Representation of the People Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2026
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRepresentation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47–II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2026)
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we continue to debate Amendment 10, I remind the House that this is an adjourned debate. Therefore, unless Members were present at the start of the group, they are are not able to contribute. The Clerk at the Table has a full list of those who were present.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I was here on Monday evening at the point of adjournment, and not only am I in my place but I am next to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who was in the same place as well. Things move on.
On nearly every amendment to this Bill, and in other parts of the work of your Lordships’ House, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, but, regrettably, I cannot support his Amendment 124, which would require by law that election counts be started overnight following the polls closing. It is important to explain why.
Running an election is a complicated task for election staff. You have to recruit presiding officers, polling inspectors and count staff, and handle all matter of other ancillary tasks, such as fetching and carrying the ballot papers. I know that this happens at a general election, and it is important that we maintain the requirement for overnight counting in those contests, but we have to recognise that local government works over a much larger geographical canvas. It often encompasses multiple constituencies. There are many more electors in the race. We have multi-member wards. We have funny business when it comes to alternative and supplementary votes for some contests. More people and different and more complicated systems add complexity and time.
Local elections are different to the national elections, where, simply, the person with the most votes wins. Let us not forget that, unlike a parliamentary vote, where there is just one election to count, local elections may have many wards interspersed with town council by-elections, so the number of contests is not just greater; it is an order of magnitude larger.
Attracting presiding officers and count staff, who have historically come from our high street banks—tellers and other high street financial workers—is harder. In the age of tap and pay, we just do not have tellers who are used to handling banknotes any more, so we have ended up with a diminished pool of talent to operate the election. The facts of life are that, oftentimes, we rely on presiding officers, who have done a stretch from 7 am until 10 pm, to turn up again the following day to do the count. If we want to have confidence in our democracy, we cannot have people working for 24 hours non-stop in the most delicate and mentally taxing work, which requires huge concentration not just for validation but for the count, banding, bundling and tallying. Local elections have many more types of parties and candidates and therefore a higher propensity for recounts, where many contests are decided by just a handful of votes or even a coin toss.
As I warm to my theme, this short debate gives us the opportunity to remind the Prime Minister that if he is minded to change the current parliamentary voting system, any changes are likely to prejudice the ability for overnight counts if greater complexity is introduced. The voters rejected electoral change in a referendum in 2011, but he does not seem to be listening. The consequences of change are likely to be that the ability to count overnight is diminished or, at the very least, the announcement of the results and the clarity the electorate deserve will be delayed. I do not believe that has been taken into account in any other forum; here is my opportunity to mention it.
To return to the amendment, this is detailed work. It needs staff who are as bright as a button and on the ball to do these local elections, which are more complicated, take more time and provide more opportunities to go wrong than parliamentary contests, where there are often just two or three main candidates slugging it out and the majorities are weighed in handfuls of thousands, not handfuls of votes. For these reasons, I cannot support my noble friend in his endeavour, attractive though it may be. It is better to take your time and get it right than rush and live with the consequences.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does my noble friend at least concede that this is not a prescriptive amendment but rather a probing amendment? Clause 4 allows electoral returning officers to disregard the obligation in emergencies or specific circumstances. It is not a draconian amendment forcing every ERO to do the same.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I broadly support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s comments. Although I understand my noble friend Lord Jackson’s intervention, the key factor that one has to look at here, to which my noble friend Lord Fuller referred in passing, is the sheer number of parties that now operate on a regular basis in multi-member wards. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Pack. As a fellow pedant, I would be quite happy if he wishes to correct me, but if one looks back to the 2022 elections, I think there were only three wards in the whole of England that delivered three councillors from three different parties or independent parties. In 2026, there were three wards in Bradford alone that delivered three members from three different parties, let alone the rest of the country. I see the noble Lord nodding, so I feel reassured that I have been pedantic and accurate enough. That makes my point, which is that the probability for recounts has risen dramatically in the current political circumstances. Whether that continues is another matter, but we really should allow the EROs and local councils the capacity to decide, and decide sensibly, how they conduct the counts, so that there are not errors. At the moment, it is remarkable that there are relatively few errors in local government elections, even where there are recounts that have taken place many hours after the count has started, let alone when election day has begun, which is of course many hours before that.
Having said that in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Jackson on his amendment, it is important that I pick up on one or two other matters that he raised with which I agree. In our adjourned debate, he said that the objective of his amendment was to “to restore voters’ confidence” in the electoral process. That is key in everything that we do daily. In the complexity in which we now operate in this country, it is staggering that there are not more errors—I refer here to the Electoral Commission’s report on the elections in May which identified very few genuine errors—but it is still important that everything we do in this Bill should be aimed at ensuring or restoring, depending on which is necessary, public confidence in the electoral process. We should consider both public confidence and the candidates’ confidence.
My noble friend referred to amendments relating to influencing voters through religious messaging, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is not in her place, gave strong support. I note that my noble friend Lord Pickles is in his place. He did a thorough report on a whole range of electoral issues, and this was addressed in the 2022 legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is in his place, and he has an amendment. Unfortunately, he was not here previously—these things happen—but I hope I am going down the path that he would have gone down, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, went down, in saying that there are clearly issues that need to be addressed and kept under consideration, and therefore they have to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that we are operating sensibly.
My apologies for the slight interruption, but I am going to have to rest on a crutch for the rest of my contribution.
