Lords Chamber

Monday 2nd November 2026

(began 22 hours, 20 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
No, no, I can't confirm that. >> No, no, I can't confirm that. But what I can confirm, as the noble Baroness will, will understand and will know, is that between committee and report, I spent a significant amount of time talking to various individual bodies, talking to various individual peers about how, in terms of the reorganisation, the government is proposing that alongside that protection of many of the things that the noble this House raised about regional representation on the national body, about the role of Lord lieutenants and others being on the face of the bill, about those who became part of the new national body.

Those regional representatives had voting rights and making sure there was a significant number of those on that national panel of ensuring that each region that the three or so members of England could be on that body, and also each of the various devolved administrations, which will ask time and again, could there be a representative from Scotland? Could there be a representative from Northern Ireland? Could there be a representative from Wales? And in each of those I voted yes. So in many ways, what I can't answer in the affirmative to what the noble Baroness has said.

She will understand. I spent hours trying to get many of the things that she and many others demanded onto the face of the bill to protect many of the things that noble Lords regard as important under the current structure.
15:11
15:11
15:12
None Portrait Oral questions: Trends in the level of people claiming Personal Independence Payment and Universal Credit.
-

A third Oral Question Baroness Spielman. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords.
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:34
15:35
None Portrait Legislation: Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill - third reading
-

Information System bill Baroness Lloyd of Effra.
15:35
15:36
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Labour)
-
-
I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time. >> Question is that this will be now read a third time. As many as have that opinion will say content. Content to To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. in clause two. Amendment one. Baroness Lloyd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment one in my name. The amendments in this group seek to tighten the drafting group seek to tighten the drafting for consistency and clarity, first by referring to data centre services rather than data centres services rather than data centres in clause two, and second, by referring to subsection five of clause 30 when defining regulated clause 30 when defining regulated person in clause 24, 36, and 42. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed clause two. Page one. Line ten. Leave out centres and insert centre services. Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as of that opinion will say content. Thank Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Amendments two. My Lords three and four. Baroness Lloyd moved formally. En bloc question is that these amendments be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents have it. The question is that this bill be. Now read a third time. I think I've already put that question.

But the question is that this bill be now read a third time, as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents of it. I beg to move that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now pass. Question is that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now pass. As we reach Third Reading. And this bill goes back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And this bill goes back. To the Commons. I believe we need to take account of where this bill now stands and the choices
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. speak to amendments 3433301302 which are all in my name. Amendment one. I am firmly of the view that you should only be able to vote in an election when you're old enough to meet the age criteria, to stand as a candidate for that election. Yes, 18 remains the legal age of adulthood and is currently the age at which a citizen may put themselves forward to be elected to the House of Commons. That connection is important, my Lords, and it is alignment with the age criteria to vote. If the government is unable to support amendment one, then I hope that Ministers will be able to explain why they are so keen to separate the age of voting and candidacy in this way.

This is not an argument regarding maturity, and there is much that could be said on that topic. But I am moving an amendment today in defence of a long established electoral principle. It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I do not support the franchise being lowered to enable 16 and 17 year olds to vote, and through amendment one. It is my intention that the minimum voting age remains at 18, which would maintain alignment with the minimum age to stand for election in the Commons under section 17 of the Electoral Administration Act, 2006, through amendment one, I am seeking to preserve the existing and long standing alignment between the age of voting for and the age of standing as a candidate.

The parliamentary franchise, my Lord, is one of the very foundations of our Constitution, and I fail to see any justification by the government in the passage of this Bill thus far in why such a long standing national rule ought to change further still, I put it to your Lordships that the government has failed to address what the consequences of this Bill are, and why those consequences are justified. Data from the Electoral Commission confirms that through this legislation, if left unamended, we would be extending the franchise to 1.7 million additional people. Make no mistake, this represents a major constitutional change.

The question is not whether young people should get the vote. It's whether the government has established a principled case for changing the parliamentary franchise, and whether the safeguards preparations for the democratic concerns are commensurate with this change. As of yet, the burden of explanation that is required by the House to justify the constitutional significance of this change fails to meet what I consider to be the basic test of proportionality. And perhaps, my Lords, that is because the essence of this bill is sadly more about gerrymandering the franchise than it is about strengthening the electoral system.

 I am, however, sympathetic to this House supporting the greater involvement of young people in our democracy. That is a must, but we should not, and we should not and must not mistake engagement for the single question of enfranchisement. If the government is intended commitment to strengthening democratic values and engagement amongst younger people, then I hope that today the Minister will be able to commit to bringing forward a fully funded and credible programme of proper and unbiased civic education. Whether or not this bill succeeds, because that, my Lords, will mark whether or not this government is indeed serious about the engagement of younger people in the process.

Indeed, we only need to look at the data from Scotland and Wales, where 16 and 17 year olds are already permitted to vote in the devolved parliamentary elections, as well as local elections. Electoral Commission figures from 2025 estimate that only 61% of 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland, and a shocking 39% in Wales are actually registered to vote. Despite having the opportunity to do so. This demonstrates my earlier point that the widening of the franchise does not solve the problem of engagement, and suggests that government should turn its focus to civic education civic education prior to any national law change.

Can I move now on to amendment three? I am asking noble Lords to support retaining the existing age qualification of 18 for the signing of a recall petition under the recall of MPs act 2015, when the Recall Act was passed, it was widely accepted that the power of recall was a distinct and profound constitutional act. Through this amendment, I am seeking to acknowledge the severity of the recall process by asking your Lordships to consider the recall franchise on its own merits, and not assume that every adjustment to voting age must automatically be copied. Amendment three would thus ensure that the age for signing recall petitions is equal to that of the established age of adulthood, and the minimum age at which people would vote.

In the last parliamentary election. If the government is unable to support this amendment, then I ask Ministers to explain why changing the voting age should automatically alter the recall electorate, and why they are of the view that this particular extension can be made without full and independent justification. Given that the power of recall has the highly sensitive ability of removing representation, it is for government to now justify whether or not it is their intention to change the eligible population that it empowered to terminate the mandate mandate people elected to the current Parliament for if it is their intention to do this, then it is problematic for a number of reasons.

If left unamended, the House will in fact be making changes to a constitutionally sensitive accountability mechanism simply as a side effect of another clause. And I put it to your Lordships that this is not a sensible way to deal with the complexity of constitutional matters. I would therefore ask Lords to back amendment three as a limited safeguard. My Lords, I recognise that the government made a manifesto commitment to lowering the age of voting, but I caution your Lordships House than such major constitutional matters that we have, and should still utilise the process of taking the question directly to the people through a referendum.

For if it is the question of how we elect our Members of Parliament was considered sufficiently fundamental to warrant the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote. Then he asked the government to explain why the question of who should be entitled to elect them is considered any less deserving of the consent of the British people. This is, my Lords, important. When I mentioned earlier, we are talking here about an increasing of the franchise by an additional 1.7 million people through amendment four, I am asking for the government to seek the reassurance of the electorate that this is wanted, as I for one sense that the national mood on this subject matter is very different from the direction that the government is taking.

My amendment is a democratic safeguard that require a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16 within two years of Royal Assent. Amendment four should be read alongside my amendment 301 for the former requires a referendum, while a later latter would prevent regulations commencing voting at the age of 16 unless a majority had voted for it. The process of a referendum would my Lord create a series, a serious and needed national conversation around civic responsibility, one I would hope everybody would be keen to welcome if we are to make such monumental changes. In my view, we should alter the integrity of the vote in.

 It's only right that the decision to do so should be put to the British people. Can move on to amendment 33. I call on noble Lords that the government properly acknowledge the troublesome and dangerous times in which we live. Through amendment 33, I'm calling on the relevant Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the susceptibility of 16 and 17 year olds to foreign interference and electoral electoral disinformation prior to lowering the franchise. In moving this amendment, I am not in any way suggesting that young people are any more uniquely gullible to election related disinformation and foreign interference than older people, but I am asserting the point that government has a duty to assess whether any new cohort of electors may encounter particular vulnerability or exposures, and what the state must do to protect the integrity of the information environment for the safeguarding of our democracy.

The issue here, my Lords, is that our electoral environment has fundamentally changed, and I draw the Lordships attention to the recent research by the Electoral Commission after the 2024 election. It was highlighted how 61% reported seeing misleading information about party policies, 52% about candidates and 24% said they had seen or heard an election related deepfake. These figures must concern us, and 16 and 17 year olds who, through greater use of chatbots, AI platform social media sites would. I would, I fear, be even more greatly impacted than older peers. We know, my Lords, that foreign interference in our electoral process is a real and significant threat.

Hostile states, particularly Russia, have in recent years shown their willingness to utilise, utilise social media and the plethora of digital tools out there to interfere in the democratic process of our countries. And we would be foolish to think that we are immune to this. With the rapid deployment of AI, it is becoming increasingly harder to establish fact from fiction, the truth from disinformation. And we know there are a lot of rogue actors. Therefore, before increasing the franchise, it is the responsibility of the government to at least understand the current risks and consider the adequacy of the safeguards.

On amendment 301 and 303, as I have outlined, they are in my name, though. Amendment three through amendment 301, I am seeking to ensure that the government holds a referendum and publishes an assessment of susceptibility of 16 and 17 year olds to election related disinformation and foreign interference. These commencement commencement conditions are highly important, as they will make the consent of the electorate in relation to amendment four, which requires a referendum condition rather than a courtesy, and gives the overall exercise a defined constitutional purpose. Further to a referendum result. Amendment 301 I am also seeking to require the government to discharge the duty to assess the susceptibility to election related disinformation and foreign interference under amendment 33, and taken together, I hope that noble Lords will agree that through these amendments, we are requiring two independent safeguards prior to amendments.

Finally, my Lords, turning now to amendment 302. I am seeking the requirement for the approval of both houses under the affirmative principle. Before the voting age is lowered to 16 for any future elections. In moving these amendments, I'm seeking to try to protect Parliament's role at scrutiny by reserving the final commencement decision to both houses. It should be for members to decide and test whether, through amendments 433 and 301, a referendum has been carried out and whether the disinformation assessments have been properly completed and through amendment 302, and providing an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, as I do not believe that we should be left to not believe, it should be left for Ministers to be the judge.

Whether the prerequisite prerequisites for extending the franchise have been adequately met. My Lords, in moving these amendments, I conclude by reminding your Lordships committees and yes, by the government may be confident in their policy. Indeed, they have the numbers to force this bill through, but a parliamentary majority is no substitute for a principle, and the democratic consent. I am moving these amendments as this bill is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 year olds be permitted to vote, yet remain ineligible to stand? Why should the franchise for recall petitions be altered without the government laying before this Parliament a distinct and compelling justification of the fairness of this?

What measures are Ministers putting in place to assess the risks of the susceptibility of young people to disinformation and foreign interference? And if the government has confidence that the majority of people in this country support increasing the franchise by 1.7 million, then surely putting this to a confirmatory vote of the British people would uphold the integrity of our future elections. All these questions remain unanswered, and the integrity of our Constitution should not be seen as a political experiment to be conducted at the whim of whichever government happens to hold office. I hope I have the support of your Lordships in asking that through these amendments, the government.

 Think again, my Lords. The franchise is the bedrock of our democracy. It belongs to the government of the day, so it belongs not to the government of the day, to the British, but to the British people. And it should not be altered without their consent. I beg to.
15:59
15:59
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-
Very interesting speech by the noble Lord, most of which I disagree with. I understand the issues. But to say that there is no mandate, no constitutional basis, no political support for this measure is absolute nonsense. It was in the manifesto of the Labour Party, and when people voted in Northern Ireland and Wales and Scotland and in England, they voted, amongst other things, to agree to vote in at 16. And so I see no conceivable argument constitutionally, because it is a constitutional principle, the bedrock of our constitutional, that a manifesto commitment is the same as a as a referendum.

When I was elected in the other place in 1987, 75% of the electorate voted for me. When my right hon. Friend Nick Thomas-symonds went to the polls in 2024, 49% of the electorate voted. And that's the electorate over the age of 18. And so it isn't simply about age, it's about commitment. And anything we can do as a parliament, as a government, to increase the number of people voting, to increase the number of people interested in politics, is to be welcomed. Now, as the noble Lord said, Wales and Scotland have had these measures for some time and the world hasn't collapsed.

The constitutional heavens haven't come in and in fact, there's been an enormous increase in the interest in politics as a result of it. But I do agree with him very much on one point. And that is this has to be accompanied by a really serious improvement in civic education amongst young people. We don't do it well enough. I spent 17 years of my life teaching the small college youngsters what they used to call British Constitution, and I hope I did my little bit to improve their knowledge of of how they are governed. And so I hope when the Minister does eventually wind up, she'll let us know that her colleagues in the Department of Education will be looking at ways and means by which civic education can be improved.

And I think also it's important to point out that there are variations in the United Kingdom about voting, and there's nothing wrong with that. Northern Ireland for decades and decades and decades, had a different system of voting for their regional and provincial governments and for the local authorities from the parliamentary elections and for the last 26 years in Scotland and Wales, those devolved administrations have decided that they wanted to. They were able to decide the methods by which people could vote, and also the constitutional arrangements for their own parliaments. And again, that worked extremely well.

And to undermine that, incidentally, is to undermine the devolution principle upon which the Assembly of the Senate in Wales, under Parliament in Scotland, has been elected. No, I think that there's nothing wrong with this. I think we should adopt the principle. And I think also the Minister would be wise if she were to contact her colleagues in the Scottish and the Welsh Governments to see how this is progressed over the last number of years, and I do hope, sincerely, that my colleagues, our colleagues, members of this House will seriously reject the amendment that the noble order put forward.
16:03
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Number two, which is a probing amendment suggesting that perhaps the voting age be changed to 17 rather than 16, and did this for a number of reasons to get a proper debate about this. The noble Lord Lord Murphy of Torfaen has just referred to the Welsh Senate elections and didn't do any harm. I'm sure it didn't do any harm, but it's not exactly the same as voting for the national government in terms of turnout didn't even reach 52% across the whole of Wales in the Senate elections earlier this year. So we're talking about quite a different scale of representation.

 So, my Lords is in the Labour manifesto. It's one sentence we will increase the engagement of young people in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in all elections. Now, we haven't seen that happen to make that change, or we haven't seen the outcome of that really happen in other parts of the United Kingdom that's already adopted voting at a younger age. But I'm not going to have a row because I appreciate it was in the manifesto, but I think it is useful to point out the Electoral Commission shared with us that research across several countries and states that have lowered their voting ages show that one enfranchised 1670 year olds tend to vote in greater numbers than those in enfranchised at 18, so more likely to vote, according to Electoral Commission when you're 16 or 17, but then not when you're 18.

So there's something interesting going on here, I think is a bit of a transition. And one of the reasons why traditionally I've opposed changing the vote from the age of adulthood is because of a significant change in what happens in the rest of your life when you turn 18. But there are significant differences between what a 16 year old can do and what a 17 year old can do. A 17 year old can drive a car. A 17 year old can actually fly a plane. They can have a private pilot's licence. They can become a blood donor.

You can't do that when you're 16. You can join the armed forces. Or rather, I should be precise, the army as an officer at the age of 17 years and nine months, can't do that in any other of the armed forces. You can't become a police constable until you're 18. There's so many things where we have decided, in fact, and changed the law in the last five years or so to stop people doing things until they turn the age of adulthood. So I'm trying to get a sense of why the government has particularly chosen 16, recognising this can be an age when a lot of children will.

Young people won't have even taken their GCSEs. So just trying to get that sense, rather than just the one liner that we have in the Labour manifesto. Of course, when you turn 18, you can do things like serve on a jury, get a tattoo, didn't know you had to be 18 to get a to two till I looked it up. You can't make a will until you're 18, which is quite surprising. Perhaps we can change that in another bill. You certainly can't get a credit card. You can't buy alcohol. Well, not legally anyway. But the other thing I think that's worth bearing in mind, because the whole concept of young people at the moment and their lives is very much on our minds when it comes to talking about the statistical needs.

And there are actually 57,000 NEETs. The ONS reckons between the ages of 16 and 17. Now it's the Labour government back in 2008, I think made it unlawful, a criminal offence for that young person. They had took full responsibility if they were not in education, training or have a job. From the day of the last Friday in June, when they were 16 in school. Up until then, it was their parents responsibility to get keep them in school and understandably, the government never. I can understand why they never chose to enact the enforcement or penalty sections of that particular bill, but they did that in a way to criminalise young people.

And yet today they want to do something quite different. So instead of having a real focus on those 57,000 young people and why they knowingly breaking the law, and it's their responsibility. And by the way, councils are supposed to know what every young person is doing in their broader statutory duty on safeguarding children. They're supposed to know exactly what every child in their area is up to. Then why haven't we got more of focus about giving people the young, the potential and the future that they desperately need, rather than choosing 16 as the age at which they can start voting?

Now I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord. Sorry Lord Walney Lord Udny-Lister apologies on the referendum. I think that's an interesting concept. And by the way, later on I've actually tabled that we should reduce the candidate's age to 17 to match this amendment that I've put in today. But I wanted to go a little bit further in seeing what the government has said about why. 1617 so it says, well, you can work, you can pay tax, you can actually do both of those things below the age of 16. You can serve in the military.

That's correct. But you need parental consent. You need both parents, if they're in different houses or their residents are split between both houses, and then there's a contribution society more broadly. of Edinburgh scheme. Many of the other schemes that we have, young people have won, I think, Points of light awards in the past. So it comes back to why is it about 16? And it has to be a feel, a feel. It
16:08
16:09
16:10
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to move. >> I. >> Would remind the noble Lords to remember the vision that lays behind this whole bill, which was polished, published in the government's paper last July, Restoring Trust in our Democracy. And I just want to quote a couple of little bits from the beginning. Our democracy is central to who we are as a country. We can take pride in its evolution and how it has continued to inspire. And as a government, we have a responsibility to protect and strengthen it. The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity and should not be taken for granted.

Now, my Lords, until recently, democracy kind of moved in one direction from no democracy to a partial democracy to full democracy. But I do believe that in this bill there are elements which actually see a major reversal of democracy. And it's happening here in the United Kingdom, because until the 31st of December 2020, it didn't matter where you lived in the UK, every adult had the right to either elect representatives who between them made all the laws to which we were subject, or to stand for election to do it ourselves. But from the 1st of January 2021, that changed as the United Kingdom was divided into two different classes of citizens.

On the one hand, UK citizens living in England, Wales and Scotland who continue to enjoy that right to elect representatives or to stand for election to do so themselves. On the other hand, UK citizens living in Northern Ireland subject are subject to a second class citizenship through which they only have the right to elect representatives to make some of the laws to which they were, and are subject or stand for election to make some of the laws to which they are subject. Because, of course, as we all know, 300 areas of law areas, not just laws of UK citizens living in Northern Ireland have been disenfranchised and are now subject to a second class, truncated citizenship.

On 21st January 2021, no laws had been imposed on us, but since that we have seen increasing numbers of laws hedging us in grown and grown, providing a constantly increasing reminder of our disenfranchisement. That's going to get worse. And your Lordships House is well aware that because of this, every time there is a law imposed that requires some form of Westminster implementation, we. We try and oppose that by the use of our Statutory Instruments. And in this context, I have tabled a motion. 21 because this bill is sending 16 and 17 year olds across the UK through the bill before us today, suggesting that it can be celebrated as playing a role in restoring our democracy when it does no such thing for the whole of the United Kingdom.

At the moment, our laws treat 16 and 17 year olds across the UK in exactly the same way. None of them have the right to elect a fellow citizen, and none of them have a right to stand for election. However, the bill before us today, if it becomes law, then it will create discrimination. When I'm currently exists, it will create for the first time two classes of 16 and 17 year olds in the UK. One hand will be 1617 year olds in England, Wales and Scotland who will be given the right to participate in elections that contribute to making all their laws to which they are subject.

On the other hand, there will be 16 and 17 year olds from Northern Ireland who will only be given the right to participate in elections that contribute to making some of the laws to which they are subject and noble. Lords should understand that this actually violates the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, because the very purpose of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement was to persuade terrorists to renounce violence and seek to pursue their political goals through the ballot box. The agreement contains a special protection for for democracy that is additional to those applying to the UK as a whole.

It commits to protecting the right of the people of Northern Ireland to, and I quote, pursue democratically national and political aspirations and this right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations in relation to all the laws to which they were subject. And this was upheld from the 1998 until the end of 2020, when the Belfast Agreement was violated by means of the protocol and the Windsor framework. And now there are whole swathes of life from the 300 areas of law to which the people of Northern Ireland can no longer pursue democratically national and political aspirations.

And it's a it's a it's a wider part of the broader change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, which effectively. And I know some noble Lords don't like me saying this, but it has made Northern Ireland a part of being a colony of the EU in these 300 areas. No one in Northern Ireland can have a say in these laws that are made by a foreign Parliament. We are effectively a vassal state of the EU and at a time when everyone is apologising for colonialism and slavery, especially in our schools, it's quite bizarre that we should be acquiescing in its reintroduction, telling 16 and 17 year olds that they are going to be different.

