authorities of this House and the Commons. Most Members are not aware that when Private Members’ Bills from this House complete the process here, they go to the bottom of the pile of the overall process in the Commons. When Private Members’ Bills come here from the other place, they go to the top of the pile. The authorities in this House try to make sure that Private Members’ Bills have completed their stages as much as possible so that, before we start receiving legislation from the other place, there is no interruption of our efforts, but it makes it virtually impossible for Private Members’ Bills from this House to become law. I am fortunate in that I was the last Member of this place to have got a piece of legislation—an electoral law change, the Ballot Secrecy Act—on to the statute book, but it is much more difficult from this House. I encourage all the authorities involved to look at this anomaly by which we are treated disadvantageously in relation to Private Members’ legislation.

I support the Bill and hope it makes rapid progress through this House on to the statute book because, as the noble Lord said, it is important that these changes are in full operation for the elections next year.

Voting at 16

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has addressed the issue of the registration of young people. May I encourage him and the department to give very serious consideration to encouraging online registration? It is simple. We are talking about a generation which is used to using computers and associated forms of social media, and many of them will find online registration to be the best and easiest way of registering for their future votes.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, let me say first that I always welcome encouragement from the noble Lord, and I will take that back. To address his question directly, we intend to actively explore and test new and more automated methods of registration, including better use of data to identify people who are eligible and integration with other government services to make it easier for people to register. Online registration for voting has been a resounding success, particularly for postal voting. I will take that back and I hope that I can come back to the noble Lord with some meaningful outcomes as a result of our strategy.