I draw attention to the other comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made in relation to intimidation and crowds outside polling stations, which do nothing for confidence in the electoral process. I shall be returning to this issue later with my amendment on polling, issuing accreditation to tellers and the like, and the process of policing outside polling stations, but I just identify my support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to. I do not know how many Members of this place are aware that in the most recent parliamentary by-election, Holborn and St Pancras, there were so many crowds outside one polling station that the presiding officer asked for those people to be moved. In the end, the agent of the Green Party had to come down and tell the people to move because they were—in effect, being realistic—intimidating voters outside the polling station. This is a matter to which I shall return later, but I hope I have covered adequately at this stage the different issues that are raised by the amendments that we are considering in this group.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I beg the indulgence of the Committee to conclude my remarks on Amendment 129, which I had to curtail because of time on Monday. I want to refer to what my noble friend Lord Hayward said. I was very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about her lived experience in Watford in support of my amendment on undue influence.
Following the Pickles report—I am delighted that my noble friend is in his place—steps were taken in the Elections Act 2022 to strengthen the provision by “adding undue spiritual pressure”. The Electoral Commission’s review noted that
“unacceptable activity which many people consider electoral fraud—including pressure and intimidation both in the home and outside polling stations”,
which my noble friend Lord Hayward referred to,
“—may not be reported by victims”.
This is a valuable provision in law. It is important that it is regularly reviewed by Ministers to ensure that it is upheld properly and is up to date with the challenges of the UK’s changing demographic and religious landscape. Without regular reviews and monitoring, such provisions risk stagnating or becoming subtly and consistently subverted. The law means nothing if it is not enforced. The Pickles review and recent legislative changes reflect the importance of the provision for the UK’s electoral integrity. It is vital that it is not diminished.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I especially look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I know was not present on Monday, which was commented on from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure he will explain that there was a perfectly good reason. His Amendment 136 and my Amendment 129 are very similar. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was not here during the debate on Monday so he cannot speak.
Lord McCobb (LD)
My Lords, I will add to the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Hayward, some of the practical implications of Amendment 124. I make it clear that, like many people here today, I love an overnight count as much as anyone else. I have been to more than I can remember—including, ironically as it happens, the count at which the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, was elected as a Member of Parliament in 2007.
Like everybody else, I understand that election nights are special, and I understand the desire to preserve the excitement that comes with overnight counts, as well as, for the broader public, a quick understanding of the implication of local election results for the country as a whole and what they mean for the Government of the day. However, this amendment would not deliver that in practice. It requires only that verification begins on polling night, not that a single vote is counted or a result declared. What it would do is remove a returning officer’s ability to plan a count properly on those nights where, in practice, that judgment matters most.
Let me take an extreme, but real, example. On 6 May 2021, voters in the village of Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire went to the polls, to be handed five ballot papers. They voted for their county councillor, a district councillor in a by-election, a parish councillor in a by-election, the combined authority mayor, and the police and crime commissioner. The law as it stands allows the returning officer to have ballot papers cast into either separate ballot boxes or into the same one for elections happening at the same time. Suppose the returning officer had, as they are permitted to do, provided a separate ballot box for each election. If this amendment were implemented, three of those five elections would, by law, have to have begun the verification in the two hours between the close of poll and midnight, and the other two would not.
However, it is not uncommon for voters to put ballot papers into the wrong ballot box, so in order to carry out the task in this complex scenario and make sure that, for example, a parish council ballot paper sitting in the police and crime commissioner ballot box was found and properly included in the count, in effect, all five ballot boxes would have to have been opened before midnight for those counts to be completed in parallel. Today, a returning officer can use one trained team to verify each election in turn, whereas this amendment would force all five verifications to happen in parallel at the same time before midnight. That would mean more staff, more tables and more supervisors for already pressed local authorities trying to run elections effectively. That would be simply impractical.
The exemption that the noble Lord referred to does not help either because it covers emergencies and safety risks but does not cover the ordinary, foreseeable complexity of running multiple elections on the same day using parallel or shared ballot boxes. While the Waterbeach example is an extreme example of what might happen, it is a real one that happened in practice. Returning officers are already accountable for how they run their counts and, ultimately, as one of the previous speakers said—
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to make a supportive comment. I used the Waterbeach example at Second Reading. Not only were there five different ballot papers, there were three different voting methods—first past the post, STV, and AV for the mayor and the PCC. That adds a further complexity to the point I think the noble Lord is trying to make.
Lord McCobb (LD)
I am grateful for that additional point. Returning officers are already accountable for how they run their counts, and, ultimately, accuracy matters more than speed. However much we love a traditional election night, we should not allow that desire to impose unworkable or unnecessarily restrictive practices on already stretched returning officers.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I want to explain why and bring one element into this debate that we have not had so far, which is the voters and how they perceive the electoral process in local elections. It is quite a recent development that counts have drifted into the next day—really only since the late 2000s in local elections. We seemed to manage the situation perfectly well before that. Certainly, elections have got more complicated since then, as many noble Lords have noted. Nevertheless, we seemed to do it, and it is not an inherently implausible suggestion that we might be able to do it again.
In UK elections there is a sense of drama, and that sense of drama is important: the idea that something significant is changing as a result of the ballot. The drama of democracy is quite important. That is more true at general elections, but it is something we should not lose in local elections, which have, in many ways, just as big an effect on people’s lives as general elections.
On Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said:
“The main beneficiaries of immediate counts are not the voters”
but
“the campaigners, candidates and commentators”.—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1452.]
That struck me as an interesting comment, because I am not sure I entirely agree with it. Speaking as somebody who has seen elections on TV and listened on the radio far more than I have actually participated in them, one of the things that has struck me with our longer counting process is that it allows much more opportunity for political parties, the party leadership and party-aligned commentators to spin the results. Long before we know what the actual results of a whole period of local elections are, we have media comment on them. We have party spokesmen telling us how to interpret the results long before we know what the actual results are.