After I spoke in Second Reading and subsequently tabled this amendment, I did receive and I'm very grateful to the Baroness, the Minister who wrote to me justifying the current arrangement on the basis that, and I quote, it, gives democratically elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to scrutinise the rules that apply, and for those reasons, the government is committed to it. Well, my Lords, quite apart from the fact that scrutiny is meaningless if you cannot actually change the legislation, this claim is also inaccurate because the Assembly has only given the opportunity to look at some of the legislation that is being imposed in Northern Ireland, and even if all of it went to the Assembly, it would not address the fundamental issue that democracy is not about having the right to elect representatives, to scrutinise legislation imposed on them by a foreign government that you cannot change.

It's. It's about electing an executive which brings forward draft laws and legislation. It scrutinises, amends, passes or rejects those laws. So, my Lords, of the Bill before us today becomes law in its current form, and an equality impact assessment is conducted, which which my amendment is is asking for six months later after the bill would come in, the assessment would necessarily demonstrate the terrible consequences of the failure of this bill to address this huge attack on our democracy. In our time, we cannot pretend that the representation of the people's Bill, with its mission of restoring trust in our democracy, could pass when it allows the most significant instigation of the disenfranchising of UK citizens and clearly discriminates against 16 and 17 year olds in Northern Ireland.

My Lords has never been a greater time, a greater need for restoring trust in our democracy. And I believe that if the government truly believes that, then they too should be supporting amendment 21. And the logic, of course, of my amendment, is that I would be supporting amendment two, because if anything is going to whether we're going to go up or down with our voting age, I want it to be the same for people right throughout the United Kingdom. So I move my amendment.
16:17
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
I'll speak to. >> Which is a probing amendment, seeks to. Clarify the scope of clause two by excluding secure children's homes from the children's homes from the definition of youth detention accommodation for the purposes of the disenfranchisement of 16 and 17 year olds, otherwise newly enfranchised. But first, echoing my noble friend Lord Murphy, I just wish to emphasise that I very much support our manifesto commitment for votes for 16 and 17 year olds in the name of recognising their value as citizens, as is the case in Scotland and Wales, and I'll return in a later group to the question of citizenship education, which is so important now.

The issue raised by this amendment was brought to my attention by Mark Alexander, a researcher at Cambridge, on behalf a doctoral researcher at Cambridge, on behalf of the steering group for the Unlock the Vote campaign at the penal charity Unlock Now, although I do believe that some prisoners should have the vote, this is not what this amendment is about, and I don't intend to spark a more general debate on that. What it is about is exploring why children serving custodial sentences in secure children's homes should be denied the new right to vote. When the government accepts that residents in such a home is not of itself a basis for disenfranchisement, I realise that young people in SE were not convicted.

Prisoners will not be disenfranchised. The Minister for democracy has made that clear, both in the Commons and in a letter to unlock, and the explanatory notes recognise, that children may also be residents in such homes for welfare purposes. So SE will accommodate both children who have the vote under clause two and children who do not. The question raised by unlock is whether it meets the bill's wider objectives that a conviction of a child should disenfranchise them when they are being accommodated in a welfare oriented rather than a penal institution. The Bill is intended to increase young people's engagement with democracy, and the government have described their objective as enabling young people to find their voice and exercise their right to vote, thereby building long lasting engagement with our democracy.

These are objectives I very much share, but arguably they sit uneasily with the exclusion of particularly vulnerable children whom the state is seeking to rehabilitate and reintegrate into our society. Surely such rehabilitative, rehabilitative education should include an appreciation of the importance of active citizenship and public duty. The issue is especially significant because the government themselves recognise that eligible children in RSE will require tailored support in order to exercise their democratic rights. Arrangements are already being developed with the Department of Education to highlight the value of citizens of civic engagement and democratic participation in RSE for some children, but not others, there's a risk that a child being told that they cannot participate in democracy alongside their peers in the same home, will feel a sense of alienation and disaffection that could undermine their rehabilitative journey.

And rather than building their identity as active citizens, it could have the very opposite effect. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister first, why a child serving a sentence in an RSE should be disenfranchised, thereby treating them differently from other children in the same institution? Second, why the distinctive welfare and rehabilitative character of RSE should not justify treating them differently from those in penal institutions? And third, whether the government has assessed the likely impact of this disenfranchisement on the rehabilitation and future democratic engagement of convicted children in RSE. My Lords, I believe I have raised a valid question as to whether the justification given by the government for the disenfranchisement of these children is sufficiently sensitive to the distinctive nature of secure children's homes, so I look forward to my noble friend's response.

 Lords, great pleasure to follow the noble Lady. Baroness Lister and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak to my amendment in amendment. The call that clause two not stand part of this bill which not stand part of this bill which goes further than the noble Lady's amendment, but is headed in the same direction. Now, it is no same direction. Now, it is no secret that it's Green Party policy that all of those being held in detention in prisons should be given the vote, unless they are, that is excluded by reason, perhaps
16:22
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
of electoral fraud or similar, or indeed, if a judge has decided they should not be able to exercise the vote. But that is not what we are addressing here. We are talking about a small, important group of young people, a particularly vulnerable group of young people now, like the noble Lady Baroness Lister. I'm I've been informed in what I'm about to say by the penal reform charity unlock. And this addresses the fact that clause two of this bill risks further alienating and marginalising an already excluded group of young people from politics and society in a way that's not just morally wrong, but is also likely to be counterproductive.

Whilst I understand that, and I've seen a letter from the the government Minister in the other place saying the government's view is that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should be unable to vote. This, as the noble Lady Baroness Lister said, is creating a real mess in secure children's homes. But more than this, my argument is that we are talking about children who we want to include, children who we want to, to see themselves as part of society, as having a stake in society. Now, I think it's important to say that we are not talking about an issue here that's going to have a significant any impact on the outcome of elections.

Up to March 2025, there were 610 children in England and Wales covered by this clause. Now, of course, there are equalities issues here because those children are very significantly. Minoritized communities are significantly overrepresented among those children, as are care experienced children. Hundreds of young people are being told one more way they can't participate in society while their peers can is voting. This is going to affect the way they feel about their society, how they whether they feel valued or listened to, rather than being abandoned and judged. And I note that what I've just said is based on the testimony of lived experience from people who have been through the experience of how they felt experienced youth detention.

Now, I am very strongly of the view that we need a world where everyone makes politics what they do not have done to them. And these are young people who have had lots of politics done to them. These are young people who have been victims of political decisions, of austerity, of others, who have put them in a situation where they have fallen through the cracks. In many cases in our society. So that's my clause two, not stand part. I'm going to restrain myself from engaging at length with the other amendments in this group, but I do just briefly want to note that it's interesting that actually in 1969, the representation of the People's Act, the extension of votes to 18, the first in the world, was generally actually uncontroversial, had broad cross-party support.

And interestingly, I think it was thought at the time that it might actually slightly advantage the Conservative Party, how the world has changed. But nonetheless, I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lady Baroness Coffey, who said that 16 and 17 year olds are more likely to vote. And and that's the evidence we have from other places than 18 and 19 year olds. But we also have evidence that people who vote in their first election are more likely to keep voting. So we're actually engaging people at a point when they're more ready to be engaged.

And that's something that's going to bear impacts decades into the future. And I want to also just point to the Scottish Youth Parliament, because they've been absolute leaders in calling for equality of votes at 16 and 17, that, of course, they have cells have enjoyed for some time. And I do have to share a little story from the 2014 referendum. I remember hearing a BBC radio four presenter on the streets of Edinburgh going, I'm standing with 16 and 17 year olds and they're really informed and engaged. And the surprise tone in his voice said a lot more about the reporter than it said about the 16 and 17 year olds.

Just one final point here. I'm afraid I don't really follow the argument of the noble Lord Udny-Lister regarding amendment 33, which is for the assessment of susceptibility of 16 and 17 year olds to election related disinformation and foreign interference. Noble Lord said he didn't actually think that 16 and 17 year olds were more vulnerable. So I don't really understand the argument for this amendment. But beyond that, I have absolutely no doubt if one did a study of this, that we would find there's an awful lot of people of your age, of the average age of your Lordships around about house and round about that, who are terribly vulnerable and definitely need some education to reduce their susceptibility.
16:28
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
And support of amendment one. And just to pick up the last statement that was made, the reason that young people are more susceptible from from malicious actors is to spend significantly more time online, and it is a much bigger source of their news. And it's something they pay attention to far more than people who are older, who have normally have a broader, a broader reading palette and tend to read more from official sources, say the newspapers and the like. I know that the young people I work with, and I've been a youth worker for over 35 years, exclusively.

Read about the world online. If you want to hide something from them, I suggest you put it in the times because they will never find it. I rise in support of amendment one because I do not think we should be using the ballot box as an engagement scheme for young people. This policy relies largely on an education piece, and it looks like the government have put the cart before the horse. Surely you should do the education piece before you give added power the new, the new, the new choice that young people would have. And look, this isn't about if I believe young people can have an opinion.

I've been a youth worker for well over 35 years now. I've. I have been at the wrong end of young people's opinions and the right end. I certainly know they can have that opinion. But look what we are doing. The government's risk assessment is almost non-existent. You are about to turn minors the place that's safest for them. School into a political battleground. School is a safest place, particularly if you come from a poor community, particularly if your family is suffering. You go to school to be safe. Peer pressure in school is a very real thing.

If you're going to expose our 16 and 17 year olds to political peer pressure, you had better see what the effects of that are before, not after you do that. NHS data for 2023 shows that 17 to 19 17 to 18 year olds, nearly a quarter of them, are battling some kind of mental health issue. So if surely, if we're going to look after our young people, we would consider the greatest level of pressure. We could give them political we'd think carefully before we did that. The government has to think again about the risk assessment is taken on.

The government needs to think again about the work it's done around the delivery of non-biased civic information. Teachers almost exclusively resist teaching politics because they're afraid of being accused of political bias. Well, can you imagine how much hotter a cauldron that would be when every single political party in the country has a stake in that conversation? Teachers will be under unbearable pressure. So again, if the government are to do this and accept this in your manifesto, but I also know you have not thought this through properly, because if you did, you did a risk assessment that looked at the effect on young people, that looked at effect on school, that looked at if people actually vote when they're given this power, rather than the fact that it will help you electorally.
16:31
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
Very good. >> My Lords. I rise to. Speak to amendment 20 in my name and the name of the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley. And I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. I wanted to draw your Lordships attention to a disconnect between this Bill and the Online Safety Act. At present, some content on social media platforms is age gated. That's a child safety duty in the Online Safety Act that kicked in in July 2025, which means that in order to access content that the social media platforms deem to be only suitable for adults, you have to be able to prove you're an adult 18 or over.

But the content that has been age gated as a consequence of this child safety duty coming into force includes quite a lot of political content. I could give numerous examples, but I know we're quite short for time, so I'll just give one a speech by Katie Lamb in the House of Commons about the grooming gangs. Was age gated by all the large social media platforms. They thought that that was unsuitable content for anyone under the age of 18 to see. But if 16 and 17 year olds can't access content like that. Speeches being made in the House of Commons because of the age gating that social media platforms are engaging in, how can they be expected to make informed decisions at the ballot box?

And I'm sure that the noble Lords and noble Baroness, who have rightly emphasised the necessity of improving civic education if we're going to lower the voting age to 16, I'm thinking of the noble Lady Baroness Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I'm sure they'd agree with me that if you're going to improve civic education for teenagers, it's important that they should be able to access political content, including speeches being given in the House of Commons. Lord Bailey of Paddington, my noble friend, rightly pointed out that for most teenage children, social media platforms are their single largest source of news, and that was corroborated by some research carried out by Ofcom, which showed showed that social media platforms like TikTok are the primary source of news for 12 to 15 year olds, so this is a potential problem.

The Online Safety Act is requiring large social media platforms to age gate some political content, so you cannot access it unless you can prove you're 18 or over. And at the same time, the government is proposing to lower the voting age to 16, expecting 16 and 17 year olds to be able to make informed decisions without being able to access political content on their primary source of news. Fortunately, there is a solution at hand, so clauses now section 17, 18 and 19 of the Online Safety Act are keep up duties. They require social media platforms to keep up content of democratic importance, news publisher content and journalistic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. But it may not surprise your Lordships to Learn. That whilst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the take down. Duties in. The Online Safety Act have been activated, not all the keep up activated, not all the keep up duties have, including section 17, 18 or 19, and they are not due to 18 or 19, and they are not due to be activated until mid 2027. But there's nothing in those sections which requires social media companies, which means that they only apply to adults. So it's perfectly possible that once those duties are activated, social media platforms will recognise that they have a duty to keep up content of democratic importance. News, publisher content and journalistic content make it accessible to children as well as adults.

But that could be underwritten by the regulations I believe the government is intending to make at the beginning of next year, the regulations restricting access to social media for under 16 seconds, as well as 16 and 17 year olds. It could stipulate in those regulations that those restrictions should not apply to content of democratic importance. News, publisher content and journalistic content. That would be, I think, a way of ensuring that 16 and 17 year olds, younger teenagers, when they're beginning to think about how they're going to vote when they reach the age of 16, that would be a way of ensuring that they can access this vitally important content, such as speeches being made in the House of Commons.

And if the government thinks it would be a step too far to stipulate in those regulations that the restriction should not apply to teenagers in general, at the very least, the government should stipulate that they shouldn't apply to 16 and 17 year olds, given that 16 and 17 year olds are going to have the vote, my amendment simply asks the government to carry out a review within 12 months of this bill being passed to ensure that content that children are going to need to be able to access on social media to make informed decisions at the ballot box, to ensure that that content isn't restricted and in particular isn't restricted for 16 and 17 year olds.

AEA it's more than 50 years since it was legislated to extend the franchise
16:37
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and allow 18 year olds to vote in general elections. It seems to me that a great deal has changed in that a great deal has changed in society since 1970, when those 18 year olds cast their first votes. year olds cast their first votes. And it's right. We look again properly at this issue of the properly at this issue of the franchise, the debate since 1970 and this afternoon focussed largely on the issues of when it is on the issues of when it is appropriate and what age to do whatever people want to do. But I have to say that Lord Udny-Lister argument that few people who are 16 or 17 year olds, 17 in Scotland and Wales are registered to vote, is not an indication that they shouldn't be able to vote.

It's simply an indication about how difficult it can be to be on the electoral register. When you are a young person, and this is being addressed elsewhere in this bill, but were sadly neglected over the last four parliaments. Now, my Lords, I accept that there are things that we should not let people do as soon as they are 16. Smoking, for example, is self-harming. Alcohol carries great dangers. Gambling can be deeply addictive and purchasing fireworks, knives, crossbows and airguns should not be permitted by anyone under 18. But going down to a polling station or filling in a postal vote should not be seen as a harmful activity, any more than it is for older generations.

A 16 year old in this country can consent to medical treatment, leave school for another form of educational training and consent to sex with parental consent. That young person can join the armed forces, apply for a passport and get married or enter a civil partnership. Yet under present laws, someone whose 18th birthday falls just before a general election may not get to cast a vote in one until they are 21 or 22. And if politics is not for them when they are young, then it may never be for them. In 2003, in a debate on a bill which would have reduced the franchise from 18, I argued that maturity and political understanding do not suddenly materialise.

On your 18th birthday. My view remains that it's wrong to suggest that everyone over 18 generally possesses sufficient political wisdom to make choices. Whilst no one aged 16 or 17 can properly decide whether to vote or
16:43
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
who to vote for, my own experience with political research often involved me interviewing the involved me interviewing the interviewers who sought to discuss political issues with voters. Those political issues with voters. Those people they interviewed entitled to vote because they were 18 frequently knew so little about the frequently knew so little about the issues facing a democracy that the interviews even said to me. They sometimes doubted the wisdom of the universal franchise. My Lords wisdom, political experience and judgement does not always come with being much older. Younger people, in my experience, are sometimes ahead of older generations in considering long term challenges such as climate change, alongside immediate priorities like education, transport and housing.

Amendments today seek to maintain the voting age at 18 or to reduce the number of young people who will be added to the voting registers. The suggestion even is even made. I think it is a preposterous one of having a national referendum before extending the franchise. My Lords, another referendum. And on this issue we can only imagine with Brenda from Bristol would have to say about that idea retaining the Virgin 18 or pausing at an arbitrary halfway point of 17, ignores vital lessons from when the franchise has been extended in Scotland and Wales, studies across both nations demonstrate that 16 and 17 year olds living at home and attending school are embedded in a supportive social structure that actively fosters democratic engagement, a structure that 18 to 20 year olds currently entitled to vote for.

Those people 18 to 20 living independently, they often lack that support in Scotland, Wales and in other countries such as Austria, which led the way by lowering the voting age to 16 across all electoral levels. In 2007, there was no meltdown of democracy. In fact, in local elections in Vienna, turnout among 16 and 17 year olds, which 64% compared to only 56% among 18 to 20 year olds. However, my Lords, we do accept on these benches that the issue of enfranchisement cannot stand alone. We should look to research from Jersey, which lowered the voting age in 2008.

It was demonstrated there that extending the franchise in isolation without structured democratic education fails to deliver sustained engagement, leaving young voters facing persistent confusion over candidates, policy platforms and how democracy works. So in a later group of amendments, we will argue that extending the franchise and strengthening citizenship education must be treated as twin pillars of a single, coherent strategy aimed at improving political engagement and improving the health of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democracy. Yes. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I've added my name to a couple of amendments. Amendment two in the name of the noble Lady Baroness name of the noble Lady Baroness Coffey, because I think it is valid to ask why 16, not 17, and we could to ask why 16, not 17, and we could as easily ask why 16, not 15. And I
16:51
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
as easily ask why 16, not 15. And I think that it is overall an important group of amendments, not necessarily because anyone here is interested in overturning a manifesto pledge or indeed, because one wants to get stuck on a row about the maturity of teenagers or otherwise. But in order to probe how far the government has considered the impact of these changes on what it means for the adult franchise, and the problem of inconsistency in relation to age when it comes to the way we view the age of majority, my fear is that we are in danger of getting in a muddle about what adulthood means.

The age of majority, according to law, is 18. Successive governments have created fairly hard lines about what under 18 can't do. As we've heard, whether ban from buying alcohol, nicotine products, vapes and gambling, all the sins, the harmful things. But actually under 18 year olds are also deemed not capable of exerting full contractual capacity when it comes to loans or mortgages or indeed to do jury service. I think that jury service is good, and I hope that by the time they grow up, they'll still be juries left for them to be recruited to. But that's a one side.

 On the other hand, it seems to me that there is confusion about what the exact age is that the state and institutions and indeed the political culture now views adulthood. To begin, when do we consider adult autonomy to start meaningfully? Formally, it remains 18, but there's mixed messages. Government backed challenge 25, for example, has seen retailers selling age restricted products by asking for photo ID from anyone who looks under 25, and 25 is increasingly used as some kind of magic age number for maturity. Universities increasingly treat 18 plus students as though they are school pupils.

Academics are urged to act as though they're in local in loco parentis, where the duty of responsibility for mental wellbeing and emotional issues. And I think that sort of infantilization has led to far too many young adults seeing themselves as dependent, and I think this has fuelled the problem. Actually, at the other end of the spectrum, we have criminal responsibility. As early as ten, we have an NHS clinical trial that will stop puberty for children using puberty blockers. Children as young as 12 based on their the children's subjective not clinical distress about gender, as though they are able to give consent in any meaningful way.

And we have a children's rights culture that too often treats children as mini me adults whose views and outlooks are on a par with their teachers, parents, carers as though they are self-determining. So if the state is now via votes for 16 year olds, negating the concept of the age of majority at 18 in general, and I think we need to know if that could be the consequence, then surely there needs to be some consistency. And I think that's why we need this discussion and debate.

The key point about the age of majority is the age when the state affords
16:58
17:00
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
activity. The franchise is now conferred on those we don't believe in. Most instances are fully in. Most instances are fully autonomous or independent, are not free rights bearing citizens. They are most often under the care of are most often under the care of and legal responsibility of their parents, carers, teachers. They parents, carers, teachers. They will not be free to research political parties, as we've already political parties, as we've already heard, and because the governments, the governments and indeed the opposition's ban on social media for under 16 seconds, and indeed, I've added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lord Young of Acton.

On the related issue of the Online Safety Act and age dating. But the danger here is that those would be voters are not free to research independently and instead have to rely on official sources for news and political content controlled by adults. As the noble Lord, Lord Bailey indicated, surely this puts especially teachers, in the invidious position of being accused, at least of unduly influencing the young in relation to and open to the charge of corrupting young minds in the debates on social media and for 16 year olds and the ban on 16 on on 16 until you're 16, sorry, under 16 year olds.

Those same teenagers were discussed in this house as especially vulnerable and insufficiently mature or resilient enough to handle algorithmic pressure. I'm not sure then how, in the build up to an election, they will cope with the pester power of canvassing. I mean, trying to it is perfectly right that they were properly be un right that they should be persuaded and influenced as 15 year olds soon to be 16 year olds about to be able to vote. But we have a law, in fact, which treats such stranger approaches as inappropriate grooming. Finally, this is not about whether 16 or 17 year olds or indeed 18 year olds are smart enough, intelligent enough to vote.

Indeed, I owe the House an apology for not being able to speak at Second Reading on this bill, because I was speaking to a group of sixth formers about free speech, in fact, who were thoughtful, articulate, mature and I know through the Schools Debating Matters competition, which I founded, that many of those 1617 year olds could run rings around people in their 40s and 50s indeed, many in this house. But adulthood isn't a technical accomplishment. The franchise is not determined by intelligence, maturity, or debating skills. It's about when we as a society release say you are no longer a child.

