Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Thornhill

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 125 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornhill would insert a new clause to confer on the Secretary of State statutory powers to establish pilot schemes for flexible voting options. We worry that low turnout in general elections, which was less than 60% in 2024, is caused, in part, because it is easy for people who are retired or not working to vote on a particular Thursday, but harder for other people to vote then. That is why we want to extend the ways in which people can cast their vote and, we hope, increase participation.

People who are busy working, or are working shifts, long hours or with long commutes, or those who have caring responsibilities or who are looking after children, do not find it so convenient to vote, and we believe they may be discriminated against. Our amendment would establish a few possibilities, on which we would like to see more controlled, evidence-based innovation. We are aware that the Electoral Commission is carrying out a number of pilots. In particular, we would like to see an extension of advanced voting in the days preceding the main polling day. We would like to see additional polling days, in particular weekend voting, which I do not think is being piloted anywhere. On weekends, people with families and those who still have Monday to Friday jobs may have much greater flexibility.

Community voting hubs situated in accessible, busy locations could help, as could different polling stations, allowing voters choice over where they can vote within their electoral district. Transportable or mobile polling stations could bring the ballot box directly to underserved rural communities or into care environments. Flexible voting is a modernising necessity, but it would require some other changes to the way in which we conduct elections, in particular by-elections and general elections, which can be called at short notice.

The Electoral Commission is seeing some pilots at the moment. We believe that they should go further in scope and at a faster speed. We would like to see these schemes evaluated, but we also need the commission to consider whether to extend the election timetable.

There is a problem with postal voting; perhaps 26% of the votes in the last general election were cast by post. If early voting is used—say, 10 days before the normal polling day—many votes would be cast at a halfway point in the election campaign. If we move to alternative methods of voting, we will need to consider again the election timetable, to ensure that electoral registration officers can conduct the process fairly, safely and securely, and that voters have sufficient time after the calling of a by-election or general election to consider the issues before they have to cast their votes.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief in speaking to Amendment 125—I will chop out a large paragraph—in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rennard, and then talk to Amendments 136 and 124, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Walney and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, respectively.

Amendment 125 is a modest amendment and a sensible proposal. My reason for supporting it was to share with noble Lords my experiences during my time in local government in Watford, where we participated in a number of electoral pilots. We had a very go-ahead ERO, so we piloted voting in supermarkets and weekend voting, alongside other things.

Some of those approaches worked better than others, and not every innovation produced the increase in turnout that we had all hoped for. In fact, one pilot involved voting at the weekend, after the whole country had already cast its ballots. It felt distinctly odd that everyone seemed to be discussing the results before we had even voted. It did not work, but we did it and we learned from it and that is the important point that my noble friend made. That is why pilots matter—they allow us to test assumptions against reality. We should be more eager to try them, rather than finding lots of reasons to stick with the status quo.

On Amendment 124 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I absolutely understand the attraction of overnight counts. Those of us who have stood for election know the adrenaline rush and, indeed, have felt the frustration of going to bed without knowing the result and probably not sleeping. I have certainly felt that myself. For us, the whole count experience is a buzz and an important occasion, which definitely feels diluted the next day. But we should be honest: the main beneficiaries of immediate counts are not the voters, who are all tucked up in bed; they are the campaigners, candidates and commentators. The people who have to make it happen are our election officers, council staff and many casual workers, many of whom have already worked a very long day, especially since the hours have been extended. We have had counts going on well into the night—more so when we have not had enough people, meaning fewer people have had to count more votes, which makes it quite challenging.

There was a period when we had this argument every single year, until we came to an understanding of what worked for us. That is what my argument is leading to. Different councils face different staffing, logistical and financial pressures. Even the geographical location of where they are counting can be an impediment to counting at 3 am. On what we need to do about this, our instincts are to trust EROs and local returning officers, who often discuss this with the party-political agents—as they should—to make the right decision for their own circumstances. That can vary from year to year and election to election.

There can be compromises. We have verified on the night and counted the next day. A good counting agent can tell a lot from the verification, even if it is done face down. In short, our view is that it is not an issue for central diktat.

I have sympathy with Amendments 129 and 136. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Walney, is not in his place—I am sure there is a good reason—because I would have liked to have heard his views, as he has worked on this. The concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, are not theoretical. I have seen occasions outside polling stations where behaviour has crossed the line from legitimate campaigning to outright intimidation and aggression. I have seen it very often against women. Sometimes it has required police involvement. That is wrong, whoever is responsible. What may appear to some as merely political disagreement can in reality be an attempt to influence voters through pressure and coercion.

As a liberal, what concerns me most of all is any assumption that people should vote in a particular way just because they belong to a particular family, faith, community or ethnic group. Democracy does not work like that. The ballot paper belongs to an individual voter, and the choice belongs to that individual voter. No faith, family, community leader or political party owns that vote. This is not about any one religion or community. Pressure can arise in many different settings. We have seen recent examples of this around the world—organised efforts by religious leaders to influence voting behaviour. The principle is the same wherever it occurs.

The concern underlying these amendments is a legitimate one. Every voter, regardless of background, belief or circumstance, should be able to enter that little polling station and go into that booth with the stubby pencil the Minister referred to and know that the decision they make is theirs alone. That is a principle worth defending.