One or two councils take on exaggerated significance because they come relatively early in the sequence and shape the narrative, and that suits political parties. I am not making a party-political point; I think it is true of all parties. It blurs what is important. It allows scope for commentary and spin, and the actual results of the process take longer to come out. By the time we know the results, what is more important is the nature of the commentary. So, there is an issue here. I am happy to give way.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My noble friend has not addressed the issue of the extra matters on which we now give local voters the opportunity to vote. He referred to 2000, but in the previous Conservative Government and before that, we introduced things such as environmental neighbourhood referenda, mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. I am not going to delay the House by listing them all, but that is one of the reasons why, as was identified, you finish up with people being asked to vote on three, four or five different decisions on one day.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord makes a good point. It has been touched on already that the situation is much more complicated than it used to be. But those practical angles cannot be the only thing that is brought into the debate. We have to remember what we are doing here. We are marking the achievement through democracy of a shift in political power, potentially, from one set of people to another. How that is accomplished, how people see it happening, and the media discussion of it are just as important. It should not be neglected when we consider how local elections are conducted.
That balance is important. Of course, different authorities can reach different judgments on that balance. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, as he noted, allows for that balance to be reached in certain cases, but we must not forget that these are elections about the shift of power. Administrative and bureaucratic convenience—how it is done—cannot be the only determining factor. We have to think about what is happening here and that is why the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, deserves discussion and support.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I will start with a different amendment in this group, Amendment 123 on the issue of poll cards, because they are a topic that is well suited to the sort of scrutiny that we rightly pride ourselves on in this House. It is a niche issue and a serious one, but also, I concede, not the largest of issues. But we should not be too blasé about the issue, even though it is not the largest of issues, because a very considerable amount of money is spent on the production and distribution of poll cards. In the second half of 2019, for example, £19 million was spent, excluding the local and European elections that year. That was just for the general election. So, millions of pounds are spent each year on poll cards. And yet, I think it is fair to say, if any of us was involved in a recruitment process for a graphic designer and they were to show us proudly the main item in their portfolio a modern poll card, we would quite rapidly be thinking, “How can we bring this interview to an end?” Because, clearly, it is not very good.
In fairness, one should say that everyone involved in the process has a good alibi for why it is not their fault, because there is a complex interaction of legislative requirements, IT systems and their capabilities, and time pressures on returning officers. All of those interact. Everyone can say, “It’s not my fault”. But the reality is, we spend millions of pounds every year on something that we all know when we look at it is not very good.
We should also bear in mind that it is the one official communication that everyone on the electoral register receives about the election. If that is, as it were, the front door or the shop window of democracy to voters, it is both a poor use of money and also slightly embarrassing in terms of how we present democracy to people. So, I hope we will hear some positive noises from the Minister in due course on Amendment 123. I certainly welcome the fact that, elsewhere in the Bill, some of the proposals will simplify the legislative framework underpinning poll cards and will make it easier to improve their design in future.
I turn to the issue that has taken up most of our time on this group this morning. I, along with others, admire the irony of the timing of debating whether or not counts should be overnight on a morning when many of us would rather have been able to stay up later to watch the elections from the US. There is an important lesson from those elections, which is that we should not underestimate the importance of speedy election counts in terms of giving confidence in the security of the system.
Thankfully, in Britain, those concerns, broadly speaking, are a long way in the past, but the reason we have the system where it used to be the norm that just about everything was counted overnight was because of the fear that ballot boxes would be interfered with. We should not be blasé about the risk of those fears in the future, but, as several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord McCobb, have pointed out, there are significant good, practical reasons why overnight counts are not always possible. Indeed, in some cases, they would be so difficult to practically organise that one would even go so far as to say that on some occasions they are not even desirable. So, while I sympathise with the thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I do not think a central, top-down mandate in the way that it suggests is the right way to progress on that.
I will speak more positively about a couple of other amendments in this group, including one from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson: Amendments 125 and 128. Their proposals are welcome. We saw in our discussions on the first day of Committee the value of election pilots. In this case, several references were made to the pilots that have been carried out in Wales around automatic voter registration. Those pilots properly inform our decision-making. It is fair to say that the election pilots on other topics that we have discussed so far have not been hugely successful. There seems to be a relatively small number of ideas that are piloted and never turn out to be particularly effective. So, the spirit of Amendments 125 and 128 is very welcome, and I hope we may hear in due course from the Government a willingness to be a bit more imaginative about what is piloted.
I will throw in one example of what I mean. In academic research into the turnout in local elections, the evidence is pretty strong that, if you have to walk more than 600 metres to your polling station, turnout drops significantly in local elections. There are different possible ways of piloting having more polling stations so fewer people have to travel long distances to them, which is the sort of slightly more imaginative approach to piloting I hope we can hear about in the future.
Finally, on Amendments 129 and 136, I have little to add to what my colleague and noble friend Lady Thornhill said eloquently about them and what others have contributed today. I simply add that it is fair to say that, as we saw, for example, with the Gorton and Denton by-election, there are significant differences of view about what may be the exact scale and nature of the problems that these amendments seek to address. But that seems to me a good reason to want to face up to that—to want to have a good evidence base and careful consideration, rather than simply ignoring the issue completely.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I must declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson for their amendments and for the amendments from other noble Lords. These raise important questions about the safeguards necessary to maintain public confidence in our electoral system. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Hayward: the objective of this should be to increase public confidence in the electoral system.
My noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendments 10 and 11 concern the exemptions applying to younger electors in relation to the duties of election and electoral registration officers. These amendments highlight a wider question about consistency in the Government’s approach to lowering the voting age and the need to ensure accuracy of the register. As my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley observed at Second Reading, the Government must explain where we draw the line between the rights and responsibilities of 16 and 17 year-olds. If young people are to be entrusted with electing their representatives, it is reasonable to examine how that decision interacts with existing duties and protections in electoral law.
As the Minister made clear in debate on Monday, EROs are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the register. Should not the same tools be available to an ERO, irrespective of age? Can the Minister explain the rationale behind retaining these exemptions? Have electoral administrators been consulted about the practical implications? As I said at Second Reading, electoral law is already overly complex and conflicting. We should be seeking opportunities to simplify its administration, rather than further increasing inconsistencies.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 125 seeks to pilot schemes for more flexible voting, including early voting, mobile polling stations and alternative voting locations. Such pilots have already been undertaken locally. Amendment 128 raises the question of piloting electronic voting machines. Our established paper-based system has considerable advantage, in being straightforward and transparent. Electronic systems always raise the issue of cyber security, as we have seen in the Health Bill with the single patient record. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the security risks associated with electronic voting machines, and how the accuracy of an electronic count will be independently demonstrated and verified?
One topic we have debated a lot this morning is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 124: whether counting should begin on the day of the election. Having stood as a candidate on many occasions, I have great sympathy with this and would like to know sooner rather than later. However, as a previous leader of a council, I also have to agree with the comments of many other noble Lords in this Chamber about the difficulties and complexities of doing a count. As a number of noble Lords raised, local council elections are frequently much more complex than a national election, with multi-member wards and an increasing diversity of candidates making the process longer and more complex, along with the potential for multiple elections on the same day. At the same time, many councils are finding it increasingly difficult to get sufficient staff—a matter that has been raised elsewhere in debate on this Bill. Ultimately, I believe that we need to trust the ERO to make the appropriate decision.
My noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 129 and Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concern undue influence such as religious or spiritual pressure on voters. The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental. Every elector must be able to vote freely without intimidation, coercion or improper influence. I appreciate the comments of many noble Lords on this; so far, there seems to be consensus that it is an important topic and that these amendments need addressing.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raised concerns about family voting and the particular vulnerability of younger electors to the pressure they might face at home. These concerns deserve careful consideration as the Government propose to extend the franchise. Does the Minister consider existing law sufficient to protect voters from coercion, both in polling stations and where postal voting is used? It is not just the law but the implementation thereof that is important. Will there be further guidance given to polling staff?
This also relates to Amendment 123, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on improving polling cards. Ensuring eligible voters understand the secrecy of their ballot and the voting process is crucial.
We should remember that those responsible for administering elections must make these provisions work in practice. The robustness of our electoral arrangements is fundamental to electoral integrity. I hope the Minister will address the concerns raised in this group and explain how the Government intend to preserve the security and transparency of the ballot, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this extended debate, which was broken in the middle of the group. I will make a couple of general points before I respond to individual amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for using his crutch to stand up. If he wishes to remain seated when making his contributions, I am sure the Committee would be very happy with that.
I agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made about the interesting situation that we saw unveiling in the United States overnight. It would have been nice to have been able to stay up and listen to those results—I did not, but was very tempted. That points to some interesting issues as we discuss this group, which contains matters that go right to the very heart of our democracy. There were comments made early this morning—for example, by James Talarico —about attempts at enormous financial and other influence on the elections process. We will come on to some of those later in discussing our own Bill. It was a pleasure to see the power of the democratic process overcoming something of that. We need to make sure, as we go through our own discussions, that we retain that faith in democracy and continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, to give the people of this country the confidence that it is the democratic process that takes precedence, even where there are attempts to have financial and other interference. That is very important to all of us in this House.
Noble Lords will have to excuse my sniffles; this is my second cold in two weeks. I am going to have to speak to my friend the Health Minister to suggest that having two colds in two weeks should be banned.
I add my tribute to the EROs and election staff. We have a very safe and secure system in this country, and that is down to a lot of work from our returning officers and election staff, so I am very grateful to them for all the work they do.
I will now address the individual amendments. I turn first to Amendments 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and her Schedule 1 stand part notice. These amendments would remove measures from Schedule 1 that safeguard those under 16. This would result in electoral registration officers being required to conduct activities such as house-to-house inquiries and making telephone calls to under-16s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—that election administrators are included in these discussions.
These age-based measures are important for implementing the franchise change effectively. In extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year olds, it is vital that they are given the same opportunities as any other voter to be accurately registered. The Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement will bring significant benefits, but it must be accompanied by additional measures to protect these young people who are not yet entitled to vote. This is the approach taken throughout the Bill, which includes measures in Clauses 7 to 13 to safeguard young people’s data, mirroring the approach taken in Scotland and Wales. We should take the safeguarding of those under the age of 16 seriously, and these amendments would remove safeguards that we consider vital. I emphasise to noble Lords that it is not those of voting age who are being treated differently but those below voting age. For those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for raising the important issue, through Amendment 123, of how electoral information is communicated to voters. We agree that the information provided to electors should be clear and accessible, and I take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about polling cards. We already recognise that there is scope to improve election documentation, including poll cards, and we intend to consider how their design and clarity can be enhanced as part of wider research into how people learn about the electoral process. However, we do not believe a statutory requirement to report to Parliament within 12 months is necessary to take this work forward. Frankly, we just need to get on with it, and I am very happy to report back to the House when we have concluded our work.