You're released from childhood into adulthood. And that then gives us freedom, autonomy, independence. My fear is that votes for 16 year olds who are inevitably not free and are dependent, will undermine adult freedoms and adult independence, and the importance of voting as an independent activity is something we should not undermine carelessly, which I fear this does.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Great pleasure to follow Baroness Fox Lord Berkeley in her very considered remarks, may I welcome the debate on this group of amendments which explore the most unwelcome decision to bring unwelcome decision to bring children into the voting net and in children into the voting net and in particular, welcome Lord Udny-Lister amendments, and specifically 301 on a referendum, specifically 301 on a referendum, the wording of the government's amendments to which no one has spoken is yet requiring officers to
17:08
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
investigate whether 14 or 15 year olds live in a household sends about the fact that they were going to be able to be part of the franchise, 16, 17 year olds, then franchise, 16, 17 year olds, then their close approximation 18 to 24 year olds would have voted in year olds would have voted in significant numbers at the 2024 election. In fact, the turnout dropped in that age group from 47 dropped in that age group from 47 to just 37% of the vote. So it wasn't actually a great vote getter. And I have to say to the noble Lord Murphy of Turbine, for whom I have a great deal of respect, if you listen to him, you believe that Wales was a hotbed of technological excitement and exuberance.

But in fact, that isn't the case in the national parliament of a proud Principality of Wales. Barely 51% voted this May for that Parliament, and in fact, as little as 42% voted in 2011. So there has not been a significant change in terms of the number of people taking part in the ballot. I think the comments of my noble friend Lord Bailey are very interesting. In 1950, 84% of people turned out to vote, but it was a different world then. People were encouraged principally by their families, by their social background. It was often a battle between capital and labour, by public meetings, by newspapers, the radio, not obviously television, but Lord Bailey makes an absolutely vital point that young people are deeply influenced, sometimes by by a monoculture of social media.

Now there's we can have many, many debates about that, but it would be wrong and and completely irresponsible to ignore the context in which 15, 16 and 17 year olds are making important decisions about how they're going to vote. In fact, as as we know in the past, the number one determinant for how a woman would vote was how her father voted. Now, I'm not saying that I support that, but that was a societal fact in those days. And we're in a different world now. We're in a different world where people don't read national newspapers, they don't watch terrestrial television shows, news programs, and they're very much interested in what other similar aged people are saying on social media.

And that is going to be a factor. The main point is consistency, as brought up by my noble friend Baroness Coffey lowering the age whilst other adult
17:15
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-affiliated)
-
-
thresholds stay at 18 is incoherent, it doesn't make sense. And my noble it doesn't make sense. And my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley made some very important points and I would be interested in the noble would be interested in the noble Lady. The minister's comments about what's good for the Labour constituency, Labour parties and the Labour NCSC should be good for the franchise, for young people as the franchise, for young people as well. I think my my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister makes an important point. It does seem incongruous and odd that you can vote in an election, but not for someone who's the same age as you.

That does seem very strange. If you're if you're given the franchise, the responsibility of choosing someone to represent you in Parliament, then surely you should be able to vote for someone who is your age. In terms of international comparisons, we've already heard that in mature liberal democracies such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they all set the voting age 18, and this reflects a widely accepted understanding of what adulthood is. There's a weak evidence on benefits, and I've already talked about turnout. Turnout has traditionally been very, very low for many, many years amongst 18 to 24 year olds.

And it is a function of a wider democratic malaise about the faith and trust that young people have in politics and government. And I fear that in the absence of a coherent argument from the government of why they're bringing forward this, other than psephology and electoral self-interest in the. But they believe these thousands of young people will turn out and vote Labour. I can't understand the the evidential basis for this policy because public opinion doesn't support it either. House of Commons Library notes that polling suggests that the public are unsupportive of lowering the voting age to 16.

And it's not just old or very old people, and I. I know where I'm speaking, so I won't define very old or very old in your Lordships House, but it's it's all manner of people from 18 onwards who are at the very best lukewarm and in some
17:20
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Portrait Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
cases hostile to these proposals. We talked about undue influence and We talked about undue influence and interference. And and my noble friend have talked about foreign friend have talked about foreign interference via the internet. And I don't think it's wrong to focus on the issue of maturity. Now, I on the issue of maturity. Now, I know that is not accepted. Definitive science about the Definitive science about the development of the human brain amongst young people, obviously, colloquially and anecdotally, what one is told that people are fully formed both physically and mentally and emotionally and socially at the age of 25.

But I understand and can see that that will happen to different young people at different ages. And indeed, I mean, I joined a political party at the age of 16, which made me a rather old weirdo, frankly, Lord Rennard will probably say nothing much has changed, but but the fact is, I, I was atypical, but most people are not politically engaged and they do get there. They do get their political information on political policies second hand, through hearsay, through close family and friendship groups. And I would make one final point about Scotland and Wales. Scotland and Wales are, of course, an integral and important part of our country.

 But because they have decided to go their own way in terms of increasing the franchise to 16 year olds, it does not mean England should back into that. This is the sovereign parliament of our unitary state, of our one country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And it is for us in this Parliament to make the decision. I do not believe my frontbench, our frontbench, will oppose the principle of this, but I do think that it is beholden upon do think that it is beholden upon the government and disappointed that they have not brought forward much more comprehensive, convincing much more comprehensive, convincing and coherent argument for these proposals.
17:24
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Rennard. I posed a question like, do we want another referendum? And of course, of course we don't, because in 2011 there was a referendum where we asked the people whether where we asked the people whether we wanted to fiddle the franchise and mess around with the voting system. And the people said no, by system. And the people said no, by a very large majority. And I think all noble Lords just need to recognise that's not the way we want to go. Now, I do certainly agree with my noble Lord, Lord Lord Young of Acton, when he proposed his group 20 about social media.

And that's something I'm going to return to in a later group, group nine. So I won't go into the under the bonnet. Now, safe to say that I think he omitted, whilst thinking about 16 year olds to consider the Attainders who will need to prepare to vote on their 16th birthday but may not be 16 yet. I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Lady Lady Hoey and also to my noble friend Lord Jackson, who has just spoken about the muddle that we are in within our United Kingdom relating to the and the franchise.

This bill ought to be the opportunity to bring an end to the hotchpotch of different arrangements and different parts of our United Kingdom. At Second Reading, I spoke about the different systems. Clearly, there's the first past the post, which is easily explainable in the pub. Obviously no 16 year olds there. Those that person who gets the most votes wins. There's the alternative vote, which now is just for the Scottish Crofting Authority elections. We've got supplementary votes with open and closed lists. And I Lord Foulkes, who's not in his place, entertained us in the Second Reading when he explained to us how he got elected to Holyrood without actually standing in that election himself.

The third all out. The franchise is different. Any resident, whatever nationality, can vote in Scotland, but you've got to be English or Commonwealth or a member of the EU for local elections here. And of course, peers can't vote at all. I was very taken by the comments of Baroness Hoey when she said such arrangements risk peace in our in our nation that flows from the Belfast Agreement and the Windsor framework. And I am concerned this is just a slippery slope. The Prime Minister has already declared he wants to review still further the voting system to consider perhaps proportional representation.

And we all need to be careful what we wish for their. Because PR will just lead to more sectarianism, more minority voting, more campaigning in Urdu, where single issue activists seek to hold the rest of us over a barrel, reducing trust and democracy, trust in the election and trust in the institutions they serve. But I'd like to move on, if I may, to consider amendment number 279 in the name of my noble friends on the front bench, coupled with the name of Lord Brady, my Lord. Some months ago I attended one of the learn with the Lord sessions at the Education service in the Victoria Gardens.

I was surprised I was paired. I don't know why. With a load of gobby kids, each of them egging each other on, promoting and lionising the Tait brothers and in my presence, using all sorts of unacceptable, misogynistic opinions about immigrants and women. It turned out it wasn't learn with the Lords, it was learn from the kids. And I was really concerned. And it does play to the point that my amendment two, seven, nine, and also the noble Lord Lord Hayward mentioned about where is that
17:33
17:36
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
That it is true that one can join the forces at 16. However, one does not fight on the front line,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as the noble Lord put it, until one is 18. I think that's exactly the point

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that's exactly the point I was making. And along with those other things I said, I gave a list other things I said, I gave a list of the things you could do at 18 in that stanza, but let's, let's move on. Look, we need to have this review, not just because we've got to be fair to the children. We need to be fair to the children. We need to be fair to adults. We need to be clear where the boundary sits. It's not at all clear now. It's drip, drip, drip. It leads to confusion and insecurity.

So and my final point is that when we consider votes at 16, you have to prepare people the attainders at either 14 or 15. In a further blurring of that line between childhood and adulthood, as I, as another noble friend, said, I don't suppose the front bench will oppose votes at 16. It is a manifesto commitment, but we need to know what we're getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

into before we get there. I think. The most interesting thing is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The most interesting thing is. Things that were not said when the noble Lady, Lord Baroness the noble Lady, Lord Baroness Coffey, and then the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough, went directly to the point that everyone directly to the point that everyone else had been tiptoeing around and a little bit Indelicately said deliberately that this was a bill deliberately that this was a bill that was partisan and was psephological in its in its content, that it was actually about advantaging one party over another. I watched very carefully the expressions opposite, and the Minister did not swoon theatrically.

There was no clamour of outrage. No. No one demanded that he. That either of the noble Lords withdraw. In fact, with the honourable exception of Baroness Rothwell, who at least tried to stand up and reject, she said she refuted it.
17:40
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
I'm not sure she refuted it, but she did at least spiritedly reject it. The reaction everywhere else it. The reaction everywhere else was as some studied looking at screens. And the reason for that is because they weren't saying because they weren't saying anything remarkable and less noble. Lords think that I'm being partisan about this. This has been the case about this. This has been the case with every change in the franchise. I can't think of one in our entire long history. One representation of the People Act that has not been manipulated for partisan advantage by every party.

At the time it happened in 1832. It happened in 1867, happened in the 84 and 85. Reform acts in 1918 happened when the voting age was last changed in 1969 by Harold Wilson. It happened when the Triennial act was introduced in 1694. It happened when the Septennial act was introduced in 1716. It happened when the Quinquennial Act was introduced in 1911. On every occasion, people have perfectly. Understandably, because politics is. Politics tried to gain. Who would benefit. So in a sense, as King Solomon says, nothing new is under the sun. I, of course, with great pleasure give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

History tutored, by the way, and I'm going to disagree with him, I'm going to disagree with him, because in the terms of Wales, the first time that I think is the first time the 16 year olds voted the Labour Party, which had been in the Labour Party, which had been in power in Wales for over 100 years, was reduced to nine out of 96 seats.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was reduced to nine out of 96 seats. Well, I'm always. Very grateful to hear from Lord Murphy of Torfaen. Of course, a Murphy of Torfaen. Of course, a reminder there that you should be careful what you wish for and that it may just be worth considering what has changed in the opinion polls between when this measure was put in the manifesto and what the opinion polls are showing now. But of course, we don't need to worry about that sort of thing in our elevated position here. Look, I think what makes this one a little bit different from all of those others is not the fact of the the electoral calculations and manipulation, but the flagrancy.

 And what I mean by that is the list we heard from the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley. It's not just that parties on all sides have agreed on 18 as the standard age for maturity, the age at which you can make a contract, use a credit card, get a mortgage, serve on a jury stand as a candidate. It's that in many cases, the age has been raised from 16 to 18 as the age of consent by the same people who are now saying that we should lower the voting age. So when one of the first debates that I took part in as a as a newish member of your Lordships House was on raising the age from 16 to 18 to get Botox treatment, and it was supported on every side, on every side.

And people said, well, this is just closing a loophole. This, after all, is the age that we already use to get a tattoo and buy a knife and a bottle of wine and scratchcard and fireworks and whatever else. Absolutely true. And as we heard, the last Labour government raised the voting age, sorry, raised the age of consent for a lot of these things and certainly voted for it when other parties did. Right. So. So the difference is not that it's happening, it's the sheer brazenness, the flagrancy of it. And that, I think, my Lords, does serve to undermine confidence in the system.

It makes people cynical because it confirms all of the negatives that people have about politicians. So if we have decided as a country that people below the age of 18 are legally children, are we really going to say that they are not responsible enough to buy a knife or a scratch card, or a knife or a scratch card, or a firework or a pint of beer, but that they should have the right to decide whether anyone else can do decide whether anyone else can do those things? Is that a reasonable proposition?
17:48
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
What Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Murphy said, and he seemed to suggest that one of the burdens of of this legislation was to increase the engagement and the participation of people in the democratic process. And certainly that is something which is important. But surely one of the important. But surely one of the basis basic, central principles in the democracy is the restoring of the democracy is the restoring of trust within the population. Now, he mentioned about how over the years things had changed for the other place, my Lords, I was elected for for Mid-Ulster 14.5 years, and the range of the electorate that came out to vote over those years was between 70% and 83%.

Participation in all of those elections. So there was no lack of interest or engagement as far as the population were concerned. In in certainly in those elections. And I know things certainly may have changed, but what we do have is for Northern Ireland as a change, because the central principle, surely in a democracy is that everyone's vote is equal. And whilst I heard a lot of talk about England, Scotland and Wales, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy mentioned as regards the different methods of elections, for example. In Lord Hannan, for the Assembly and for the councils, we have proportional representation.

And yet every person's vote in that electoral system was certainly equal. And across the United Kingdom, whilst there's a very manner of electing people. Yet when it came to Westminster, everyone's vote was the same. And all of those years in my participation was 25 years in total in the other house, certainly everyone's vote was equal, but that changed in 2021. And what we find is, is that England, Scotland, Wales, when they go to elect a member of Parliament, they will vote for a person who will legislate on the matters relating to their constituents. But when it comes to Northern Ireland, that has changed because they can only legislate for some issues as far as their constituents.

Now they can participate in all the other votes in the other House for England, Scotland, Wales. But when it comes to Northern Ireland, there is a plethora of legislation or laws that are now forced upon the people of Northern Ireland, which the United Kingdom Parliament cannot vote upon, and therefore those who elected a person in Northern Ireland is going to endure legislation and laws forced upon them that their elected representatives have never voted upon. That's completely different than any other Member of Parliament. And the votes, therefore, of a person in Northern Ireland is not the same.

And Baroness Bi Baroness Bennett mentioned a quality issue. Surely, my Lord, there is an equality issue here, and therefore I would hope that whenever it comes to the concluding wind up that the noble Lady, the Minister, will tell us how the government intends to explain to a 16 or 17 year old if they give them the vote in Northern Ireland, that their vote will mean less than the vote for someone else in the rest of the United Kingdom, because without that answer, you can say we'll change the age. But there's still a major problem. And therefore, when it comes to restoring trust in democracy, then we surely have members of Parliament elected to be able to vote on the issues which their constituents are supposed to accept as the law of the land.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where the effect is strong. Support for the idea of vote 16 and two broad reasons. First, and two broad reasons. First, because we want this to be a citizen democracy, not one in which citizen democracy, not one in which are passive subjects wait for the government to deliver things to them and are supposed to be thankful, but one in which people feel that they share in government, local and national, and have a voice. And we believe that bringing the voting down to 16 will help to engage people before they leave home in their democracy. We've heard a lot.

We heard the first question today about the the need for a national conversation. In the Strategic Defence Review last year, we heard about the need for a whole society response to the threats we now face engaging the local communities, volunteers and the like. That requires people to feel that they that they are part of our political community and that they share, therefore, in the need for to decide what goes on in terms of government. The second reason is because we have increasingly. We. And France and Germany and others a problem of demographic balance, demographic balance in our politics.

 30 years ago, when I was in charge of writing the manifesto of my own party for the 1997 election, I spoke to the people writing the Labour and Conservative manifestos, and amongst the things I was told was that you're really writing for people over the age of 45. The ones under 45 don't vote so often, and they don't care so much about the details. So your package needs to be oriented towards benefits for the older generation. I think that's a problem. It's a huge problem in France where old people resist the any increase in the age of retirement.

For example, I have spent some time last spring going and talking to secondary schools about how they would respond to votes at 16. I've been very impressed by how serious the 16 and 17 year olds I met were about politics, how much more they want to know, and how keen they are to be engaged. Yes, it's going to take a shift in the way we approach education, in the way we provide information, but it's worth doing. My Lords, we've been discussing extension of the franchise for 200 years. As Lord Roborough Lord Lord Hannan rightly pointed out, and I'm sure he'll agree with me.

There might have been two occasions on which the Conservatives have not opposed any extension of the franchise. The first, as he mentioned, was Disraeli in 1867, when he decided to take a gamble and discover what he called the angels in marble, and the second was in 2022, in the last representation of the People Act, when the Conservatives pushed through an expansion of the right to vote for overseas voters for their lifetime, which the noble Lord, Lord Lord Udny-Lister may note, increased the number of voters by somewhere between 2 and 4 million. We're not entirely clear how many overseas citizens we have will be entitled to vote, but that was done without a referendum, without consultation with the other parties, and without thinking through what it meant in terms of changing the way in which you delivered your vote, the way you've got postal votes out, whatever.

Cynics even thought that it was more to do with making it easier for wealthy expats to give money than actually to increase the franchise. But never mind. It was done without a referendum, without all those other things. There's been talk about capacity here, capacity and focus. The young people I was talking to, and no doubt Baroness Fox would also say, are often very concerned about education for obvious reasons and training, climate change, sustainability, things that tend not to concern my generation, our generation, quite so much. If we're talking about capacity and interest for the young, we might perhaps think about the old.

When I first went into politics, the local conservative agent had an extremely good relationship with the matrons of the local care homes who would go round. I discovered, and talk to the matron about her up, and he. And she would help the inmates to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit in. That postal votes. Nothing much to. Do with privacy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do with privacy. But it was the way one did. Things at a local level. Now, this is a long time ago, and I'm
18:09
18:10
18:10
None Portrait Amendment:5 Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-

we're doing that as well. Yes, if we have when we have votes at 16, there's need for a much greater there's need for a much greater effort for education, and we have later amendments that will deal with that. Yes, we have to address the question of better information. I certainly had that coming back to me when talking to students in schools. There are later amendments which deal with that. I must say Baroness Fox produced in passing a wonderful image of the average adult voter conducting independent research on political issues. I'm not sure that I've met too many voters who are canvassing, who have been conducting independent research in detail themselves.

Don't let a overemphasise how wonderful our electorate is. But this. The purpose of this is to encourage the practice and habit of voting as a lifetime exercise for the young, to strengthen the voice of younger generations in our ageing society, and to build a more active democracy. And for all of those reasons, we on these benches

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support it. Before I touch on 1 or 2 other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I touch on 1 or 2 other things, can I just make a comment to my noble friend? And I do refer to my noble friend? And I do refer to him as my noble friend, Lord Wallace. I think he meant residents rather than inmates when he was rather than inmates when he was referring to care homes. I don't referring to care homes. I don't intend to cover ground which has been covered by a large number of other people. But I. Lord Wallace also touched on the question of changing the franchise. Baroness Bennett is not in her place at this moment, but Lord Wallace was absolutely clear about the historical analogies.

I was one of the people who fell within that range of the 6970 act in terms of implementation, and there was no question about it. It was not broadly supported by the Conservative Party because they thought they would benefit from it. And I've got a very clear recollection because I fell within that that age group. I think there had been 1 or 2 important areas that have been touched on, one of which is the issue of Northern Ireland. And I have every sympathy with the noble colleagues from from different benches who have referred to the implications of what is not an equality of power, of vote.

And I think that needs to be carefully considered. But what I was also impressed by was the comments from the Baroness Lister in relation to a very small category of people, but they do need to be looked at incredibly carefully. I have a very close friend of mine who works very deeply involved in that community, and we have to remember that 40% of all the adult inmates in prison in this country come from care homes. It is a difficult task to deal with, and we therefore need to address the sorts of issues that Baroness Lister raised.

I take the point that Lord Murphy of Taurine raised, that it was in the manifesto, but the trouble is, with this Bill, very little else was in the manifesto, and I have said to both the current Minister and to Lord Lemos this bill would be a far better bill if the government stuck to those parts of the legislation which appeared in the manifesto, rather than spending its time adding amendments after amendments, after amendments and curtailing debate, both in this House and the other House. If the government would come back with a bill that was solely dealing with the manifesto matters, I think this House would have a far more coherent debate, and it would be logical and appropriate that it was considered on all sides on that basis.

My Lords, I don't favour 16 and 17 year olds having the vote. I could have cited large numbers of other examples of contradictions in our legislation, but they have been made over and over again with the summary message that what we are doing in the vast majority of cases is raising the age at which people should act in a certain way, whatever that action may happen to be. And in conclusion, my Lords, I just make the observation at this point that I was formerly the chief executive of the Beer and Pub Association, and I'd be quite happy to explain to my colleagues who seem to think that 17 year olds are not allowed to drink in pubs.

They

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are, but that's for another date. Yes to that. Lord Wallace said moments ago that we've been debating franchise extensions for 200 years, being one of the last speakers in a two hour debate. I begin to know what that feels like. begin to know what that feels like. I want to just very briefly support a number of amendments in this group, but mainly amendment two in group, but mainly amendment two in the name of of my noble friends, Baroness Coffey and Fox. I do perhaps come at it from a different point of view, and perhaps I'm a lone voice on this side, which is I actually do support the government in lowering the voting age.

