Written evidence submitted by Rt Hon Lucy Powell MP, Chair of the Modernisation Committee (EVO 03)
Electronic voting was raised by both internal and external stakeholders. As your committee has identified in the call for evidence, there are several international examples of electronic voting which were also highlighted to us in the submissions we received.
There was no unified view on electronic voting across the MPs we heard from. Some argued that it should not be implemented, suggesting that it would remove the opportunity for MPs to mix with colleagues in the voting lobbies and that it would separate the MP from the issue they were voting on, if they did not have to physically pass through the lobbies.
Some of the MPs in favour of electronic voting argued that Ministers should make themselves available to MPs on a more regular basis, which would negate the need for MPs to catch Ministers in the voting lobbies. Many of the MPs in favour of electronic voting suggested that the current process for divisions was particularly challenging for MPs with disabilities or health conditions, especially when there were multiple votes in a row.
Many submissions also highlighted that the current divisions process was very time-consuming in itself, requiring time spent queuing in the voting lobbies that could have been used elsewhere, and that it often disrupted other important Parliamentary business such as Select Committee hearings and Westminster Hall debates. Some submissions suggested that other procedures for voting could be applied in certain circumstances, for example by allowing electronic voting after a specified number of votes if there is a continuous run of divisions.
We look forward to seeing how the Procedure Committee will explore some of the concerns around electronic voting, including for example having less opportunity to meet and speak to
colleagues, and holding Ministers to account. We also wanted to know whether deferred divisions would be included in the scope of your inquiry.
Across our engagement there was a clear call from Members to have more certainty about the Parliamentary day. Many Members expressed their frustration over not being able to use their days as effectively as they wanted, and that meetings or commitments had to be rescheduled at the last minute due to statements in the chamber or other changes to business. Members who called for more certainty suggested that this would help them in balancing the many competing demands of their role, allowing them to have a better work/life balance, and most crucially of all, making them more effective in all aspects of their role as legislators and representatives of their constituents.
We would be grateful if throughout this work you could have regard to the fundamental Parliamentary functions of scrutinising legislation, holding ministers to account, and representing our constituents as effectively as possible.
We wish you the very best as you embark on these inquiries and look forward to being kept up to date on your progress, and please let us know when you expect these inquiries to conclude. We are content for you to publish this correspondence.
4 March 2025