I turn to Amendment 124, from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost. As someone who was elected many times over 27 years, I recognise the importance of election results being declared promptly, and I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about this. We all want to hear our results as quickly as possible. Noble Lords have highlighted very graphically how local elections take place—so I do not need to give any further examples—and, as such, they require greater operational flexibility than parliamentary elections. Decisions about when to begin verification and counting are therefore best made by returning officers, taking account of those local circumstances. This amendment would replace that operational judgment with a rigid statutory requirement, subject only to narrow exceptions for emergencies and safety risks. We do not believe that that restriction is necessary or proportionate.
In speaking to Amendment 124, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised some issues around different elections using different systems. I say to him that I recognise that there was a referendum in 2011 on different voting systems. The Prime Minister has decided the best way to take this issue forward is to initiate a national commission on electoral reform, which is the right way to start a national conversation on this issue.
I turn to Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 already provides powers to pilot changes to when, where and how voting takes place at local government elections—powers the Government used to pilot flexible voting in the May 2026 polls and will use again in a further round of pilots in May 2027. We understand the amendment seeks to go further by enabling flexible voting to be piloted at elections beyond those currently provided for under Section 10, potentially including UK parliamentary elections. We do not believe it would be appropriate to extend the piloting power to parliamentary elections at this stage. Our priority is to continue testing these approaches at local elections and build that evidence base before considering any wider changes. I share both noble Lords’ enthusiasm for more modern and flexible voting arrangements as a matter of principle, but it is important that we test these thoroughly and build the evidence base before we go any further.
On this theme, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his Amendment 128. However, the use of electronic voting machines creates the potential for hacking, computer error and interference. Although elections are not always no-fail events for candidates—we do fail from time to time, as I have on occasion—they must be no-fail events in terms of process, and the integrity of the ballot must come first. That is why we have no plans to introduce electronic voting in the UK, and therefore it does not make sense to run pilots. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
I will address the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as he is in the Chamber.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her very generous comments at the start of her contribution. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I omitted to observe that, when reviews of pilots take place, cost should be considered. If one is taking trials over a period of days, there are all sorts of attendant costs in addition to the question of whether the system worked.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right: any assessment of pilots must take cost into account.
I turn to Amendments 129 and 136, tabled respectively by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Walney. It has been good to have the opportunity to consider this important and sensitive issue. Our electoral law must protect voters from coercion and undue pressure, while ensuring that faith leaders and communities remain free to express their religious and moral views and participate fully in our democratic life. I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to ensure that the provisions relating to spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure continue to strike that very careful balance and remain clear and workable for faith communities, campaigners and voters alike. Examples of what constitutes “undue pressure” have been provided in the Explanatory Notes to the Elections Act 2022. I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government continuously keep electoral law under review to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and responsive to evidence about how it operates in practice. However, setting out a requirement for a review in statute is unnecessary.
On Amendment 136, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as I am sure he will be aware, spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure are already capable of falling within the “undue influence” offence in Section 114A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We do not consider a separate polling station offence to be necessary. Undue influence is already unlawful wherever it occurs, and the focus should remain on the coercive behaviour itself, rather than creating a separate offence based on proximity to a polling station.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Peers who spoke to this wide-ranging group. I am slightly disappointed by what the Minister said to my amendment. I just hope that, as soon as somebody becomes 16, there is a way for electoral registration officers to follow up on the integrity of the register to check it is valid. A whole range of things have been considered. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 10.
“Part 3Canvass conducted in England before the coming into force of section 3Introduction
20 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to an annual canvass conducted under section 9D of RPA 1983 in the implementation period by an English registration officer.(2) The “implementation period” means the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with the coming into force of section 3 of this Act.(3) In this Part of this Schedule—“English registration officer” means a registration officer appointed under section 8(2) of RPA 1983;“pre-commencement canvass” means a canvass described in sub-paragraph (1);“the RPR (E&W) 2001” means the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/341).Modification of the purpose of a pre-commencement canvass
21 (1) In relation to a pre-commencement canvass conducted by an English registration officer, section 9D of RPA 1983 (duty to conduct canvass in Great Britain) has effect as follows.(2) Subsection (2) has effect as if it provided that the purpose of the canvass included ascertaining the names, addresses and dates of birth of persons aged under 16 who will, as a result of section 4(4A) of RPA 1983 (inserted by section 3 of this Act), be entitled (on the coming into force of section 3 of this Act) to be registered in a register maintained by that officer.(3) But the power to make house to house inquiries under subsection (5) of section 9D does not include power to make inquiries for the purpose of the matter described in sub-paragraph (2).Youth detention accommodation: no duty to canvass
22 In relation to a pre-commencement canvass conducted by an English registration officer, nothing in section 9D of RPA 1983—(a) applies in relation to the registration of persons in respect of residence in youth detention accommodation as defined in section 248(1) of the Sentencing Code;(b) requires the officer to ascertain the names, addresses and dates of birth of persons resident in such accommodation.Design of canvass communications and form
23 The Electoral Commission must design a version of the communications and form described in regulation 32ZBG(1)(a) of the RPR (E&W) 2001 (canvass communications and forms: Electoral Commission duties) for use in England in relation to a pre-commencement canvass.24 For that purpose, regulation 32ZBG has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (1) there were inserted after sub-paragraph (a)—“(aa) send the communications and form to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed;”;(b) paragraph (2) were omitted;(c) for paragraph (4)(d)(iii) there were substituted—“(iii) to provide the registration officer with the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the communication relates;”;(d) for paragraph (5)(f) there were substituted— “(f) require the recipient to provide the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the form is given.”;(e) after paragraph (5) there were inserted—“(6) The canvass communication B referred to in paragraph (1)(a)(iii) must require—(a) the occupier, or(b) if there is no occupier, or it is not reasonably practicable for the occupier to provide the required information, the person in charge of the premises,to provide the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the communication relates.”Other modifications of RPR (E&W) 2001