And I do congratulate congratulate them genuinely on doing this. However, both Baroness Cass, as has been done by so many, have highlighted many inconsistencies. And I think the phrase that it's a bit of a muddle. It seems to be correct, and I wish to add one which hasn't been raised, I don't think, which I've raised before in Home Office questions, which is around criminal sentencing, where we do differentiate between adult and juvenile. 18. And I know that this is incredibly complex, as is always the case and its legalities involved in international agreements. But there has been and this is what I was questioning, the government Minister at the time, one recent and horrific case, which highlighted, at least to me, why I do think we should look at whether the balance will now be right.

And personally, I think it does need to change. And I say that because if we are to lower the voting age and I think we should. But if with that right has to come a sense of responsibility. With that right, I would argue your role in society changes, and we should properly and carefully go through these issues. And it's not just a right wing thing to say that it's not a right wing thing to say that, because I think President John F Kennedy best communicated it with his line about it's not ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

And Lord Carter of Haslemere, who was in his place earlier, I do pay tribute to him for his private member's bill, where he talked about citizenship for citizenship, lessons for younger people. I don't want to stray too much into what I think is Group six, but there are some amendments within this group, and it's been touched on by some already. My fear is that in lowering the voting age, we are implying that we've simply achieved our aims and overnight, without debating what it means. How to build national unity, allow for some political discourse. What being a citizen in modern Britain means, what are your rights?

What are your responsibilities, and how you can play your part in our country? And I think the points made by the noble Lords, young and Baroness Fox on amendment 22 are valid two and it shouldn't be scored on by anyone. To look at the issues around social media. I'm a proud father of two very young daughters and trust me, there's a growing list of things going on in my head every night when I put them to bed about all the things that they that fill me with fear about all the things that they will face as they grow up in, in Britain.

And we should, but we should consider what it means for younger people to be engaged and receive this information. How it happens. Now I will close. But fundamentally, I do support the government, and I repeat that. But my concern is not with the principle, but with the insinuation that we treat votes at 16 as an end in itself, that we congratulate ourselves and it will pass. Some few people have mentioned it will pass, and somehow we now can congratulate ourselves and say jobs are good and mission accomplished. Let's move on. And yet we say nothing about actually some of the many things that many people really do want to fix and for the government to get on and support.

And if we genuinely want to strengthen democratic participation, lowering the voting age should be accompanied by an understanding of what citizenship is and what playing a part of our free, liberal and democratic society means and entails. There should be, I think, greater clarity to help make the system work. A system which engenders active, proud and patriotic citizenship. Otherwise, we do risk it, which is my fear in making a constitutional change without addressing the reasons for making it and arguably undermining it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought it might be worth just saying for accuracy. In the Welsh Senate elections, 16 year olds were Senate elections, 16 year olds were Senate elections, 16 year olds were allowed to vote in 2021. Lord Jordan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who tabled amendments in this group concerning amendments in this group concerning the lowering the voting age to 16 years. I also thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, and I apologise in advance for anyone. I'm not going to name check and I'm particularly grateful to the. My noble friend Lord Hayward for clarifying the terminology used by Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I certainly don't think anyone on these benches would refer to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elderly people. Absolutely miss misspoke. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely miss misspoke. I indeed, having spent some time with my mother and with my godmother in my mother and with my godmother in care homes, I'm have spent many time visiting residents in. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time visiting residents in. And I apologise for Misspeaking. I did think that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I did think that was particularly distasteful, but as I said at Second Reading, this is a constitutionally significant bill and therefore deserves thorough scrutiny from your Lordships House. It may well be a manifesto commitment and therefore we will not oppose it, but we would encourage government to seriously consider all the impacts of the implementation. As indeed, my noble friend Lord Gascoigne mentioned. It's in that spirit that I address the amendments. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister amendment 302 would require regulations to lower the voting age to go through the affirmative procedure, and amendment 33 would require an assessment of 16 and 17 year olds vulnerability to electoral disinformation and foreign interference.

He's absolutely right that such changes need to be properly thought through and prepared before they take effect. His amendments four and 283, would require a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16. Referendums are, of course, not a requirement, nor are they legally binding, but they are used to decide major constitutional issues. They've been held three times nationally in the UK, once in 75 on our membership of the EEC. In 2011, on changing the voting system and of course on 2016 on our membership of the EU. Lowering the voting age is significant, my Lords, and so is.

And so it's reasonable to ask whether a referendum should be held. Whilst we will not oppose a manifesto commitment, as my noble friend Lady Coffey said, it was one line in my Labour manifesto, and I hope noble, the noble Baroness. The Minister would clarify exactly what circumstances this government believes referendums should be held. This is especially relevant after a senior Labour MP in the other place has suggested Brexit should be reversed without a referendum. Labour Ministers have refused to rule out rejoining the EU without a referendum, which was the will of the people. It begs the question that if this government cares so much about the democratic representation of the people, why would it ignore the way they voted in 2016?

A member one and three also in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, seeks to retain the voting age at 18 years of age for elections to the House of Commons, on the grounds that this is in line with the age at which you stand for election yourself, as well as for signing a recall under the recall of MPs act 2015. He raises the important point about consistency. If this government genuinely believes this policy is right, why not apply the same logic elsewhere? Indeed, this is why amendments 22, two, seven, nine and 285 in my name and my noble friend Lord Jamieson would prevent part one of the act coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of age laws.

For example, the Family Law Reform Act 1969 sets the age of majority at 18 for citizens rights and responsibilities are given at 18, 16, and 17 year olds need parental consent before they can join the army. They cannot drink, buy vapes, knives, fireworks or indeed many other things have has have been outlined through law. My my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Hannan. And to the evidence that the Lady noble, noble Lady Royall of Blaisdon, requested from my noble friend Leigh of Hurley. It came from the respected journal Development Psychology, published in an article by Professor Lord Gardiner and Steinberg.

It showed that resistance to peer pressure influence increases significantly from 14 to 18. My Lords, our amendment would allow the government to take all of these policy areas into account beforehand, ensuring our Lords, our laws, make sense. At the Second Reading, the noble Baroness, the Minister, said that the question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16, but whether 16 is the right age to be able to vote. Has the government justified 16 is the right age. But of course, the two are related as amendments. 20 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Berkeley points out.

If we are changing the voting age, what does that mean for restrictions on access to political content? Amendment two in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffee and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley probes why the government have chosen to lower the voting age to 16 rather than 17. In fact, Professor David Runciman once proposed lowering the voting age to six years of age. For what reasons do the government oppose that? All we're asking for is reassurance that the government have properly thought through and can provide the rationale for lowering the voting age to 16 specifically, as well as whether we can expect changes to age requirements in other policy areas.

As has been referenced by my noble friends. Lord Bailey of Paddington. Lord Young of Acton Lord Leigh of Hurley and the amendments in the name of noble Baroness Lady Hoey, raises the situation in Northern Ireland, requiring an Equality Impact Assessment prior to extending the franchise to lower voters in the UK. I'm sure we'll come back to equality impact assessments at a later stage. My Lords is approximately 48,016 to 17 year olds in Northern Ireland, and again, the government need to make sure the changes are thought through. Turning to the amendments in the name of of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burchett, and also the clause stand part in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Castle.

They have raised the need for clarification with regards to youth accommodation and secure children's homes. What is the scope of clause two? I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can provide that clarification. I'm grateful to noble Lords who have offered their insight so far, and I look forward

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the Minister's response to. My Lords. The representation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The representation. Of the people Bill opens up participation and strengthens the integrity of our democracy, integrity of our democracy, ensuring that all eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote. It introduces one of the biggest changes to the franchise in half a century, with the enfranchisement century, with the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year olds, and moves us towards more automated voter registration. It reinforces trust by closing down opportunities for those who would seek to undermine our democracy with stronger political finance rules and better protections against harassment and intimidation. And can I say it's been a great pleasure to listen to this debate this afternoon.

I think the House, at its best, 19 or 20 speakers, I'm not sure I wrote them all down, but 19 or 20 speakers debating the first part of the bill. And I think we've heard differing views from across the House and some very detailed scrutiny of some of the provisions in the bill, which I welcome. I would say to the noble Lord Hayward that I know the bill has had some introductions during its passage, but it was always the intention that we would take account of the Rycroft review and introduce some of the recommendations of the Rycroft review as we went through the passage of the bill, and I think Philip Rycroft did an outstanding job on reviewing some of the key issues, particularly around political finance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For that clarification. But in light of that, how does she make those observations stack up with the observation that Lord Rooker the observation that Lord Rooker made at the end of the Second Reading debate on this bill and the Reading debate on this bill and the comparison with the amount of time given to committee for this bill in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given to committee for this bill in comparison with the elections bill in 2022. Well, I know my my noble friend Lord Brooke is raising this on every bill about scrutiny. It's interesting that he was part of the process that put that process in place. He's changed his mind about that. All bills are I think the scrutiny on all bills is welcome. I welcome the scrutiny of the. I think this is my sixth piece of legislation now. I've welcomed the scrutiny that this House brings to all those bills. In this bill in particular, we knew there would be further additions to the bill as it went through its passage, and that that's the point I was trying to make.

My Lords, I turn first to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Udny-Lister amendments one and three, and the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffee and Baroness Fox of Buckley amendment two, our intended extension of the franchise will create consistency across the United Kingdom and ensure that young people have a voice at both a local and a national level. But consistency, of course, is not the only or the most important reason for extending the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. As I said at Second Reading and it was repeated during this debate, the important question is not what else can or can't you do at 16?

But rather the important question is, is 16 the right age to be able to vote? And this government is clear. The answer to that question is yes. And we were elected on a commitment to make precisely this change. Now, we heard many examples of things you can you can't do at 16. Tongue piercing, gambling, purchasing knives, tattoos, credit cards and some points about criminal sentencing, which I. I hear with interest. But Baroness Bennett made

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the point that. Sorry. Can the Minister answer the question raised by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister, which is why it's right for the for for for 16 year right for the for for for 16 year old to be a voter in an election, but not to be a parliamentary

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but not to be a parliamentary candidate or a member of Parliament. I'm coming on. To that. If the noble Lord will bear with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the noble Lord will bear with me, I want to pick up some other points. First of all, Baroness the noble Baroness Bennett spoke about votes at 18 and that we were the first in the world to do that, and it would indeed be unthinkable now that we would go back on that. My very first election in 1975 that I voted in was the the vote to go into the European Union. In fact, I haven't changed my mind about that. I have about some other things, but certainly not about that. And when we talk about, you know, purchasing knives at 18, Lord Rennard mentioned things that might intimidate you.

I wasn't intimidated by the little stubby bit of pencil. I got to cast that vote. But we believe 16 is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right and extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds will allow them to have a say in the government that shapes their future and set them up as the noble Lord Wallace said. For a lifelong engagement in democracy, I absolutely agreed about the points on education, and I'll come on to those in a moment, but I did want to address some of the points about how we've ended up at 16, because I think that's they were important points made during the debate.

Just find some notes here if you'll bear with me. So I think we we've looked extensively at how voting works around the world. And there are a number of places where voting has been introduced for 16 and 17 year olds, as has already been, as has already been said. And we are we've looked at a number of places, including Austria and Malta, who have successfully lowered the voting age to 16, and the step has been taken already. As has been mentioned several times in both Scotland and Wales for devolved elections and more widely in the Isle of Man in Jersey and in Guernsey.

Evidence from these places shows that those who vote at a younger age are more likely to continue voting as they get older. By the age of 16, young people have already made important decisions about their own lives around whether to continue with their education, undertake training, pursue an apprenticeship or seek employment or volunteering opportunities. And even by the age of 14, they have decided what subjects they want to continue to study in their education. Why is it the case that they should be considered old enough to make those decisions which affect the rest of their lives, but cannot vote?

We shouldn't fear expanding the franchise to younger people. In 191669, the UK was the first country in the world to lower the voting age to 18 and extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Now is the next natural step in the evolution of our democracy. Young people are the future of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. It's only right that they have a say over it. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I did very much support the points made on a serious programme points made on a serious programme of education. I know we're going to come on to that in future groups, come on to that in future groups, but I do want to make some points about education now and what steps are being taken to support young are being taken to support young people's education. We want to break down barriers and drive participation, and we know that engagement and education are a crucial part of implementing that policy. It's vital that young people understand and value the democratic process and feel that it is relevant to them, and we are committed to ensuring that democracy education reinforces the importance and value of participating in our democracy and inspires greater democratic engagement.

We want engagement to start at 16 and continue into adulthood. By equipping and empowering pupils with the knowledge and understanding they need to do so, and we will continue to work with the Electoral Commission, the devolved governments and the civil society to continue. What additional measures can support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical voter and civic education? It's vitally important that we also start that process with our younger students. And it's this is all aligned with the government's youth strategy of engagement of young people in terms of the noble Lord Lord Udny-Lister points about candidates standing in elections.

There are very specific reasons why we have taken the decision not to include candidates at 16 and 17. The government believes that the ages of 16 and 17 are a particularly important time to continue personal development and education, and that's why rules in England require that those who choose to leave school at 16 must either pursue an apprenticeship or work no more than 20 hours a week, while in part time education or training until the age of 18. The requirements of local government office holders as well are a significant commitment, having different age requirements for local and national office would be unnecessarily complicated, and as such, the government will not be changing the minimum candidacy age for any elected offices.

And I heard the points about the Labour Party, NEC and constituency offices. I'm sure that was a recognition of this, but there is definitely a very active engagement, as I'm sure there is across all political parties of young people in in my party, as I'm sure there is elsewhere. Lord Udny-Lister has also tabled amendments 4 to 8, three and 301, which seek to require referendum on lowering the voting age to 16, with a majority vote in favour before the change can be be implemented. However, as my noble friend Lord Murphy set out with his characteristic clarity, the government was elected on a clear mandate, which included a commitment to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds in all UK elections.

And I think that's an important point about not not having a referendum on this. We already have a mandate to introduce it. I would say to the noble Lord Lee that, as I think the noble Lord Brennan said, we don't carry out cognitive tests on any citizens before they exercise their franchise, no matter what their age. So I think that this point about cognitive ability is, is a difficult point for him to make. The government's been very clear on its position on this matter. We genuinely believe young people are the future of our country, and it's only right that they have a say in the decisions that shape their lives.

And as for partisan advantage, I'm afraid I've heard I've heard from the other side both that we are doing this as a gerrymandering exercise and that it will let in votes from smaller parties like reform and the Green Party and so on. You can't have it both ways. We're either gerrymandering it or we're opening out the franchise to a wider group of parties. We're doing it because it's the right thing to do, because it's the right thing to introduce votes at 16 and 17. So a referendum is not necessary. It would be unusual to require referendum before implementing a clear manifesto commitment on which the government was elected and has a mandate for, and I would say to Baroness O'Neill, I think she was talking about some comments that a Labour member made about a Brexit referendum.

If every statement in the other place by a Labour member became government policy, we'd have an awful lot more work to do than we have already. I appreciate the interest of the noble Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle in young people's right to vote. However, it's right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We believe that extending the franchise should bring the same rights and responsibilities as apply to other electors, and that must include the existing restriction on voting for those convicted of an offence and serving a custodial sentence.

The clause ensures that this applies consistently across the different forms of youth detention accommodation. And can I also take this opportunity to reassure my noble friend Baroness Lister, who has tabled amendment six on this point, and I think she she recognised this, that the drafting does not affect young people in secure children's homes who are not convicted prisoners. I would say that it's very unusual for young people under 18 to receive a custodial sentence. So those that do have usually committed very serious offences. So these provisions concern elections for which the UK government is responsible.

Devolved elections in Scotland and Wales are subject to different arrangements. My Lords, the provisions in this Bill simply reflect the well-established position on prisoner voting and ensure that 16 and 17 year olds are treated the same as all other electors, and the government will not be revisiting this position. Moving on to the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments in this group. Sorry, sorry. I'm grateful to my friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my friend for clarifying the position, but I don't think she's really addressed this question about you've got two this question about you've got two groups of children living side by side and one, one of the children side and one, one of the children will have the vote and the other won't. I mean, if you can't address that now, perhaps you could write that now, perhaps you could write to myself and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of Barnard Castle afterwards to because there is concern about the impact that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have on the children who can't vote. I understand the point my noble friend makes, and I'm very happy to write to her or meet with her to discuss that further. On the government amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government amendments. I know she's got a lot to answer tonight, but is she going to say anything about amendment 21, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anything about amendment 21, which was mentioned by a number of peers? I'm afraid I'm going to have to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask. I'm not this I'm not doing the government amendments because they're the last bit. I'm doing them because this is where they come in the order of things. So I will come on to other amendments. My Lords, following the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, newly eligible young people will need to register to vote. Government amendment 12 and consequential amendments two seven, five, two, nine five and 296 tabled in My name will enable electoral registration officers to obtain information about 14 and 15 year olds during the 2027 campus registration.

Officers will be able to use that information to invite those young people to register to vote, either as retainers or as electors. Once the new franchise is brought into effect, and this will help to get young people on the register and reduce the risks for our hard pressed of a large spike in registrations. Immediately before the first polls conducted under the expanded franchise. Turning now to amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord Young of Acton and the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley, the government agrees that extending the franchise must go hand in hand with ensuring young people have access to reliable information and the knowledge they need to participate confidently in elections.

However, we do not consider this amendment is necessary. The government's proposed social media ban will apply to children under the age of 16, although they will still be able to access the online world for purposes including news and learning. Meanwhile, 16 and 17 year olds will continue to be able to access social media, although additional protections will apply to help ensure they can do so safely. The Online Safety Act already includes safeguards for content of democratic importance, recognising news publisher content and journalistic content on the largest user to user services. Ofcom is now. Can I just finish the sentence?

I may answer the question. Ofcom is now implementing that regime, and there is a strong case for allowing it to run its course before introducing a further statutory review requirement. Through this bill. Can I just finish this section and then I'll I'll give way. But regulation is only one part of the answer. The Department for digital, culture, Media and Sport is working with the Department for education to strengthen media literacy in the new school curriculum for primary. Up to age 16. From September 2028, including how pupils identify myths and disinformation. And this is complemented by wider government activity, including the cross-government Media Literacy Action Plan and the You Won't Know Until You Ask campaign and Kids Online Safety Hub, which helps families build resilience to mis and disinformation and access

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trusted online safety information. Noble Baroness, the Minister for giving way. That sounded very giving way. That sounded very positive. But just to clarify. Was positive. But just to clarify. Was the noble Lady the Minister, giving the House an assurance that content of democratic importance, news publisher content and journalistic content. When those protections are content. When those protections are in place that children under the age of 16 will be able to access that content, that content won't be restricted by the forthcoming regulations restricting social

**** Possible New Speaker ****

media access for under 16 year olds. Yes, I think that's certainly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I think that's certainly the case. The noble Baroness Hoey has tabled amendments 2127, 8284 has tabled amendments 2127, 8284 and 286. These amendments seek to require an equality impact assessment, comparing the effects assessment, comparing the effects of the franchise change in Northern Ireland with Great Britain, and to delay the commencement of part one delay the commencement of part one of the Bill until a formal report on the government's response to that assessment is laid before both houses. The government is committed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds across the entire United Kingdom on an equal basis.

This bill ensures that people across the United Kingdom are empowered to participate in our democracy. Imposing additional statutory requirements on extending the franchise would create an unnecessary delay to delivering this commitment for young people across the UK. The noble Baroness has mentioned the Windsor framework in relation to this amendment. The Windsor framework was overwhelmingly approved by Parliament. It respects Northern Irelands place in the Union and gives democratically elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to scrutinise. Can I just finish and then, if the noble Baroness Stowell wants to come in, I'll happily give way.

And the government is. Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the ability to scrutinise the rules that apply and the government is committed to it. The government is committed to equality across the country and lowering. Lowering the voting age to 16 applies identically across all reserved elections without distinction. The assessment comparing electors in Northern Ireland to those in Great Britain is unnecessary and, as I said, would delay implementation of the measure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister for the detail responded I obviously don't agree with her, but could I just correct something? And it's said by many something? And it's said by many noble Lords. The Windsor framework was never voted on as the Windsor was never voted on as the Windsor framework either in the House of Commons. Sorry, the other place or in the House of Lords. The only way in the House of Lords. The only way that we've had votes has been on Statutory Instruments. The very first one, some months after 2021, first one, some months after 2021, when it was the protocol was brought in and then the Windsor framework.

There has been no vote in this place or in the other place

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ever on the Windsor framework. The principle of it. I'll I'll leave that comment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll I'll leave that comment where the noble Lady left it. Moving to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness O'Neill names of the noble Baroness O'Neill of Bexley, Lord Jamieson and Lord Brady of Altrincham amendments 22279285, which would require a report explaining why the voting age should differ from the age of majority, as set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which is 18. A similar amendment to this was tabled in the other place, and I can only reiterate today what my ministerial colleague said in those debates. The government is working to build and maintain a democracy fit for 2026 and beyond.

The central question before us is not whether the voting age aligns with every other age threshold contained in statute. Rather, it is whether 16 and 17 year olds should have a voice in the democratic decisions that affect their lives and their future. The government's view is clear. Young people have a direct stake in the future of this country, and extending the franchise will enable them to participate in shaping policies and institutions that will have a lasting impact on their lives, and can help establish the habits of democratic engagement that will build the foundations for lifelong participation in our democratic system.

I hope that reassures noble Lords the government has carefully considered this matter, and we remain committed to delivering this important reform.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. I'd like. To thank the Minister for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank the Minister for her comments, but. But I would plea with her that she does take on board the education point, which I board the education point, which I think has been raised by a number of people in the in the House. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of people in the in the House. But I accept that this is a manifesto commitment, and therefore I withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by. Leave. Withdrawn. Amendment two.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Coffey not moved. Moved. Amendment three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Udny-Lister not moved. The question is that clause one stand part of the bill. As many of that amendment say. Content contrary not amendment say. Content contrary not content. The contents have it after clause one. Amendment four Lord clause one. Amendment four Lord Udny-Lister not moved. Moved. In clause two. Amendment five. Lord Frost.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to move. Amendments five, seven, 30 and 31 on the Marshalled List. My Lords, in considering this bill, we're going to be considering some major changes to how we conduct our elections in this country, and we will spend a lot of time considering the what, if you like, of these changes and their justifiability. What we're not going to spend much time doing is considering the who, who has the right to make the changes that are being brought forward or not. And I want to discuss that question, and particularly the consequences of the devolution of the electoral franchise for all but national elections.

And to suggest, as my amendment suggests, that these arrangements need to be looked at. Again, I emphasise the franchise and not looking at the electoral system, for there has always been variation within the country on that. I'm not looking at the merits of voting at 16 or Commonwealth voting or anything like that. We will be coming to some of those where we've not discussed them already. It's about the wider consequences of allowing the devolved governments to change the electoral franchise and the knock on effects that that has for the wider system and the rest of the country.

And that's why I've thought it right to table these amendments tonight. They're probing amendments, of course, designed to get the matter discussed. Their effect would be to make the electoral franchise a reserved matter, and the same in every part of the UK. In other words, to restore the constitutional system on that point as it existed before 2013. Just briefly, my Lords, and how these amendments would work. Amendment 30 establishes two common franchise categories. It applies to parliamentary franchise so described to Westminster elections, UK wide nationwide referendums or similar. And it applies the local government franchise to almost everything else.

The amendment therefore replaces Scotland and Wales wider nationality qualifications. It removes Scotland's short sentence prisoner exception, and it would make inconsistent legislative provisions ineffective. Member 31, goes on to prevent the devolved institutions from subsequently recreating different franchises. Once again it expressly reserved to Westminster the voting entitlement in Scottish Parliament and local elections and referendums and polls in Scotland and Wales. Amendments five and seven make the necessary consequential changes concerning detained young offenders. Amendment five removes the England only restriction on their disqualification from local government voting, and amendment seven deletes the Northern Ireland modification that's rendered unnecessary by the earlier change.

So, my Lords, that's how they work. I want to say a word about the history and how we got to this point. And as I've noted, the devolution of franchise setting is hardly something that is in the dim and distant past. It's not a long established and well accepted part of our Constitution. It goes back all of 13 years. That's why I want to examine this history in a bit more detail. Scotland first, the original devolution settlement left the franchise reserved in 1998, and the then Labour government actually defended that explicitly. Lord Sewel said explicitly that I quote the Scottish Executive cannot mess around with the franchise.

That rightly remains reserved, and that was not regarded as a controversial statement at that point. The genie was let out of the bottle only with the SNP's determination to give itself the best chance of winning the 2014 independence referendum, and the government consented to votes at 16 for that referendum under a special arrangement, and then agreed to it permanently in 2015. After the referendum, the Scotland Act removed the General Reservation on all but UK Parliament elections in 2017 and controversially actually and your Lordships Constitution Committee said at the time that devolving constitutional powers, including the franchise risks and I quote, introducing variation where there should be none.

End quote. It identified possible differences in the enfranchisement of non-British residents and British citizens abroad, not merely the voting age question. It also warned that changes in Scotland could, in the end, pressure Westminster into matching them, rather than having a prior, wider UK wide debate on how the system should work. Warnings those warnings were correct, I think, but not were ignored. And in 2020 the Scottish Government extended the franchise further, not just to short sentence prisoners but to all foreign residents in Scotland for everything other than national parliamentary elections. In Wales, things went more quickly but to the same destination.

Once again it was a referendum, this time one that never happened about devolving tax powers, which was the first introduction of voting at 16 into the system. The general reservation was lifted in 2018,
18:24
None Portrait
-

Welsh legislation in 2020 and 2021 extended voting rights for non nationals in a similar way to Scotland. There, the tests are slightly different and in Wales, two short sentence prisoners remain excluded. To complete the set. My Lords, in Northern Ireland, voting rights have never been devolved. So there's there doesn't come into this question. So that's the situation. What's the problem that's been created by this set of piecemeal changes to the franchise? I suggest my Lords situation is quite unsatisfactory. And there are, I think, three sets of problems that have been created. The first is just practical issues.

The fact that rights change as you move around the country, both on the question of age and as regards foreign residence rights to vote now, I think it's a good principle that voters should be able to understand whether they can vote or not without mastering the detail of the devolution law. And indeed, the Electoral Commission has in the past warned that divergent franchises can confuse voters and campaigners. There's a lot of administrative complexity in keeping different registers for different purposes and different kinds of elections in different parts of the country. Not insurmountable, but it does exist.

And the Electoral Commission has highlighted this too, in the past. So there's a set of practical issues, but I think there are a couple of bigger ones behind it. The second is a question of constitutional logic. This is one country, and in modern democracies, voters have the same rights. We may agree or disagree with exactly what those rights should be and how we extend them. And as I said, this isn't a point about the substance. It's a point about how things are done in devolved administrations. And I think it's worth highlighting. It cuts both ways.

If reform UK, for example, had won the elections in Wales earlier this year, their policy was to end Commonwealth voting in Wales, a policy which I happen to agree with and will come on to that. But it would have introduced a huge change to the system once again in only one part of the country, and I contend this isn't a particularly satisfactory situation. The right people have as electors, I think, should be the same for everyone, regardless of where they happen to be standing in the country and in a nation state.

 The terms of basic democracy have to be set at country level, and in
18:25
18:25
18:25
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Labour)
-
-
current fractured state in this country. Third, my Lords, and that really leads me on to this point. I think what we have seen and the think what we have seen and the most pernicious consequence of this, is the use of franchise changes in really a highly political way, in very charged environments. As I noted, the original extension to voting at 16 was really, I think since we've allowed ourselves to break the taboo that these changes might be made for other than objective reasons, I would say the original extension 16 in Scotland was a transparency, transparently political gesture, one aimed at giving the SNP the best chance of winning their referendum.

The extension to foreign residents, all foreign residents in Scotland and Wales, wherever they come from. Once again, I think it's a deliberate attempt to skew the the potential support to different parties and to ensure that any repeated referendum on any national question would be slanted by large numbers of non-British citizens on the register. I think sometimes also there's an attempt to show a degree of a slight moral superiority, perhaps a deliberate attempt, for example, on prisoner voting to show a different approach to England. And last year there was political pressure in Scotland to extend to extend voting to asylum seekers.

And that came close to getting into the 2025 Election Act. And I think these changes need to be discussed rationally and collectively as a country. They're not part of some race to show whether one devolved nation is more progressive or more robust indeed on migration than any other. So, my Lords, these are the problems, and they possibly explain why other European countries have been much more reticent in this regard than we have in the UK. Switzerland, which is, of course, an explicitly federal state with very highly devolved powers, even now, is the only one that gives similar rights to its cantons as those that Scotland has.

The lender in Germany and Austria can vary voting age within constraints that are set centrally, but they're explicitly prohibited from granting voting rights to foreign residents. And we'll come on to that question. But granting voting rights to foreign residents towards extremely rare in Europe. In any case, crucially, the rights of the same for all territories in those countries. There's no asymmetric arrangements as we have in the UK. And of course, there's this asymmetry that produced part of the problem. All other EU countries set the rules nationally or in a small number of cases, have the right to make small technical changes within a framework that's that's set nationally.

And of course, also apart from Spain, other countries don't have the constant push to secession, which makes the devolution of the franchise so highly political. Well, as Britain really is an outlier on these sort of questions. My Lords, to conclude, this is why I think we need to look at these issues again. We're not looking at a settled constitutional norm. We are looking at very recent development, the taboo on reconsidering devolved powers once devolved needs to be broken and devolve and forget is not good enough. Indeed, I think the only area that's ever been devolved to Scotland or Wales and has since been returned is the right to exploration in the Antarctica incredibly devolved by mistake, I think in the original devolved devolution settlement, for reasons of normal constitutional logic, international comparability, and stop politicising something so fundamental as the electoral mandate.

We need to look again. And I think the national government has a responsibility to look at the issues and the consequences for the wider country. Devolution allows different parts of the UK to govern themselves differently. It doesn't follow that each much have must have an independent power to determine the basic qualifications of those who are entitled to elect the legislature. I contend those qualifications really ought to be settled nationally through this Parliament, and that we can and we should preserve different governments and different policies

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without dispersing responsibility for the democratic foundations of the state.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foundations of the state. Amendment. Proposed clause two, page two. Line 19 leave out in England if I might follow Lord Frost and he would not be surprised to learn that I don't agree with him on these issues. I understand the difference between franchise and the whole business of elections and the and the institutions to which we elect people. But we have to be extremely careful that we don't undermine a devolution settlement, which is not just set up by Act of Parliament, but by referenda in Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in Wales. Case two referenda. And to do that would be seriously damaging to the devolution settlement.

In Northern Ireland's case, I had the privilege of chairing those part of the Good Friday Agreement talks which dealt with elections, and what happened then was that there was an agreement amongst all the parties in Northern Ireland who were involved in those talks, and the two governments, of course, to ensure that the final Good Friday Agreement would command consensus right across the board, start interfering with that. We're in deep trouble. And that was agreed. Of course, the 1998 settlement was agreed by a referendum north and south in Ireland. Now, I'm not saying we can't change it, but those changes really need to be made with the devolved assembly itself.

And in Scotland. In Wales, one of my predecessors, Welsh Secretary, once said that devolution is a process. I didn't agree with him at the time, but I think he's probably right. It is a process and over the last 30 years, that process has meant that the relationship between the United Kingdom government and Parliament and the devolved governments and parliament have been developed to a very sophisticated degree. Interfere with that. You can seriously interfere with the devolution settlement.

So while in some ways there is some merit in in thinking that perhaps the franchise
18:27
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
should be universal, the only way you could agree with that, it seems to me, is having consensus with the devolved administrations. And they would have to agree with that would have to agree with that myself. I'm not actually a a great lover of proportional representation. I've always been a representation. I've always been a first past the post person, and I really do believe in a link between the elected and his or her constituents. I don't particularly agree with the settlement that in Wales we've had with the 96 members on a closed list system. I'm not sure anybody really understands it all that much, but I do agree with the right of the Senate to be able to establish that system.

And so therefore, I think we ought to be very careful indeed how we deal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with these particular amendments. I'm very pleased to support my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very pleased to support my noble friend Lord Frost, and I put my name to his amendments and the my name to his amendments and the amendments 3031 and the two consequential amendments. I listened very carefully to Lord listened very carefully to Lord Murphy of Tory, and I thought I was the only person who wasn't keen on the only person who wasn't keen on the different system of voting. And he he puts his finger on a very important point, that it doesn't allow the voters really to hold a particular person or even party accountable. And we've seen from recent evidence in the Welsh Senate that someone can change their political affiliation and refuse to give way, even though they've de facto been elected as a party member rather than an individual, as a candidate in a specific constituency.

I support this amendment, my Lords, because these amendments, because the practical effect of them will be to create administrative consistency across the franchise rules of all elections, referenda and polls in the UK. And I have to say, in an era of fractiousness and bitter division in politics, which is growing stronger, I think having multiple election systems, which reduced the ability of your average voter who is not engaged to engage in the political system and to see that their vote has a consequence and that the person they voted for is likely to be elected, only adds to a sense or an undermining of the sense of common purpose and social solidarity, and may and continues to make different parts of our country more fractious and divided.

I think it's perfectly possible to support these amendments, but also, broadly speaking, agree with the concept of devolution. If you go to a country such as Scotland, it it had a separate legal system, a separate education system, a proud history, and not least in building the British Empire. Many years ago. And it's different to England. But I would respectfully say to Lord Murphy that the people of England never had a vote, whether they wanted to set up the Welsh Assembly as it then was, or the Scottish Parliament. And therefore their ability to make key decisions was undermined by that.

Albeit he probably will say that the Blair government did have a mandate and was re-elected after the establishment of those two devolved administrations. But my Lords, my noble friend, has made some important points and I won't belabour them. But a single nation state should have a common framework for Democratic membership. The United States is many times bigger than the United Kingdom and has many more people, and yet it has the same voting system and we will see whether it works tomorrow in delivering the votes that that people want in the midterm elections. And I think I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

We are a unitary state. It seems to me odd that if you live in Monmouthshire, you have a completely different voting system and a way of electing people that matter and making decisions about your life. Then, five miles across the border in Herefordshire, ditto in Cumbria or Northumberland, vis a vis Argyll or Dumfriesshire or East Lothian. It does seem strange for such a small country. We have single transferable vote. The additional member system, the regional list alternative member first past the post, etcetera, etcetera. And I mentioned the different system before and voting rights, as my noble friend said, should not change simply because of someone moving across the United Kingdom between different counties, towns and cities and villages.

And as my noble friend said, Britain's arrangements are very anomalous. Only Germany and Austria have the ability to vary the voting age, and in particular they are very strict. As he said, concerning the capacity of foreign voters to cast their ballots in elections. And that's important if one looks at the situation in Wales. We we we've heard before about the ability of Commonwealth and Irish citizens to vote. But in Scotland they permit legally resident foreign nationals to vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections. And in December of last year, 198,000 qualifying foreign nationals were registered to vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections.

That's not far off 5% of the electorate. I think that's a significant issue. Now, no one is casting aspersions on the ideas of those people. They live in Scotland. But if you're in the business of protecting the integrity of our voting system, and that's a long standing link between voting, having a vested interest in your community and nationality, then I think at your peril, you undermine that by allowing people who are not do not have the same investment, perhaps constitutionally, historically, in the country in which they are voting. And I do think that these days we need to be thinking about the trust people have in the system.

So there should be consistency between devolved elections, national referenda and parliamentary elections. Concerning the eligibility of foreign nationals to vote and bringing devolved administrations in line with the national qualifying standard of eligibility to vote. And I'll finally say that when we're discussing the self-interest of some party, as my noble friend said, it was an egregious example of the SNP in 2011. I think using that legislation, the devolved competence that they had to affect the the franchise for their own narrow electoral self-interest. And I think, if anything else, were this amendment to be adopted, it would act as a check on devolved power, limiting the devolved administrations ability to amend their rules further.

And we heard about asylum seekers earlier, encouraged by the dramatic change affecting this bill of lowering the age of 16. And this would cap the administration's abilities to expand the franchise even further. The slippery slope argument. So, my Lords, I support my my noble friend's amendments. I do think they're sensible. They don't resile from a support for the concept of devolution, but they do try and bring some coherence and, and some commonality in terms of our electoral systems to this country. And I think that would be good because people would understand what they're voting for.

They would be more likely to vote and exercise their franchise. And it seems common sense and sensible, so to do.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And on that basis, I strongly support the amendment. And it's not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Intended to undermine the coherence of his overall argument. But as a pedant alert, my noble But as a pedant alert, my noble friend said that the United States, all 50 states, operate on the same all 50 states, operate on the same electoral system. They don't. There are differences between a host of are differences between a host of different states in one form or another.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I bow to my noble friend's great greater knowledge I was. I was referring to the national ballots. referring to the national ballots. I understand that for Ratcatcher I understand that for Ratcatcher County Sheriff and other and other laws and other roles, I think there laws and other roles, I think there will be, of course, local differences. But on the election of, for instance, of governor members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for instance, of governor members of the House of Representatives and Senate, they are generally the same. My, my my my, my Lord. First of all, I apologise. I wasn't able to attend the Second Reading, but my noble friend Baroness Smith of Llanfaes contributed on behalf of light Memory and I hope she'll continue doing so as effectively
18:35
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
again. I now rise to oppose the thrust of this group of amendments, thrust of this group of amendments, which is hardly a surprise to anybody. I don't believe that we are in a single nation state. We are in a single nation state. We are not. We are in a multi nation state. While I acknowledge there is state. While I acknowledge there is a valid argument that an election to any one single chamber of to any one single chamber of government should be on a uniform, consistent franchise basis throughout the area covered by that chamber, there surely can be no valid reason for Westminster to tell Wales or Scotland that we cannot, in our own devolved parliaments, allow our young people to vote at 16 because it doesn't happen to suit Westminster.

My Lords, devolution exists to allow us to do things differently in the nations of Wales and Scotland. Indeed, if Westminster acts to take the vote of young people in Wales and Scotland, I cannot imagine a stronger lever to drive those two countries towards independence. So I would invite the House to think very, very carefully before doing so. Our experience in this regard in Wales in the last May's election was wholly positive. The degree of interest amongst young people was impressive. I saw it for myself in canvassing during the election, in talking to young people in my home community and to friends of my grandchildren in other parts of Wales.

And while acting as a booth agent for them on voting day in my own home village, I. The turnout in May's election in Wales was in fact the highest of any devolved election in Wales. Yes, it was in the. A bit over 50%. And one can ask why it wasn't higher in previous elections, but it was a step in the right direction in getting young people involved because it not only involved them, but very often it involved their parents because they got to understand what was going on and perhaps participated, whereas in the past they hadn't done so.

There is also exists in Wales, a Welsh youth Parliament, which is a very highly respected body and which helps the development of young people's thinking in political terms on the All Wales level. Furthermore. Furthermore, my Lords, the IPR system in Wales ensured multi-party voices in our Senate, which must be a good thing for democracy. So finally, may I point out that if we had suffered a simple first past the post system in our present Senate, and voting patterns were the same as they had been in May, the 96 seats would today have given Plyed 66 and remain 30.

So I suggest that that indeed was a sensible system that we have in Wales that does respect multi-party democracy. The logic of these amendments is on the assumption that we live in a nation state. My Lords, we do not. That may have been that that that way we have developed into the system that we have today, and we should respect the principles on which devolution was founded. Yeah.
18:39
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
I very much opposed to a system other than first past the post, but other than first past the post, but I do have to say that it does seem to me very peculiar that we have a to me very peculiar that we have a devolved system, and then we are to say that people in the devolved systems can't decide how they choose their government. I find that a very odd argument, and the fact of the matter is that Wales has a very odd system of election. It's not one that I would campaign for, but it is.

The Welsh have decided that that's the one they want, and I really do find it really out of all proportion of the world we live in today. We are a country made up of a number of countries. Yes, of course we're the United Kingdom, but the Welsh are different. As somebody who comes from a Welsh speaking father are different from much of the rest. The idea that because people move around the United Kingdom somehow or other, they will be followed by the fact that there are differences in different countries just seems to me to be very odd.

Now, I happen to think that the history of electoral arrangements in the north of Ireland and Northern Ireland in general, really, and in Ireland in general, have not been very happy. But the fact of the matter is, it is for Northern Ireland to decide how it is going to be governed as far as its own devolved position is, and it's also true for Scotland. I dislike the Scottish nationalists. I think they are the worst government in in the United Kingdom. I think they have done terrible damage to Scottish education, terrible damage to Scotland generally. But in the end it is the Scots who have to decide how their own government is elected.

And the idea that we should take back the decision about how we do that to the United Kingdom government, seems to me to undermine the whole concept of devolution. I believe in devolution because I think that the closer people are to the decision makers, the more they are likely to feel that they are engaged, that it's their government. And I hope very much that this House will not go backwards by suggesting that we should force other people to choose their government in the way that we like it. It is right that everybody shall vote the same way for the Central United Kingdom government, but it does seem to me to be, frankly, very old fashioned and out of date to suggest that we should go back on what we do now.
18:41
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
It's a great pleasure to follow >> It's a great pleasure to follow and almost entirely agree with the noble Lord Lord Deben, although I don't accept his label of the current Welsh system as odd, but otherwise 100% agreement, and it's also a great pleasure to admire the also a great pleasure to admire the speech of the noble Lord Lord Wigley and the noble Lord. Lord Jackson said that this, this. This group of amendments would be a check on devolved power. That's a check on the representatives of the chosen by the people in their own nations. And I would say to those who wish to defend and maintain the Union, that they should realise that denying and removing rights is no way to maintain it.

Now, I note, and I hope the noble Lord Frost would accept, that devolution is about difference. Different choices, different nations we talk about. We have different languages protected and relied on in different nations. We have different rules about the management and treatment of land. Will park the Crown Estate in Wales on the side. For the moment we have different kinds of politics and those nations have made very different political choices, and I don't think that there is any evidence that a change in franchise has made a significant impact on the political choices that those nations have made.

However, what I mostly rise is to address a particular element of these, this group of amendments, and one that the noble Lord Lord Frost himself did not address in his introduction, but perhaps he might. In the wrap up. There is an exception here. We're talking about every election being under the same franchise except for the City of London ward elections. Now I will point noble Lords to my own amendment two, six, nine will undoubtedly get to much later, which would actually abolish the business vote for the City of London corporation elections. This would. My amendment would end the rotten borough, the nation's last rotten borough.