25 The RPR (E&W) 2001 have effect in relation to a pre-commencement canvass with the modifications set out in paragraphs 26 to 29.26 Regulation 32ZBA (annual canvass) has effect as if in paragraph (6), after “an address” there were inserted “, or that a person aged 14 or 15 may reside at an address,”.27 Regulation 32ZBD (canvass where changes to register are likely to be required) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), for “to (9)” there were substituted “to (9ZA)”;(b) after paragraph (9) there were inserted—“(9ZA) A registration officer may not visit an address in order to speak to a person aged under 16.”;(c) in paragraph (10)—(i) in the definition of “canvass form” and “paper communication”, after “designed” there were inserted “for use in relation to a pre-commencement canvass”;(ii) after the definition of “paper communication” there were inserted—““pre-commencement canvass” has the meaning given by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 2026.”28 Regulation 32ZBE (canvass where changes to register are unlikely to be required) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), at the end there were inserted“; and(c) provide to the registration officer the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address.”;(b) after paragraph (7) there were inserted—“(7A) If, after complying with the requirements of paragraphs (3) to (6), a registration officer—(a) has reason to believe that a person aged 14 or 15 may reside at the address, and(b) is not aware of that person’s full name, date of birth or nationality,the officer must conduct the annual canvass in accordance with regulation 32ZBD in respect of the address.”;(c) in paragraph (8), after “designed” there were inserted “for use in relation to a pre-commencement canvass”;(d) after paragraph (8) there were inserted—“(9) In this regulation, “pre-commencement canvass” has the meaning given by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 2026.”29 Regulation 32ZBF (canvass in respect of particular types of property) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(b) after paragraph (5) there were inserted— “(5ZA) The registration officer must attempt to make contact with the responsible person and must request the full name, nationality and date of birth of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at that property.”;(c) in paragraph (6)—(i) for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(ii) after “appropriate” there were inserted “(subject to paragraph (6A))”;(d) after paragraph (6) there were inserted—“(6A) A registration officer may not visit the property in order to speak to a person aged under 16.”;(e) in paragraph (7), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(f) in paragraph (8), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”.Retention of information
30 (1) Where an English registration officer obtains personal information relating to a person aged 14 or 15 when conducting a pre-commencement canvass, the officer may retain that information until the end of the specified day.(2) The “specified day” is the earliest of—(a) the last day of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which section 3 of this Act is commenced,(b) the day on which the registration officer receives from the person an application made under section 10ZC of RPA 1983 for registration in a register maintained by the officer, and(c) the day on which the registration officer gives the person an invitation to apply for registration under section 9E(1) of RPA 1983.(3) Nothing in this paragraph affects the ability of the registration officer to otherwise lawfully retain the information described in sub-paragraph (1) after the specified day.(4) In this paragraph,“personal information” means a person’s name, address, email address, telephone number, date of birth or nationality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable a registration officer carrying out a canvass in England before Clause 3 of the Bill (entitlement to be registered before reaching voting age) comes into force to obtain information about 14 and 15 year olds and to retain that information for use when inviting those persons to register once clause 3 is in force.
Lord Hayward
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Hayward, seek to allow for a debate on the complexity of electoral law as affected by this Bill.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can please the Government Whip by indicating that, although I tabled a few amendments in relation to one particular aspect of this group, I could have tabled dozens of amendments on this subject. The subject was possibly best described by someone whom one might describe as a half-Irish lyricist who was brought up in inner south London. Four years ago, when he spoke to this Chamber, he said:
“I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister, they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1709.]
That half-Irish lyricist from just south of the river is, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who made an observation on the Ballot Secrecy Bill. I gave him notice that I intended to quote from his speech on that occasion.
As noble Lords can see, the one amendment I have tabled to Clause 7, Amendment 13, runs to a whole page. We have to look at a string of legislation, much of which was introduced by my Government and previous Governments. It has been a clear fact for years that our electoral law is a complete mess and is in desperate need of consolidation into one Act. Page after page of this Bill just refers to one piece of legislation or another. I could understand it if it was dealing, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to on Monday, with devolved powers and therefore devolved legislation, but in far too many instances that is not the case. We have what I would best describe as a complete cacophony of electoral law.
If we think this is a mess, just imagine the sets of circumstances under which the returning officers have to operate. Whereas we can spread out our discussions on electoral law over a number of days, the returning officers are operating, particularly when they do not have notice of an election—for example, a general election—under extreme pressure. It really is astonishing that we have so few cases of an error being made in one form or another. Just think of what we will be coming on to talk about, whether it is postal votes, entitlement to vote from abroad, or registration of votes. Whatever it may happen to be, the poor returning officers are looking at this on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis. It is truly astonishing that we do not get petitions asking that matters do not go to the elections court and challenging the result in one form or another. I have paid credit to returning officers previously, but I will do so again on this occasion. As I say, there are many amendments that I could have put down here, but I chose not to.
On the other broad category of amendments, this is where we have a serious problem. I ask the Minister clearly to identify when she replies why on earth we need all these amendments saying that, instead of a registration officer we have a senior registration officer, or that we have to ensure that councils call in every possible officer to administer the elections. I will come back to that point in a minute.
We are talking here about devolution. One of the great mantras of this Government is that we must devolve power. The Prime Minister went to Lanarkshire the other week to tell the Scots that they are not devolving powers enough. The Minister herself, earlier this week, said:
“As we extend the devolution programme, this Government have made it very clear that we think that it should be people with skin in the game in their local area who take the key decisions about those areas. It is perfectly right that each of the Governments around the UK are free to do what they feel is right”.—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1407.]