It would introduce this principle of one person, one vote. Finally in 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Kindly said that she liked following my speech. May I just say to her that I think that is nonsense, and there is no reason at nonsense, and there is no reason at all to change what happens in the City of London.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

City of London. I am delighted to allow the noble Lord to say just that, and I'm sure there are many people in I'm sure there are many people in your Lordships House who would agree with the noble Lord. And in fact, I will point members of your Lordships House to a book. I was at the launch at last week. It's called The Aristocracy, and it's about the composition of the. The House of Lords and noble Lords might find it of interest with relevance to the relationship between this House and the City of London. Coming back to where I was, I.

I'm not going to fully cover the points that I'm going to raise in two, six, nine, but I really will ask the noble Lord to justify in this context, saying everything else has to be the same except the City of London. If you're going to impose uniformity, why this odd little black hole in the centre of the city without democratic control? Why is that being excluded?
18:45
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
My Lords, I'll speak briefly as my noble friend Lord Wigley has covered most of some of the most important points. But also it's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennet. And it is interesting, the exception that is in these amendments for the City of London, but not for whole nations. So it would be interesting to hear more about that in the closing. The only points I just wanted to raise was that the Welsh Parliament said of Cymru is the people of Wales Parliament. Therefore, it is only right that the people of Wales decide how it's run.

The same goes for Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. These amendments are essentially an unnecessary power grab. Why is it the business of this Parliament, how the people of Wales and Scotland decide to be represented in their parliaments in Scotland and Wales on the point in relation to different arrangements and whether people understand those different electoral arrangements. And when you vote at 16. A story I wanted to share actually was during a lot of engagements with younger people across Wales. A lot of them raise how they understand the different systems, particularly because of what happened during the Covid pandemic and during the Covid pandemic.

Wales and England made different decisions in terms of whether schools were open and different arrangements in terms of the healthcare arrangements. And that is something that the younger people of today have experience and have knowledge on, and they understand the different systems and what the different parliaments make decisions on. So I think that's really important to share is that because of those experiences, they do know those differences of opinions. So I think it's important to rebut that in the earlier speeches. And we do take a different approach on matters. And that is devolution. So I just wanted to end on the fact that this is a matter, in my opinion, for the Parliament.
18:47
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
Only you. group of amendments in the name of Lord Frost and Lord Jackson. And I do so really, because I think it's do so really, because I think it's very important for this, this country and its constitutional arrangements that we have. These changes. This country has always been a unitary power. It's one of the oldest unitary powers, and it's also one of the most stable political democracies. That second characteristic matters as much as the first and its nature, both being old and unitary and being a stable democracy, are linked to each other. Constitutional change is for the whole country.

It has historically involved the whole country through broadsheets, with long debates, public discussion, and for all of these, Parliament has then, as Churchill once said, the forum for the nation. In fact, it was Samuel Johnson, I think, who made Parliament popular for the public by being the first person to report systematically its proceedings long, I think the precursor of Hansard. Secondly, it is important to avoid sexual politics in constitutional decisions, and one can't help escaping the feeling that in some decisions taken by other assemblies in Wales and and Scotland, there isn't the hint, if I might say, of political considerations in determining these grave constitutional matters.

And it's much harder to break the mould of a a very one party and one party popularity. And for that reason I don't particularly think it's a bad thing that we have constant changes of political party in this country. It's very good for democracy. It's good for stability that the other people have a chance. But where you have one party tending to be dominant election after election, there cannot be anything but the suspicion, at least, that that party will use its dominant power to to use Lord Wallace's words, in another capacity, in another meaning earlier this.

To fiddle the Constitution. And finally, I think it is important for consistency, not just transparency, but consistency. And the government, in its explanatory notes refers to the importance of consistency as one of the reasons for this bill. And if we are to be consistent, we should ensure that the franchise is consistent across the country.
18:50
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, this group really provides us with a choice between devolution or top down centralised devolution or top down centralised uniformity. Now I acknowledge Lord Frost and Lord Hanson are perhaps surprising voices for enforcing centralised uniformity on a range of nations, regardless of the views of those nations. But that is, in effect, what these amendments do. Although, as Baroness Bennett and Baroness Vere both pointed out, not quite, because a special privileged position is given to the City of London, a special, privileged position that may well be justified for some of the reasons we heard earlier, but which these amendments wouldn't grant to the people of Wales or to the people of Scotland.

And as a Londoner for nearly all of my life, very proud to often argue the corner for London, I do think giving the City of London a special place above and beyond Scotland and Wales might be going just a little

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bit too far. I also think. Would give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would give way. But on this important issue of the City of London, if you give it its name as the Corporation of London, and you treat it as essentially a trading estate, which essentially a trading estate, which happens to have 14,000 people living on it, maybe the electoral arrangements that they adopt are arrangements that they adopt are indeed a matter for that trading estate, rather than for the rest of us.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an interesting point, but as as as the noble Lord himself said, there are several assumptions leading up to his conclusion that leading up to his conclusion that all of which I would share. We've all of which I would share. We've also heard the argument that the ability of Scotland and Wales to make their own choices might result in pressure on us here in Westminster. Well, I think in a way Westminster. Well, I think in a way that is quite an advantage, because, after all, if Scotland decides to do something, or if Wales decides to do something and it works well, that's a really good bit of pressure.

I think that we should welcome. And of course if it fails, then it does. It achieves the exact opposite. I think seeing how variation plays out is not a bad thing to be scared of. Indeed, there is much more variation than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jackson is aware of because he made reference to the United States. I would point out that the voting system for Congress varies between states in the United States, and indeed, two of the states in the United States use preferential voting. So I very much hope all sides of this House will pay more attention and maybe learn from the States in that respect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Presents my my response to my noble friend for clarity, I. I did check and he's quite right. I stand check and he's quite right. I stand partially corrected in that the state of Maine and the state of Alaska does do ranked choice elections, but one for governor and senator and the other, I think, senator and the other, I think, just for Senator. But I'm I'm touched that he's interested in in touched that he's interested in in those issues. But my general point is that the vast bulk of elections are on the same kind of electoral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system across the United States. But variation is is present. And there is many other examples of there is many other examples of variation, because the argument was made that, you know, there are some made that, you know, there are some administrative and and burdens from allowing variation. Well, I would simply observe that with devolution, simply observe that with devolution, we have the ability to vary things like speed limits. We have the ability to vary things like tax rates. And actually, I think one is going to take that argument seriously that there are problems with variation.

One should be upfront and say that is an argument against devolution. Full stop. It's not possible. I think, with powerful logic and consistency, to argue that variation for the franchise is somehow a problem. Whilst variation for, say, tax rates is is acceptable. And that in a way is gets to the argument about constitutional logic. Because I think the constitutional logic argument works exactly the other way, which is the very logic, the very constitutional logic of devolution is that different people end up being able to make different decisions. That is the inseparable, inescapable logic of devolution.

 And I would just finally say on the point about gerrymandering, I'm slightly more politic phrases were used as well earlier. I mean, I always think it is very unwise to attempt to set rules to do with elections on the basis of partisan self-interest, partly, obviously, for the reason of principle, but also partly because so often it backfires. And indeed, returning to the United States, we may well see some Republicans rueing what they thought was very clever drawing of boundaries. We may well see them rueing it when the elections come in tomorrow. Although, of course, all of us, as we will have to be here bright and early on Wednesday morning, sadly will not be able to stay up quite as late as we may have wished to watch those election results coming in.

But fundamentally, this is a question about devolution. It's a question about do we believe that it is right for different places, who have powers devolved to them to make different decisions? And I would join those who have argued in this debate in saying that, yes, that variation is right. And therefore, on this occasion, I very much hope that we will not be hearing warm words from the noble Lady, the Minister, in due course. But the noble Lady, the Minister, who will defend the rights of different parts of the United Kingdom to make their own decisions under devolved settlements.
18:56
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. friend Lord Frost for his group of probing amendments, including those supported by my noble friend Lord supported by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This has been a much quicker debate, but worthy no less, and I thank all of those who have contributed to it. These amendments seek to standardise voting eligibility across the UK, with the exception for the City of London ward elections. As has already been said, the SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales have already given the right to vote to all foreign residents in devolved and local elections. Those decisions were not minor technical differences between the UK's constituent parts, constituent parts and they are deserving of debate at a national level.

This issue also relates to automatic voter registration because whilst Wales have conducted for pilots on automatic registration, they did not have to verify the nationality of an elector as a result of their changes at a devolved level, I'm sure we will debate the security of automatic voter registration in greater detail in due course. In addition, we are concerned about the consequences for UK political donation rules as a result of the changes by the two devolved administrations to give up voting rights to every foreign resident. This has given foreign citizens the right to make unlimited donations to politicians and political parties across the UK, opening the door to foreign finance as well as direct electoral influence.

For example, a foreign student resident in a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any political entity. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, the Minister, said that this bill will reduce the risk of foreign money entering into our politics, and that the threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding are an ever growing danger, one that we cannot afford to delay tackling. Will she, therefore commit to closing this loophole without delay? If not, why the inconsistency when it comes to foreign interference? My Lords, this debate has touched on fundamental questions.

The balance of devolution matters, but so does citizenship. It's not meaningless, as so many of those residents who have proudly chosen to become citizens can attest. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness. The minister's response.
18:59
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the. >> Noble Lord Frost would also apply the electoral franchise currently used for local elections in England and Northern Ireland to in England and Northern Ireland to all elections in Scotland and Wales. In practice, this would mean some foreign citizens would no longer be able to vote in local elections in Scotland and Wales, or elections to the Scottish Scottish Parliament or Senate Committee for completeness. I also note that Lord Frost has tabled multiple amendments, some which remove Commonwealth citizens voting rights as well, although these do not, the government will not support these amendments.

The government is committed to maintaining and defending the devolution settlements, allowing the Scottish and Welsh parliaments to set the electoral franchise for their own elections, as well as to local offices, is a fundamental part of those settlements, and the government sees no clear benefit to changing that position, one which has held for many years. And I would say to the noble Lord Jackson, I think he answered his own question, actually. But there was indeed a mandate for the devolution settlement through the 1997 general election. Like the noble Lord Deben Baroness Bennett, the noble Lord Wigley, I fundamentally believe in devolution.

Our diversity across our nations is our strength, and I fundamentally. And as we extend the devolution programme, I think this government's made it very clear that we think it should be people with skin in the game in their local area, taking the key decisions about those areas. It's perfectly right that each of the governments around the UK is free to do what they feel is right, within the competence of the acts of devolution. As such, the government cannot support these amendments. I would say on the political finance side, we're going to have lots of debate around that in future groups, so I'll park that for the moment.

But I would also say that the Prime Minister is has already announced that he will be instigating a national commission on electoral reform. So all of the questions that we've heard about PR and whether it's right or whether it's not right, will be debated. And I think that is the right way to do it. I think it's right to have a proper national conversation on electoral reform and whether we want it or not. And my last point, the noble Lord Wigley spoke about the youth parliament in Wales. I think that's a very important point, particularly in view of the previous debate we had.

I instigated a youth Parliament when I was council leader in my town, and members of that youth council sat on full council. They couldn't vote, but they could speak in our debates. And a youth mayor for our town. And I do think it's that active participation in decision making that encourages our young people to get involved. For now, I would just repeat that the government cannot support these amendments.
19:02
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister. I am disappointed to hear she's not supporting the amendments, but I'm not entirely surprised, I admit. I thank those who've supported them. I also thank Baroness Bennett for raising the problem of the City of London. Actually, I slightly sympathised with what the noble Lady said, but I just didn't want to increase the complexity of these particular amendments by getting into that slightly niche problem. I don't want to dwell too much on what's been said. I felt we did drift slightly into discussion of age limits and electoral systems, which we will come on to later on.

I'm sure I thought this was an interesting discussion because it revealed fundamental differences of view about what the United Kingdom actually is as a country. Is it, as some seem to be saying, a collection of nations, a sort of mini EU in itself? Or is it in fact what it legally is, a unitary state which has devolved powers to devolved nations, and because it's the latter, because it has devolved powers to devolved nations, there must be a power for the Westminster Parliament to consider whether that settlement is correct in. In every detail, of course, there can be variation, but it must be the role of the centre to ensure the variation is in the interests of the whole of the country, and not just a sectoral interest in one of the devolved nations.

And I contend that's been the risk of devolving the franchise and the variation in that. My Lords, my worry is that devolve and forget will one day become dissolve and forget. And I don't want that to happen. Which is why this Parliament must remember it's a devolved country. It isn't a aggregate of nations that have voluntarily come together. I'm sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we'll come back to all those issues, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Is it your Lordships? Pleasure?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships? Pleasure? This amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment six Baroness Lister not moved. Amendment seven Lord Frost not moved. The question is that clause two stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it in clause three. Amendment eight. Lord Fuller.
19:04
None Portrait Amendment: 8 Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-

My Lord, it's a pleasure to lead this debate. I've got the first amendments in the group. And firstly, turning to my number eight, it seems to me that registering to it seems to me that registering to vote a year before the possibility of voting gives the election officials sufficient time to draw up the register at the annual canvass. Plenty of time. It's not as if many will be able to vote on their 16th birthday. By arithmetic, that excitement will be restricted to just 1917 youngsters, who can then celebrate by going down to the scrapyard on a moped to sell some metal.

Two of those rights of passengers passengers are permitted at that age, alongside piercing and opening a bank account without telling your mum no, I don't agree with votes at 16 and will not repeat the reasoning here. But if that if that's the proposal on the table, then registration at 15 seems to be quite sufficient. After all, we have an annual canvass for a reason. Now, if there's anything in this, if there's a theme to this bill as it relates to young voters, the government has failed to integrate these attainments aged 14 and above, into the existing registration system.

The propensity for these attainments to move around is much greater than for the older population. They churn schools, colleges, jobs and apprenticeships, whilst some leave home for the first time. So my amendment number eight does not seek to fetter democracy or deny access to the vote to anybody. It's simply aimed at reducing the administrative burden of collating the register and works along with the existing pattern of electoral registration and administration in this country. Which leads me to my amendment number nine, which looks at the mechanics of how a person under 16 can unambiguously be identified and authenticated by the electoral registration officer before they actually come onto the register.

As a tainers, these youngsters may not have a passport, they certainly won't have a credit card. Inevitably, they won't pay an electric or council tax bill, or any tax for that matter, to identify themselves as perhaps you or I might. In the world as it is today, you've registered to vote by providing your National Insurance number. Whether you use the centralised online form on gov UK or download a paper copy or form issued by the local council, you need to provide your National Insurance number. If not, they want to know why and that's because there's a secure automatic authentication system that uniquely matches a person to a national to a national Insurance number across the HMRC, the DWP and other databases.

It protects the Register's integrity and in theory helps identify duplicate entries. Even in Scotland, you need to give your National Insurance number, although helpfully, you don't have. If you don't have one, the. The ERO invites applicants to provide a utility bill. Call me old fashioned, but I don't know how many 14 year olds pay the electricity bill, which is normally paid by their parents, but we'll put that to one side. So if you can't supply an NI number, it triggers a complex and intrusive manual validation system. Local officers are working hard enough as it is, without more hand work burdens being thrust upon them.

I spoke to one electoral registration officer today, a returning officer, in fact. And when somebody can't provide a national insurance number, as it is today, two hours over several weeks per person is the. Which may lead to an attestation in court is what is needed to finally authenticate someone and validate their application to come on the register. Put simply, the 14 or 15 year olds who don't have this NI and aren't going to be easily identifiable through the usual channels because the young. These youngsters don't have the normal sets of identifiers. Now Google, summarising the ONS census statistics, tells me there are 1.4 million 14 and 15 year olds in the UK who'll be admitted to attain on their 16th birthday.

Now they don't have this NI number, so these youngsters are in a bind. How are they going to prove their identity? And the electoral registration officer isn't going to be any wiser after. There isn't just the standard administrative method. So they're not going to have a driver's license. Only certain 16 year olds will have a moped. They may not have a passport or gas bill, as I've said. So how do they prove their identity without reinventing the entire wheel of the administrative process that goes on in getting them onto the register? Now consider the child from a broken home.

Perhaps he lives with Mum in Acacia Avenue during the week, but with his dad in the city apartment at the weekend. I'm trying to prevent the introduction of duplicates onto the system now. Most likely. And it is possible. Of course, the mum and dad live in two different electoral areas. The parents would think it was their duty to register their child and not necessarily be forced to tell the other, and we've got the prospect of the automatic registration, perhaps by reference to the school whole roll. The the child might want to register himself. After all, if he's trusted to choose a government, he ought to be capable of filling in the form.

 Now, in this example, there are two eras two addresses, possibly two different names, because some children will assume double barrelled names. Perhaps some of them would be relatives of the noble. My noble friend, the Baroness O'Neill. Is that with or without apostrophe? Multiple multiple registrations of youngsters isn't a possibility. It's a certainty. All these people looking after the interests of the little boy falling over themselves to duplicate him on the register, and the ERO won't have a clue of how to weed out the duplicates. So I'm going to. I want to know, and I'm asked the noble Lady, the Minister, who's going to be responsible for cases of double registration, still worse, double voting by the child who didn't realise others were usurping him.

 Without my amendment to change the rules to issue National Insurance numbers at 14, it's a ready excuse for ballot stuffing and family voting. Now the impact assessment covers none of this and it should. Whilst streamlining voter registration using other government services might be possible for those over 18, it is fraught with difficulty with those under 16. Why didn't the assessment calculate, as I have done that just to register 14 and 15 year olds is going to take 2000 local government extra staff just for this provision alone. So we've got we've got an identifier already. It is the National Insurance number.

My amendment proposes a review so the government can consider reducing the age of issuance of NI numbers to the age of 14. Under section three, regulation nine of the Social Security crediting and treatment of Contributions and National Insurance Numbers Regulations 2001. That's see number 769 of that year. It's an integral part of the voter system. No, IT systems need to be changed. No new interfaces need to be created. It's the same system the Ero can use to dedupe the the the surplus records. And critically, it will maintain the integrity of the register. And I, I call for a review because it's the integral part that will reduce duplicates and ensure confidence in the register.

And as I will explain in Group nine, issuing National Insurance numbers will significantly simplify the muddle that Ofcom has gone into in trying to identify youngsters for social media. Their proposals include four different methods that put regulators and parents in an impossible position. Let's sort it out. Let's issue the National Insurance numbers at 14. And if it helps the the children themselves think more closely and carefully about the world of work. Well, that can't do any harm either. I've said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enough. I beg to move. As clause three. Page three,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As clause three. Page three, line 15, leave out 14 and insert 15. If we look at this group of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If we look at this group of amendments, I think we all have a duty to try and discern which of them might be considered to be motivated by partisan considerations. And my own view is that amendment eight, in the name
19:13
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that amendment eight, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Fuller, is simply about reducing the number of people who will be legally entitled to vote from being registered and therefore able to vote. And I cannot see how it can be anything other than partisan to reduce the number of people legally entitled to vote from being able to do so. Amendment 48 in the name of Baroness O'Neill of Bexley again, seems to me to be a deliberate barrier to registering people who are legally entitled to vote from being able to do so because they won't be registered.

And isn't that a partisan consideration? And other amendments seek to block or delay or make the registration process weaker and less effective? And therefore I consider those amendments partisan. Now, my Lords, the amendments in my name, I cannot see.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How any of my proposals would be discriminatory in any way, shape or discriminatory in any way, shape or form because my provisions would provide that everybody would be provide that everybody would be given, not had to apply, be given a National Insurance number, except National Insurance number, except instead of 16 at 14, which is the age at which the government proposes these changes would come proposes these changes would come onto the register. There's nothing discriminatory. It's actually enabling, because what it does is get the state organised and individuals waiting to get that number so they can get on to the register.

I'm sorry. The noble Lord has misdirected himself as to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

effect of my my proposals. The noble Lords proposal is actually what I proposed in actually what I proposed in previous parliaments, and his government resisted tooth and nail. government resisted tooth and nail. Any suggestion about registering people at the point they got the National Insurance numbers and my National Insurance numbers and my understanding of the noble Lords. Amendment number eight is that rather than say you will begin rather than say you will begin registering a process of 14 and 15 year olds, you only start at 15. And surely that would mean less people being registered.

But if I've misunderstood, I apologise. I'm concerned with the approach in general and how I think amendments 49, 50 and 52 are all about improving the health of our democracy because democratic elections cannot fully take place without people being registered to vote, and many groups of people legally entitled to vote are often not registered to vote. And our current arrangements now, when individual electoral registration was introduced, there were many of us who warned that without extra measures, millions of young people, students and people who move home frequently would fall off the electoral rolls. Perhaps that was the intention of the proposal among some people.

I believe that it was. I know that it was a great preoccupation of the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he used to meet his deputy to discuss constitutional issues, he was determined to drive through this process, which actually, if it had been implemented as he intended, registration levels would have fallen from the level of the mid 80s to about 60%, according to the Electoral Commission. Now, the Electoral Commission briefing for this debate shows that as many as 8 million people legally entitled to vote are not correctly registered and therefore unlikely to be able to take part in the democratic process.

The Commission says that it strongly supports the principles of what is commonly known as automatic voter registration, and is described in this bill as being registration without application. The problem that it seeks to address involves young people, especially. The Commission's previous research indicated that whilst 95% of over 65 year olds are registered to vote, only about 65% of under 25 year olds are included on the voter lists. There are similar problems with people missing from the registers who rent privately, or who come from diverse backgrounds. My biggest concerns about the processes contained within the bill are how the plans for registering without application are going to take too long, and the government is proceeding too cautiously, too late to have many more people legally entitled to vote registered for the next election, and too late for the next review of parliamentary constituency boundaries, which will draw on data from the 1st of December 2028.

Hence my support for amendment 67 in the name of the Baroness Baroness Lister and my noble friend Lord pack and others. The first and most obvious way in which we can address the underrepresentation of young people is by registering them when they're notified of their National Insurance numbers. The House of Lords Select Committee, which reviewed the impact of individual electoral registration, unanimously recommended that this be done, and I am delighted that the principle had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, whose expertise is very widely regarded in this House, and when it came to debating the idea during consideration of the elections Bill on the 23rd of March 2022, at column 1058, the noble Lady Baroness Hayman of Ullock, speaking from the opposition front Bench, said, and I quote, people are already written to ahead of their 16th birthday with their National Insurance number.

If we can do that, why can we not at the same time have an automatic registration to vote? We have the means to do it. So why do we not just get on with it? My Lords, that is the question that I ask today. A little later, I did win a partial victory on the issue when the noble Lord Lord True eventually accepted from the government benches that a reference to registering to vote could be made with a notification of National Insurance numbers. But my Lords, it was a very pressing reference and the process should not now require specific application.

If the qualifications for registration are satisfied. That is the aim of my amendment 50. A second crucial point at which we can get many more young people registered is when many of them enter higher or further education from the Labour front bench. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, championed the cause of registering students with her usual great skill and determination. That was during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act, 2017. The noble Lady then demonstrated how easy it was and simple to have data sharing agreements between higher education and further education providers and local registration offices.

This would enable students to be enfranchised and help make their legal entitlement to vote a reality. So we are trying again to have that principle adopted via amendment 52. Finally, my Lords, I want to speak to my amendment 61, the issues of electoral registration and constituency boundaries are inextricably linked, although the drafting of this bill means that we are not properly allowed to consider that link. But I would draw the attention of the government and others to this connection. There should be, in my view, consideration about how the measures in this bill will change the data from which the electoral registers are drawn.

The data will change as a result of measures in the Bill, and it will affect the process of revising the constituency boundaries, a process that will begin in two years. The electoral registration data forms the building blocks from which boundary commissions must create constituencies, and they are obliged under the rules, to create constituencies with a very narrow and inflexible margin of difference in the size of the electorates. For each of those constituencies, a slight change to a single constituency boundaries is likely to cause widespread disruption to many other constituencies, breaking them up into pieces, and the failure in the last series of parliaments to address issues of the missing millions from electoral registers, has distorted the map of constituencies.

Millions of young people, private sector tenants and people from diverse communities were left out from the registers. We are now trying to address that. Whether this happened inadvertently or deliberately, the effect of the on the last boundary review was that many more constituencies were created than would be likely to vote conservative, and fewer were created. There would be less likely to vote conservative, so registering many more of these groups will address that unfairness. So I think the government must now consider, if we need to allow the next boundary review to take more time so it is able to work with the most accurate and complete electoral registers every year.

 According to the government's impact assessment, registration levels will rise by around 1.7%, so I hope there will be time for the changes in this bill to feed through to the next boundary review.
19:23
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm delighted to move my amendment 51, but I find myself almost wholly in agreement with Lord Reynolds. Last amendment 61, although I'm bound to say that if the last boundary change was engineered to gerrymander a stonking conservative victory, I have to say rhetorically, how did that go? But seriously, I think there's a meeting of minds between himself and Lord Fuller, my noble friend Lord Fuller, on the issue of National Insurance numbers and registration of younger people. And I do think there might be a consensus on that. And my noble friend made a very powerful and compelling argument for that particular age group.

Now, if I can go back to also 61, I think the clauses 17 to 19 do give rise to long term changes in electorate sizes, and the current obligations of the boundary commissioners do not really take into account what sizeable changes will happen as a result of of automatic voter registration or registration without application. And I think he's right to pinpoint that issue. And it goes to the heart of my amendment 51, which is to ensure that we proceed in an incremental way in if we are to have automatic voter registration and not put a huge obligation on electoral registration officers, the the the amendment said, sorry, the clause 17 is actually quite wide ranging anyway in terms of giving proactive powers to electoral registration officers to register people as they as they see fit.

But the reason I am seeking to remove Commonwealth and Irish citizens is not because I don't think that they value the right to vote and the value ascribed to having the franchise. But I do believe that we should focus on the endemic problem that's. That has been identified for many years under all parties, all governments, which is poor registration of younger people. And that happened under the coalition government. It's happened under Labour government and and under conservative administrations. And that seems to me, the kernel of the issue that we need to be looking at here.

And I'm quite straightforward in saying that, as other countries do with their own citizens, I don't think we should be ashamed in this particular clause to prioritise British citizens. And I do think that if we are if we do have limited resources, we should do so. Now I can debate the situation with the Republic of Ireland and their voters, but it does seem an odd situation that you would not wish to prioritise your own citizens who have constitutional, social, economic links that are stronger than some others. Indeed, the citizens of a foreign country,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

albeit a very long standing neighbour And friend of the United Kingdom,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And friend of the United Kingdom, i.e. the Republic of Ireland. And that's what my amendment seeks to that's what my amendment seeks to do. Under the current electoral law, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland can vote in parliamentary elections. Qualifying means meeting normal age, residence and registration requirements and they will have permission to to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. Specifically for your Lordships' House. This amendment would not change who is legally entitled to vote. However, it would restrict who is automatically registered without an application to those with the strongest constitutional links to the UK.

This would reduce the risk of eligibility verification errors, which would automatically registered individuals who are not legally eligible to vote. And it might be the case, for instance, those on technically non qualifying visiting visas may very well be swept up in the system of automatic voter registration, and perhaps the Minister might address and reassure the House what specific efforts the government are making to ensure that, under automatic voter registration, the correct people are registered. Additionally, the introduction of automatic verification is a novel and untested feature of the bill. This amendment seeks to ensure that it is introduced cautiously to prevent accidental scope creep, and to ensure that its first information is thorough and effective, and only registering those with the genuine legal right to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

So for those reasons, my Lord. And time is of the essence. I'm delighted to propose amendment at 51, and I also support the amendments. In the name of my noble friend Lord.
19:29
19:31
None Portrait Statement: 'Earned Settlement' Lord Collins of Highbury, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Labour)
-

My Lord, I will make a statement on the government's policy of earned settlement. A little over a earned settlement. A little over a month ago at Labour Party conference, the Home Secretary promised we would adopt a policy on promised we would adopt a policy on this issue that is guided above all by fairness. Fairness towards those who come here legally and play their part, and fairness towards British citizens already here who should not be asked to bear a greater burden. It is the responsibility of the Home Secretary to ensure our migration system lives up to that ideal.

Doing so depends upon a contract between those who come and those already here. This country welcomes those who seek a new and better life within it. But I also know there's an expectation of those who do that. They will play their part, contribute to their community, and become part of our national life. If we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxes and universal public services, they must know that everyone is playing their part. Solidarity is the precondition for social justice. Creating a fair immigration system demands reform to settlement, the ability to live in this country forever.

Settlement confers some of the most valuable rights that this country can offer a settlement. A migrant receives the right to free education, our NHS and should they fall upon it, the welfare state. Until now, settlement rights have come at five years, almost exclusively as a result of time spent in this country. It has therefore been a right accrued with little expectation of responsibility. I do not believe this represents true fairness. Instead, I believe these considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met and a contribution has been made. Settlement should not be automatic. It should be earned.

Today, the government publishes a policy called Earned Settlement. It ensures that the period. Someone must live in this country before they settle is determined by the contribution they have made. That starts by setting out clearly what we consider to be disqualifying criteria. Firstly, a criminal record. Secondly, a failure to speak English to a high standard. And thirdly, any unpaid debt to the British taxpayer. And finally, a failure to have made three years of National Insurance contributions. This is the foundation of settlement, the non-negotiable expectations that we make on anyone who seeks to live here permanently.

 For those who clear these bars, settlement then varies based on the contribution made rather than simply time served. This contribution is judged, crucially, not just financially but also in terms of public services, public service. A five year path will remain open to all higher earners on salaries over £50,000 and those who have contributed in healthcare and education in professions like doctors, nurses and teachers. For those who make an exceptional contribution, even faster routes will be available. The highest rate taxpayers earning over £125,000 will, over the course of their lifetime, contribute 1.5 million.

This funds the critical services that many, including the poorest in this country, rely upon. So under these reforms, they will be able to apply for settlement after three years, as will those who arrive on our highest talent schemes. Everyone else will be placed on a ten year path, including those earning less than £50,000. Settlement will still be available to them. They will simply have to show a sustained contribution to this country, and they will be able to renew their existing temporary visas until that point. Conditionality runs both ways. Those who commit an immigration breach will see settlement pushed back to 20 years, while those who have claimed benefits must have had five continuous years without falling on the state before they make their application.

A number of groups will see their path to settlement remain as today. These include Hong Kong British nationals, overseas members of our armed forces, those with the British connection and those on legacy routes such as Windrush. Before we finalise this policy, we took it to the country through a consultation. Over 200,000 people responded and I thank them for doing so. Many of the responses were focussed on one particular group and that is social particular group and that is social care workers. Between 2022 and 2025, 250,000 people and their dependents arrived on or switched into the social care route.

They came at a time when the sector was under considerable pressure following the Covid 19 pandemic, and the unique challenge of that moment. It also. It is also the case, however, that this route was abused. The last conservative government may have talked of restoring control to our borders, but in truth, they lost control entirely. Never was this more obvious than when the shadow Home Secretary was an immigration Minister in the Home Office. Delegations were sent across the country to encourage ever more businesses to sponsor foreign workers, with little apparent interest in their suitability to do so.

As a result, there was significant abuse of the care route, sometimes because of fraudulent and exploitative companies, and sometimes because individuals themselves came here knowing there was no job, they could feel. A fair solution must address both sides of this. Recognising the service of those who cared for our sick and elderly at a time of immense national need, and also addressing the abuse that was present on this route, the government's solution does so in two ways. Firstly, by providing a five year path to settlement for care workers who lived up to the promise they made on coming to this country, worked hard and answered our call when we needed them.

Those who earned £25,000 a year working in the social care sector, which was a condition of their visa, will therefore be able to settle on their existing five year path. The second group, who have not fulfilled the conditions of their visa, represent about a quarter of those who came between 2022 and 2025 or switched into that route. We will offer them a second chance to make the contribution they came to this country to make. They will be able to apply for another five year care visa, and they will not be tied to their old employer, allowing those with rogue sponsors to break away from them.

The government have already stripped around 1800 exploitative employers of their licences, and we are lifting standards in care with our Fair Pay agreement across the sector. The government will now help workers to find a new position with the legitimate provider, and we will give them a longer period of time to do so before their existing visa is curtailed. There remain tens of thousands of legitimate vacancies in the care sector today, so those who seek a new job in care and have the requisite skills should be able to find one at the completion of their new five year visa.

These workers will be able to apply for settlement once more. Everyone will have a fair shot to make their contribution, and no one will be punished for the sins of their employer. But we will also preserve the critical element of this reform. That settlement must be linked to contribution. This same transitional arrangement will be applied to public sector workers in roles identified by the Migration Advisory Committee. In healthcare and education, such as auxiliary nurses, this country has been highly dependent upon them and their contribution will be recognised. These transitional arrangements apply to those who joined before this government published the Immigration White Paper in May 2025.

After that point, as our consultation shows, the government's position of a ten year path to settlement was widely understood. These are exceptional exclusions for exceptional circumstances, and it remains the case that the rules around settlement are determined when settlement decision is made, not at the point when someone arrives. This is a position that is long established in this country, and it is one that has been tested conclusively in our courts. The responses to our consultation focussed also on settlement rights for refugees, and I know people of this country wish to continue welcoming genuine refugees. However, I also know there is nothing fair about allowing unsafe and illegal entry into this country.

It is not fair that our borders are run by people smugglers. It is not fair that women and children are dying in the channel, and it's not fair that after historic levels of illegal arrivals, British citizens are paying £4 billion a year to fund asylum support. So as we open new, safe and legal routes for genuine refugees, we must also discourage dangerous, unsafe and illegal crossings. Settlement plays a part in this. We will place those who come to this country on one of our new, safe and legal routes on a five year path to settlement.

This is as fast a path as higher earners entering the Britain today. At the same time, we will discourage the use of unsafe and illegal routes. The standard qualifying period for all refugees who have not come by safe and legal route will become 20 years. A further ten years will be added for those who entered the country by an illegal method, such as by small boat. We do not. We do want to promote integration into this country for all those who are here. For that reason, those who enter work or study will be able to earn settlement ten years earlier.

 This means a refugee who did not arrive by small boat, who is working or studying could qualify for settlement after ten years. Let us not forget, regardless of the question of settlement, for as long as genuine refugee requires protection in this country, we will provide it. I know the British people's sense of fair play means they welcome refugees and those who seek to contribute to our society once they are here. But at the same time, there is nothing fair about incentivising unsafe and illegal routes into this country, and I will not do that. These reforms are the right thing to do, both morally and financially.

While a full impact assessment will be completed and published as we implement the reforms, our changes ensure that those who are net contributors are encouraged to come to this country and stay here. Meanwhile, the cohort who are most likely to impose a cost at settlement, must instead seek work and meet the conditions of their visa before they can apply. As a result, the Department for Work and Pensions estimates that our reforms will reduce the benefits bill by billions of pounds. This is a solution that is fair for those who come here legally and play their part, and fair to British citizens already here, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden.

 Urban settlement institutes a new paradigm in our migration system, long overdue that one of the greatest rights we can offer now depends on a contribution made and responsibilities met. The right to live in this country forever must now be earned. It will no longer be automatic. It is a fair settlement for all. And so I commend this statement to the House.
19:45
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I thank. >> The noble Lord, the Minister, for bringing the statement to you Lordships House this evening and Lordships House this evening and for the opportunity to ask questions on the statement. My Lords, it has been over a year since the government announced its plans to establish a, and I quote, fairer pathway to settlement. The Home Secretary is to be commended for having the courage to stand up to the open borders. Advocates in her own party. In proposing the original urban settlement plans, and I applauded those plans when they were announced last year, which was being nowhere near strong enough, or at least a serious recognition of the scale of the problem and what needs to be done to solve it.

When the original policy was released, there were no exemptions to the urban settlement route. Yet today we have heard from the Home Secretary. We have heard the Home Secretary has caved in to pressure from those very same open borders, left wingers on her backbenches and indeed in the unions. The result of this climbdown is now over 250,000 low wage care workers and their dependants will get to stay for a minimum of ten years, with many getting settlement in five and almost 75% getting to stay in the country forever. The cost of this reversal are significant.

The Home Office's document, released last year, revealed that the median salaries for care workers on the health and care visa were between 23,000 and £26,000 in the financial year 2020 324, with significantly below the median full time salary of 37,000. The OBR estimated that as a result, they are likely to have a net negative fiscal and economic impact. This is because the amount of tax they will pay will never cover the amount they will take out of the system in NHS costs, education costs if they have children and welfare claims. It is the British taxpayer who will pay for this policy reversal.

That is in no way fair. We have heard the arguments that this large cohort of migrants have contributed to our country, and as such, they seem to have automatically earned the right to stay. But of course, my Lords, many of them have not contributed, at least not fiscally or economically. The Home Office themselves estimated that the total cost of exempting care workers to be approximately £10 billion. My Lords, if these workers intend to keep working in the sector, then I would have thought there should be no issue with having to wait 10 to 15 years like everyone else.

It only becomes an issue if they are using that sector as stepping stones to settlement and ultimately citizenship, and are frustrated at being made to wait to leave their care jobs. They responded to economic incentives, incentives. They were given the chance to come to the United Kingdom to work, and they took it. They are exactly the same as all the other people who have come to our country on work visas. If the government believes it is only fair to require settlement to be earned, then it should be earned for everyone. Exempting this subset of people creates a double standard, and this is particularly true given that only 18% of those who responded to the government's consultation were British citizens.

73% of respondents were current visa holders. And yet the government seems to have taken their opinions to be representative of the entire country. Well, of course, people who are not British citizens would have negative views of the government's original policy because they are the beneficiaries of the current regime. Unfortunately, my Lords, we are now in a situation where our country's immigration policy is being decided based on the views of those who are not even British citizens. Bizarrely, the Home Secretary even said, and I quote, I know the people of this country wish to continue welcoming genuine refugees, end quote.

We have a long history of generosity as a nation, whether that be towards Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 40s, or to families fleeing Putins illegal war in Ukraine. But, my Lords, I would suggest that most people, given the ongoing rate of illegal migration, do not support additional routes through which more refugees will come to Britain. We must get overall migration down before we even consider any loosening of our policy. But it seems to me that there are those in the Labour and indeed the Liberal Democrat parties who would have us believe that ever having had sorry as believed that ever having had a visa, ought to give a person the permanent and irrevocable right to stay in the country.

And this is not how the system works, nor is it how how it ought to work. Being granted a work visa, whether that be a skilled worker or health or care visa is a privilege and not a right. Similarly, being granted indefinite leave to remain as a privilege, not a right. Just because a person has been allowed to come to the country does not mean they have the automatic right to stay here indefinitely. So I wholeheartedly agree with the Home Secretary when she said in her statement, and I quote, settlement has therefore been a right accrued with little expectation of responsibility.

I do not believe this represents true fairness, unquote. The problem, of course, is that she has broken her own test with this climbdown, because now the Home Secretary's test of fairness applies to everyone but care workers, which is not fairness at all. My Lords, it says in the fairer pathway to citizenship document that this is not about assimilation. I disagree. Assimilation into British culture should be the minimum prerequisite for any settlement. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said completely correctly, we may be a multiracial country, but we should not be a multicultural country.

The so-called diversity of cultures is a recipe for disaster. A healthy society is built on trust. My Lords, a shared culture is the underlying source of mutual understanding between groups of people who have no other way of relating to one another. It is in that way a source of trust, and without a single common national culture, and without the trust that flourishes from it, we risk undermining our future as a peaceful, harmonious and functioning society. That is why the debate matters so much. It is not just the fiscal cost of the government's surrender on immigration, although that is significant.

It is the long term social and cultural impacts that matter to and on both these tests. The government has demonstrably, demonstrably failed.
19:52
Lord Foster of Bath Portrait Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah, yeah. >> I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House, and he will know only too well how difficult and complicated issues around migration are. And I certainly saw that during deliberations of a report on immigration being put together by the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, which I have the honour to chair, and certainly not all members agreed with all of our final recommendations. But we were, of course, unanimous as we are on these benches, wanting more action to tackle small boat crossings and the criminal gangs behind them. And so we do welcome the plans for more safe and legal routes.

But on these benches and among many of the committee, one of the greatest concerns about the original proposals from the government were plans to retrospectively change the rules for those already in the country. So we do welcome some of the announcements about retrospection in the statement announcements, which row back from earlier plans, whether they were brought about by our committee's report or by rebellions on the back benches of the Labour Party within the Cabinet, I suppose we'll never know. But it is welcome. It is welcome, my Lords, that some social care workers, those earning £25,000 a year, the BNO visa holders, members of the Armed Forces, the Windrush cohort and others will now have no change to the time taken to get to ILR, and there are other parts of the statement taking family income in the round into account rather than individual incomes, which the committee proposed taking maternity leave into account so that a dropped income during that period doesn't lengthen the time to ILR, and allowing children to climb claim ILR with no rule changes there.

All my Lords, welcome. But there is nevertheless much to be concerned about. Can the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that around half a million people will get settled later than planned, later than they were originally told and promised? Does the noble Lord the Minister, accept that many migrants have made significant long term decisions housing, jobs, children's education and so on, with the expectation of acquiring ILR after five years, so is extending their time retrospectively not a huge broken promise, and not one which will make it much harder for people to settle and integrate if their certainty has been removed.

And on income thresholds. The select committee pointed out that the planned income thresholds, which earn a reduction in qualifying time to ILR, are not linked to migrants net fiscal impact, but instead are set at the higher and upper income tax rate thresholds. As a result, some migrants who are net contributors to public finances would still be required to wait ten years to acquire. ILR. We argue that proposals should focus less on income and more on making a positive contribution. We argue that the income levels, which lead to a reduction in ILR pathway, should not be set according to income tax thresholds, but should be set on the advice of the Migration Advisory Committee.

Can the noble Lord, the Minister, explain why the Select Committee's advice was ignored? Does he not recognise that by sticking with tax thresholds, it means that somebody in London and somebody in Gateshead can be doing exactly the same job, but one be on a five year route and one be on a ten year route. Does the Minister really think that's fair? And there are other concerns about increasing the length to achieve ILR. First, would somebody facing a much longer ILR wait? Not least those facing 30 years do anything other than drop out into the shadow economy and simply stay out of touch with the Home Office?

 And secondly, what incentives are there to make efforts to integrate into our society? And the statement is absolutely silent about crucial issues around that issue of integration. Requiring higher standard of English is all well and good, and we support it. But what is the government doing to boost provision of English language tuition, which is very, very short of supply at the current time? What is it doing about changing the frankly appalling life in Britain's test people understanding of our country when it has questions in the past that have included things like what is the height of the London Eye?