If we are devolving powers to local councils, how is it that clause after clause tells local councils what role and status the registration officer should hold within a local council? Birmingham City Council’s chief executive is paid £300,000 a year. Surely, he knows better than the Minister and officials in Whitehall who should be deputed to handle what aspect of elections. It is true throughout the land that we have highly paid chief executive officers, one after another; yet Whitehall seems to think it knows best how an election should be administered. I could understand it if a whole series of elections had gone wrong—but I refer again to the Electoral Commission’s report on general elections. There is not one reference to a general election going wrong; in local elections, there are one or two very minor exceptions. I genuinely believe that this is Whitehall dictating utterly unnecessarily to local councils who should handle what.
The bit of the Bill that astonishes me most is the clause stating that a council should require all its officers, whatever they may happen to be—this is implicit in the phrasing of the Bill—to be called on to administer elections. Are we going to insert in an education Bill that every employee of a council should be called on to help with education; or that every employee should be called on to help with environmental matters or hygiene matters, or whatever it may happen to be? There is no justification for this, given that we do not have a failed electoral system; we have an extremely challenging one, but we do not have a failed one. I see no reason whatever why there is a series of clauses in the Bill suggesting that Whitehall knows best.
In conclusion, I referred to the Prime Minister going to Lanarkshire to deliver his message on devolution. He should go to Marsham Street and deliver the same message in relation to this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. I woke up this morning thinking that I would love to quote Martin Luther King—that I had a dream. I will give a tiny bit of history. The Representation of the People Act 1983 is the core legislation that everything has sprung from. It was 18 years from 1983 to the creation in 2001 of the Electoral Commission, in which I, and maybe others here, was involved. It is now 43 years since the 1983 Act came into being, and there have been repeated amendments and additions: the Electoral Administration Act, the Elections Act, and so on. We are getting to the point where, to move election law, you need a pick-up truck. It is completely crackers that we are in this situation.
The most important thing, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hayward, is consolidation. I have discussed the possibility of that with others, including my noble friend the Minister, and it is a major undertaking. But there is a new kid on the block, and that is AI. We must get to a situation where we can do this, because it is impossible to operate. I should have declared my interest as a former election lawyer to the Labour Party for many years. Having to deal with this legislation is very difficult, and you can miss things out very easily. My plea to the Minister is to take this idea away to the officials, so that my dream can actually come true and we can have a bit of consolidation in this Act.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hayward and by the noble Lord, Lord Shamash. We have heard in the debate so far that we need a consolidation. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shamash, are very persuasive. Not only do we not have consolidation but the Bill contains all sorts of contradictory provisions and inconsistencies. I cannot wait to see what the government amendments will be—I am sure there will be several groups of them.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, this may be the group on which we have the most widespread agreement from all corners of the Committee. I very much agree with the broad thrust of the comments from the three noble Lords who have spoken so far.
To give one further illustration: in preparing my ring binder of things that I thought might be useful to have with me during Committee, I thought it might be useful to print off copies of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and PPERA 2000, the two pieces of primary legislation that we will, I hope, amend through this legislation. I dutifully downloaded the PDFs for both from legislation.gov.uk. One comes in at 543 pages and the other at 524 pages, which is about the length of the last copy of War and Peace I saw. I decided not to print those off, but it illustrates the problem, which was quite rightly touched on earlier, about how staff and volunteers have to grapple with understanding large parts of what is a very complex legal landscape.
However, I would not want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, by not taking the chance to quibble just a little over a couple of his amendments in this group. His Amendment 16 would remove a cross-reference, but I would go the other way and say that we need more cross-references in legislation. But he is absolutely right with Amendment 17. I am sure that there is some fine legal brain in this House who will be able to elucidate why the definition that would be removed by Amendment 17 is not simply a rearranging of the words. That definition adds very little meaning.
Overall, it is welcome that we have seen, in one of the more recent government amendments tabled, a tidying-up by the proposal to repeal some previously uncommenced legislation. I hope that the debate on this group will encourage the Government to look at further steps for tidying up as we progress through the Bill.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will be part of the agreement across the Committee on this one. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for introducing these amendments and agree with all of them as a point of principle—to be slightly different from the noble Lord, Lord Pack.
We need this debate on the complexity of electoral law and administrative bureaucracy. I echo the Minister in recognising and thanking electoral returning officers for their job. It is not an easy job, as various noble Lords have made clear, to deal with all the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, said that just two Acts added up to over 1,100 pages. They are long, complex, inconsistent and, on occasion, in conflict. Electoral returning officers have to deal regularly with new regulations, guidance and changes. It is a surprise that anybody actually wants the job.
In addition to dealing with that, there is the sheer difficulty of running the operation. You may be dealing with 200-plus polling stations. You have to make sure that you get all your polling booths to them. You have to send out thousands of postal votes and rely on the postal system, which itself always has the potential for error. You have to make decisions on the spot in order to overcome all these various things. The Bill then prescribes, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has said, exactly how someone is supposed to do the job and who in the council is supposed to do the job and, as my noble friend raised, includes that specific point about requiring all staff to be made available. What happens if all staff are not willing to be made available? What sanction can the chief executive have? Will it be part of their work contract? What about needing them potentially to be made available to another neighbouring authority that needs more people? The system works. The EROs get the job done. It is a difficult job and, as I said in my previous speech, we should trust them.
I will go through some of these amendments, beginning with Amendment 13 to Clause 7(4)—reiterated in Amendment 16 to Clause 14—which defines “absent voters records”, “overseas elector lists”, “overseas elector’s declaration”, “registration officer” and “voter register”. Subsection (5) then clarifies the roles of a deputy electoral registration officer and a person assisting the electoral registration officer. My noble friend has already raised concerns over how other Whitehall departments determine this. I can go on through all the various clauses—and that is before I get on to the clauses that my noble friend has opposed in order to prompt this debate.
It is clear that our electoral system, local government and layers of administrative bureaucracy are complex. We are fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy and to work in a system that has evolved, relatively organically, over time. Some legal complexity is perhaps expected, but we are concerned that, rather than seeking to improve the situation, some provisions in the Bill risk unnecessarily increasing the bureaucracy and practical complexity. I will not go through it all, but it is very clear from across the Committee that the Bill is overly complex, adds complexity and does not do what it should do, which is to make life simpler and more certain.
I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the recommendations made by noble Lords on how and where electoral law and administration could be made a little less complex without weakening the system’s strength, especially at the local level. In fact, by increasing consistency and simplifying where appropriate, it would strengthen the system. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of what further government amendments we can expect.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for this debate; it has been a very interesting subject to discuss. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I am sure he will have equally lobbied his own side on these issues before the Bill came to the House. This is the first election law I have dealt with, but I am sure that he will have been urging his own side to consider these issues in all the legislation that has gone through in the previous 14 years.
This Bill came forward to serve three specific purposes: to introduce voting for 16 and 17 year-olds, which is a manifesto commitment from my party; to take steps towards automatic voter registration, so as to tackle the under-registration of some 7 million to 8 million people; and, lastly, to tackle overseas political finance. During the course of the Bill, some of those issues have been the subject of much public debate, and we have had the Rycroft review of political finance, which has added to the Bill. There will be further amendments which will, I think, be laid on 9 November. In response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, he will have sight of amendments before we get to a further day of Committee on this Bill.
The consolidation of electoral law is a key issue. I have heard loud and clear, both at Second Reading and in the engagement meetings I held with noble Lords, the importance of doing this. In the process of the Bill, it is not possible to tackle the whole consolidation of all election law—I am sure it is even more than the number of pages that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, outlined. However, it is important we take that on board and look at what the process is going to be for what is certainly a job that needs to be done. I am going to take that back to the department and, at a later stage of the Bill, I will come back to it, because I understand what noble Lords are saying.
I took very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about read-only access to registers, which he made during the previous session, and I pushed for more information on this. There are complexities around the localised nature of the register. In effect, we have 300 separate electoral registers, which is probably the point that the noble Lord was making around data protection. I will do some more work on this and I am happy to discuss it with him further in due course.
I recognise the broader concerns the noble Lord has around the complexity of electoral law and the administrative burdens which are placed on those responsible for delivering our elections. However, removing from the Bill important provisions which contain essential legal definitions, which his amendments would introduce, is not the right way to address either of those concerns. The legal definitions clarify the scope of the provisions so that it is clear who is captured by them—namely registration officers and those assisting registration officers—and confirm that the measures do not attach to absent voting lists which relate only to devolved elections. These clauses are not unnecessary additions. They contain substantive measures designed to improve the operation of our electoral system, as well as definitional information to aid the proper interpretation and application of the law.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about the measures on electoral registration officers and returning officers. Electoral registration officers and returning officers carry personal legal responsibility for functions fundamental to the effective operation of our democracy. Discharging those responsibilities requires access to staff, premises, systems and other resources from across the local authority, often within tightly prescribed statutory timetables and during periods of considerable operational pressure. Requiring ultimate responsibility to rest with an appropriately senior officer will help ensure that the officeholder has sufficient organisation-wide authority and accountability to secure the necessary support and provide effective oversight. This is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that returning officers have the authority and access to resources they need to run elections effectively. It provides a clear minimum standard, while leaving local authorities flexibility over whom they appoint within that framework.
The Committee will have the opportunity to debate all the measures in the Bill as it progresses. The Government will continue to make their case for each of them, but I assure the noble Lord I am listening carefully to all views expressed in the Committee.
I thank the noble Lord for his clause stand part notice on Clause 44. I will explain briefly the importance of this clause to the Bill. At present, political parties cannot withdraw their support for a candidate once the nomination papers have been submitted, even when serious issues arise. Clause 44 enables parties to act where concerns arise during the nomination period. The scope of the provisions is very carefully limited. Support may be withdrawn only up to 48 hours before nominations close, ensuring the candidate still has time to stand independently or for another party, and the party can nominate a replacement. This clause forms part of a suite of new safeguards designed to protect the integrity of elections and prevent and deter personation or false nominations. Removing it would weaken the Bill.
I have listened carefully to the debates, particularly on the consolidation of election law, and I am very happy to continue those discussions.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments in general, and I want to continue the conversation. I seek clarification on her last comments about the particular clause. Are her comments fully supported by both the Electoral Commission and the AEA on behalf of returning officers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that that the EC and the Association of Electoral Administrators were consulted on provisions in the Bill, but I will go back and check and answer the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I have heard some interesting comments from the Minister and, as I indicated just now, I appreciate her offer to have further conversations in relation to the specific matters. I think we all knew that, on the question of consolidation, sadly, we are going to have to live with Encyclopaedia Britannica, whether it is on AI or any other system, for the future. It is grotesquely challenging for everybody who is involved. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, we will now move to the lunch-break business. We will therefore not return to the Bill before one hour and 15 minutes from now. However, to clarify, we will not cut short the 90-minute debate for the SI; this is just in case it finishes earlier, and we can resume Committee business.