And finally, my Lords, I want to turn to the issue of people now being required to have no debt requirement, including repaying the cost of their asylum accommodation, which will be capped at £10,000. Now, we know, my Lords, that those who are employed eight years after grant, 37% were in full time work, with a median earning of £23,000. With the internal analysis of the published Refugees Integration Outcomes Database showing 40% earned at least the minimum wage. Now, my Lords, I would understand, therefore, that if somebody had £23,000 income, they could perhaps just about pay £100 a month back to the government.

I doubt that's realistic, but let's assume they could. If they could, it would take them eight years and four months to pay back the £10,000 debt, so their ILR time would not be five years, but eight years and four months. And it's very easy to see how much longer it is likely to be. And what is the noble Lords answer to those 60% who aren't earning even at the minimum wage? My Lords, these are issues that simply are not fair. We hope very much on these benches that the government will go away and think again before the final details are published next month.
19:58
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Yeah. their questions and contributions. And, you know, I, I think I've And, you know, I, I think I've pointed out before that what we are addressing here is a mess that was created by the previous government. And I don't want to be too partisan about it, but that is the simple fact. And when the noble Lord said, noble Lord Davis says that, you know, migration, I mean, the simple fact is that we've already cut net migration by 82%. And now what we're doing is setting out a fair solution to the so-called bias wave fair to those who've come here and played their part, and fair to the British citizens who are already here.

So I just want to make that absolutely point, point before I address some of the other questions. Today, the Home Secretary set out a total transformation of settlement, which is no longer automatic based on time served, but is now instead earned based on contribution to this country. And can I point out, I know the Lord foster has reminded us that we conducted a genuine consultation, and we have set out a fair response, fair to those people who came here and played their part and fair to the British citizens already here. The last government lost control of migration system.

Settlement for those who came in those years will now be based on contribution, and not just time served. As a result of these reforms, as the noble Lord foster has pointed out, over 500,000. We expect over 500,000 will settle later. And I think that has been a really important consideration. But as I said in the Home Secretary's statement, we have made a determination that will be affected when people apply, and that has always been the case. So there isn't a retrospection. But I think what we have understood and what the consultation has acknowledged, is that the people who come here came here and played a very necessary contribution.

In a period when this country faced a pandemic has been recognised, and that is really important. I think we have designed a settlement system that rewards those who contribute that is better and less costly system than the one we inherited. I think one of the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Davis, referred to was the question of the 10 billion figure, which was if all social care visas were paid to. And this is not happening. We are setting a test. That means that those most likely to claim will not be getting settlement at five years as a result of our reforms.

As I said, over 500,000 people will need to contribute more and wait longer before settling. And these transitional transitional arrangements will see care workers who are in work are able to reach settlement at five years. Those who are not will have to apply for another five year visa and make the contribution they came here to make before they can apply again. Until that point, they remain with no access to social housing or any other benefit, and DWP estimated savings in the billions to the welfare bill as a result of this policy. So, my Lords, we've taken a fair approach to care workers, those who've answered the previous government's call during Covid worked in this sector and played their full part will be able to settle after five days.

Those who did not will be able to apply for a new five year visa, making a to make that contribution themselves before they can apply again. Now, the noble Lord said that the. The noble Lord, Lord foster, made the point about education and I think the Home Secretary in the other place made clear that we are consulting with all government departments, particularly the Education Secretary, to ensure that that availability of education, support for the English language is there, and we are committed to do that. And our response will be in terms of the implementation of this programme will be to work on an all cross Whitehall basis to ensure that we have a joined up approach, and we will ensure that that applies.

We have made settlement based on contribution, not just on time served as it was under the last government. We have cut cut net migration by 82% below its peak under them. But we will not leave young British people behind, which is why, again point addressed by the noble Lord foster, which is why we are investing an additional 2.5 billion to support almost 1 million young people into education, employment and training. My Lords, this is about getting a system that is fair, and it is a fair system that ensures that we can have the confidence of the British people, something I'm afraid we did not see under the 1414 years of the last government, my Lords.

Well, I.
20:04
20:05
20:07
20:07
20:09
20:10
20:11
20:13
20:14
20:15
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, fortunately, my noble friend is sitting next to me is the Minister for Ford, and he's just Minister for Ford, and he's just spent a week actually ensuring that we collaborate internationally on we collaborate internationally on addressing the issue of fraud. But what this scheme is about is, you know, and we talked about higher tax payers, the the tax brackets, but isn't the only contribution. But they have a net contribution over a period. So they earn that right for settlement. And you know, it is not about wealthy people buying visas. They come here to do very important work.

You know, whether it be in our sciences or in other research areas, we're not talking about, you know, oligarchs. We're talking about people who make a contribution to the United Kingdom's economy. And that contribution through their earnings will be recognised in terms of the ability to seek settled status,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earn it. It's not about buying it. My Lord, I think it is time for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I think it is time for the House to be again in committee on the representation of the people. Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do once again remove itself

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Do once again remove itself into a Committee of the whole House. The question is that the House
20:16
20:17
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
databases to be in use for such registration. Ahead of the 2029 general election. I am grateful to general election. I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Pack noble Baroness Lady Bennet, for her Baroness Lady Bennet, for her support and now also to the noble Lord Lord Rennard. I very much welcome the government's commitment welcome the government's commitment to improving voter registration, which chimed with public opinion as, according to the Electoral Reform according to the Electoral Reform Society, a YouGov poll found that 4/5 of the electorate support automatic registration almost half strongly. So, as the explanatory notes to the Bill note, in 2023, the Electoral Commission reported that an estimated 7 to 8 million eligible citizens were either incorrectly registered or not registered at all.

I have pointed out that young people, renters, working class, minority ethnic citizens are more likely to be unregistered and that electoral turnout is shrinking, particularly among younger, lower income and renter populations. Registration is thus crucial to achieving greater political equality, a point emphasised also by generation rent. We compared badly with other countries, as in most liberal democracies, forms of automatic or assisted voter registration are the norm, and research in 159 countries by the Electoral Integrity Project at the University of East Anglia, shows that it has led to more accurate and complete electoral registration. The project also found that at the 2024 general election, 4/5 of poll workers turned away citizens because they were not registered, although it was usually only a handful of people.

A few workers reported turning away over a hundred. The UEA academics, together with Generation Rent and Unlocked Democracy, criticise the absence of any timetable for the introduction of automatic registration. This is what amendment 67, with the assistance of Unlock Democracy, which supply through the introduction of a clear implementation plan. While amendment 59 helps to inject an element of urgency, the. The amendments would help to meet the aspiration of the Electoral Commission, which. In emphasising the importance of complete and accurate registers to democratic participation, has urged the government to work quickly to introduce automated systems to enable voters to be added to UK parliamentary electoral registers in time for the next general election.

Unquote. Amendment 59 takes up their suggestion that this could be built on existing services such as applying for a passport, updating a driving licence or receiving a National Insurance number at 16, which has been referred to earlier. The government's election strategy, published in July 2025, made it clear that it was planning to deliver significant voter registration improvements, including registration without application, in this Parliament. Yet the briefing on this year's King's Speech suggested that implementation during this Parliament is now unlikely. Where is a sense of urgency when as many as 7 or 8 million of our fellow citizens could remain excluded from full democratic engagement without automatic registration?

These amendments would help to inject it by ensuring a suitably ambitious implementation plan. I quite understand the need to pilot arrangements, but we can learn from others such as Wales, which, with more limited resources, will have their system of automated automated registration ready for May 2027. Despite becoming law less than two years ago. And there will be no compromise when it comes to security and accuracy, as no voter will be registered without the standard checks carried out by the electoral registration officers. As now, the Aeros would have much better and more reliable data to work with.

According to Unlock Democracy, the Electoral Commission, leading academics and international experts all believe automated registration using some government databases, as proposed by amendment 59, is deliverable within two years. Florence Eshalomi MP was sponsoring a timeline amendment to the bill before her promotion to ministerial office. A commitment to a timeline of, or plan of some kind would represent an important statement of intent on the part of the government. If automated registration is not in place by the time of the next election, it could be as long as 2034 before it took effect for a general election.

How many of our fellow citizens would be effectively disenfranchised in the meantime? My Lords, these amendments are designed to support the government's goals. I hope, therefore, that even if my noble friend the Minister cannot accept them, she will give a commitment to bring forward a timetable herself, preferably before Report stage, so that noble Lords can consider it.
20:23
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I agree with the point of my noble friend makes about of my noble friend makes about urgency, but I rise very briefly to support amendment 52, to which I have added my name, and it is virtually the same as an amendment which I moved to the US Higher Education and Research Bill. As the noble Lord Rennard said in 2017. At the time, my amendment was was. It went through. It was adopted at Report stage. I then had negotiations with the government and I agreed to a compromise, the compromise, being rather weaker than my amendment, had been in the first place.

The compromise was to introduce guidance to ensure that there was. The electoral officers were encouraged to to share data with universities so that students could easily be registered, thus maximising the number of young people voting and also ensuring that students could also vote when an election took place during term time. I know that many universities or some universities, this happens whereby students are automatically registered or semi automatically registered when they register at university, but it's certainly not happening in every university, and I think it should be mandatory in every university. Hence my support for this amendment.

I have one question for my noble friend, the Minister, in terms of automatic registration, when automatic registration comes in, does it mean that a student, for example, would automatically be registered both at their home and in their university? They've got the option to vote either or. And I think it's important that they should be registered as soon as possible in both places.
20:24
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. >> I want to rise to speak to my amendment 47. Through this amendment, I am seeking safeguards amendment, I am seeking safeguards that would require the verification of nationality and immigration status before an individual is status before an individual is automatically added to the electoral register. I fully recognise and uphold the importance of ensuring that every person who is legally entitled to vote should have the uninterrupted, uninterrupted, uninterrupted opportunity to register and to participate fully in our democratic process. That is a fundamental right and has long distinguished us internationally. There is an equally important principle, however, which I fear risks being overlooked in this bill that only those who are legally entitled to vote should be entered onto the electoral register in the first place.

And I fear, my Lords, that left unamended. This part of the Bill weakens the integrity of the elections for currently clause 17, the Bill introduces a significant change to our electoral arrangements and would place a duty upon electoral registration officers to register individuals automatically where certain conditions are met, without those individuals having to make an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

application to register themselves. While I recognise that there could be a potential Of administrative benefit in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of administrative benefit in this. It is for your Lordships to ask whether the safeguards accompanying this fundamental change are robust enough, especially when it comes to establishing nationality and establishing nationality and immigration status. The government, in presenting clause 17 are in presenting clause 17 are attempting to allow for the modernisation of the system, and I welcome that. But I caution that modernisation must never come at the expense of electoral integrity, and that operational convenience must never take precedence over establishing voter eligibility. Therefore, through this amendment, I am seeking to introduce an additional safeguard that will require an Electoral Registration Officer to positively verify that the person satisfies the relevant nationality requirements and, where applicable, the necessary immigration status before that person is registered.

The parliamentary franchise rightly extends to Irish citizens, together with qualifying Commonwealth citizens, different nationality and residency requirements apply to other elections and individual immigration status status may determine whether they qualify for that registration. A person, for example, may be lawfully resident in the United Kingdom in employment, paying taxes and accessing public services without necessarily being entitled to vote in a particular election. That's not a criticism of the individual. It's simply a recognition that lawful residence and electoral entitlement are not the same thing. It is precisely why we must make sure this bill distinguishes itself between varying, varying someone's identity and their electoral eligibility.

A government database may confirm somebody's name, address and date of birth, and National Insurance number may assist in establishing identity, but neither by itself necessarily establishes nationality or entitlement. I have tabled this amendment as I am concerned that as government moves towards an automated system, we risk treating the existence of an administrative record as sufficient evidence of electoral eligibility. Indeed, my Lords, the Electoral Commission has itself emphasised that the success of registration will depend entirely upon the accuracy and reliability of the underlying data, so that only eligible individuals are registered. Having been around the upper echelons of government and local governments through much of my adult life, I must confess that an unquestioning faith in the accuracy of government held data is something I have not been able to acquire.

There is. This is not a question. The dedication of any officials who maintain the system. But what my experience over the years has taught me is that our systems are far from infallible. My Lords, I also appreciate the responsibilities already placed upon the Electoral registration officers. They have a mammoth task of maintaining the accuracy and completeness of the registers, often against a background of considerable administrative and financial pressure caused by local government funding. My amendment is not intended to place further obstacles in their path. Quite the opposite. It would establish a statutory requirement supported by prescribed evidence or information lawfully obtained from public authorities.

My Lords, I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could address three questions. First, what arrangements will exist to distinguish between a person's identity and their legal entitlement to vote when records are obtained from government departments and other public bodies? Secondly, will electoral registration officers have timely access to the information necessary to verify immigration status? Where there is, where it is relevant and who will bear the administrative cost? Thirdly, what safeguards will prevent an individual from being entered onto a register for an election in which they are not legally entitled to participate? I put it to your Lordships that these are not constitutional niceties.

 These are the questions that go to the very heart of public confidence in our electoral system. And we must remember that confidence in our elections depend not upon ensuring that legitimate voters are included, but also upon ensuring that the rules governing eligibility are properly and consistently enforced. The right to vote is fundamental in our democracy, and it can't be. And it's too important to be established by assumption. If the government is determined to automate registration, then it will also be determined to guarantee the integrity of the process. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will recognise the importance of this distinction and give consideration to the safeguard I have proposed.
20:31
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I think the motivation by Lord >> I think the motivation by Lord Udny-Lister is very important and in fact it relates also to the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough comments earlier on amendment 51. Just in terms of absolutely ensuring that eligibility is strictly adhered to, there can be nothing more destructive of Democratic trust than believing that there is anyone playing fast and loose with who is allowed to vote in an election. And we've just sat through a statement about the new immigration status and the various degrees of it. That was incredibly complicated. That will have to be taken into account in terms of eligibility, and we have to be confident the system can cope with it.

In that spirit, I thought that the noble Lord Lord Fuller had done us a real favour earlier when he talked about the nuts and bolts of specifically how we deal with the fact that children will now be voting, inasmuch as they will not necessarily have at their fingertips the usual adult forms of ID, as he illustrated rather wittily and very well. And I was rather disappointed that the noble Lord Lord Brennan was so cynical that he saw that these comments were somehow partisan. In fact, I thought that cynicism by the noble Lord Lord Rennard was itself rather partisan rather than anything else.

 Because I think it's really important that if you are going to extend the franchise in the way that we've been discussing, that we ensure that that franchise is is strictly an absolutely foolproof and safe worthy. Because one of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Reynolds said was, surely we want as many people to vote as possible. Well, in that sense, you could just carry on expanding the franchise ever younger. But you could also just say anybody who happens to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

wandering in can have a oh. Just for a second. I was absolutely crystal clear in what I absolutely crystal clear in what I was saying was all those people legally entitled to vote legally legally entitled to vote legally entitled is very important and a part of the principle of everything I have argued for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have argued for. Clarification. Understood. Then I would refer the noble Lord to to I would refer the noble Lord to to consider that the noble Lord Fuller was trying to ensure that people who were entitled to vote were checked up upon. The accusation was that he was somehow trying to limit the franchise by only allowing. And that was I was defending him in in in relation to that point. Moving on. And actually, I wanted to ask the noble Lady, the Minister, and I know it relates to a government amendment that was in an earlier group, but I we've kind of run out of time.

But it does relate to this, which is registration officers are now going to have to obtain information about are going to be given the right to obtain information. About 14 and 15 year olds and throughout the land, and to retain that information for use when inviting them to then register to vote. I thought the point about government's government's history any government not making a sectarian point, history of looking after data and keeping it safe was a point worth noting there, but especially children's data, if it's been gathered up. But could the noble Lady explain in relation to those register registration officers collecting that data, then how that whether there will be some consideration of the noble Lord Fuller's suggestion of using National Insurance numbers?

I thought that was a really good one, and I'm really asking the government if they're open to detailed discussions on the nuts and bolts of how we're going to make this work, both in relation to immigration status and in relation to the expanded franchise for young 16 year olds. Will there be an opportunity, or is there plans to really ensure that this is watertight? Because just to reiterate, if people believe that elections are happening but are not safe in terms of people being able to vote, they are not strictly checked on or registered, then it will undermine democracy.

And I know that that is the very opposite of what the government aim to do.
20:36
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lord, I. >> My Lord, I. >> Rise very briefly, having signed three amendments in this group 52, three amendments in this group 52, 59 and 67. And all of these address the issue of the missing millions, a phrase that's been used multiple a phrase that's been used multiple times in this debate. And it is a real scar on our polity and a reflection of inequality in our society, and inequality in access to participation in the democratic process. Just very briefly on 52, I have to commend the noble Lady Baroness Royall for her previous work in this area.

And really, it's time we saw this finally nailed on, which is what this amendment does. But I just want to focus particularly on the two amendments in the name of the Lady Baroness Lister. And I think we really suffer. We have a great deal of distrust in our politics, comes from the fact that we have seen a great deal of successive governments, Ministers getting up and saying, look, I've pulled a lever. And everyone knew that that lever was not attached to anything. Promises were made and not delivered. And just two are cases that particularly come to my mind.

Sustainable urban drainage systems promised in planning. Still not delivered. Promise to exclude at least illegal deforestation from the supply chain. Again. Still not delivered. We need to see not just the government making promises, but the government setting out a reasonable time frame for delivery. And as the noble Lady Baroness Lister said, Wales is showing that it can be done, which is an interesting cross-reference to our earlier debate of the ways in which the devolved nations can be a real model from which England can learn and save itself a great deal of work and effort by seeing what works and just copying it.
20:37
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I Lord Stoneham. >> Have put down a general. Clause, stand part clause 17 stamp part. And it's about trying to understand And it's about trying to understand the pros and cons of automatic voter enrolment. So right at the voter enrolment. So right at the last election we had 48.2 million, about 3 million people registered in about the month beforehand. When the election happened. So that's about 7%. But it's about 4500 person per constituency on average. I'm sure it differed. I mean, candidly, that included the person who is now the MP for Suffolk Coastal who defeated me, who managed to declare themselves to be resident in that constituency before they were actually on the electoral roll.

So there's something here about how do we get the real authenticity of people registering. And that's where I'm getting into the pros and cons. There's a lot to be said for not having a huge rush at the last moment of what is going on in terms of people registering, but there's also something about getting it right now. I'm conscious that the pilots that happened in Wales, we saw something like between 2 and 8% increase through the automatic process, and admittedly, it was only a handful of parts of Wales that were covered. But basically 14,500 people were added on through the automatic process.

And there was a lot of manual checking. I don't know the cost of that. The Electoral commission said. I think it needs to be evaluated on really how much that was costing, but I think it's worthwhile trying to get a sense of what happens in a regular process. Actually, around the country, where people have second homes, when you're applying in the normal way. Actually, a lot of people of those second home owners get turned down because it's not their principal residence. And I'm actually I'm actually discussing students and children at boarding school in a different set of amendments.

So I won't get into that right now. In detail. But on the broader scale, thinking that in the. I think the review after the last election was an estimated anywhere between 7 and 8 million had not registered, were not people had not registered. There is actually already a law in this country that people are supposed to register, and the council, if they so wish, can pursue them with a fine of £1,000 per person, having not registered. Now, I'm not suggesting that councils are going to start trying to generate lots of money, although it feels like a lot of money could be generated if that was the case in those councils.

But to think about how we do this in a sensible way, and that's why I think there's an element of overambitious ambition. It's not overambition, but how accurate is it going to be? Now, other amendments have talked about DWP issuing information to other to electoral registration officers. I think the amendment where it refers to those that have been issued in the last year to be sent on, is fine. Actually, HMRC is responsible for having the National Insurance Database. They're the guardian of it overall. What happens with DWP is linked to what happens. And those people, by the way, who've not claimed child benefit, for example, that doesn't happen.

You end up going through a manual process of trying to get your Nino. But the broader point here is coming back to accuracy. And that leads on to. So what's going to happen if we suddenly have this huge expansion of the electorate about who's actually really entitled to vote in that place? And I think research has shown it's often people who've moved during the year and may end up being registered in more than one place. It becomes an issue. How does this get resolved? How does it get resolved that what's supposed to happen is that it's your principal place of where you live when it comes to parliamentary voting, anyway, is where the only place you're allowed to be registered.

And this is a very strict guidance actually, from government and also from the Electoral Commission, that this is the case for local registration officers. My concern is that what often happens with the rush at the end is none of that is gone through. So we end up having a lot of people registering in places where if they'd registered in normal time, actually their registration may be turned down because it wasn't their principal place of residence. So there is a risk of overinflating the electorate. And what does that then mean for consideration of constituency boundaries? I think it's cities, London, Westminster.

I think another one is Leeds Headingley. And of course these often match up to university towns. And places of transit where people may move. OK. Things might change after the Rent Reform Act, but I think this is something the government really needs to think through. I'd be grateful to hear from the Minister what lessons it has learned from the Welsh Government pilots, what how it intends to do. Accuracy. Forgive me. I've got some questions on my phone, which I'm just locating now. But I think there's a case here of rushing to an outcome which actually, instead of improving democracy, could significantly undermine it.

So I'd be grateful, as I say, to hear from the Minister on what it is that they are doing to manage the risks, as well as big up the the benefits. What guarantees will prevent personal information supplied to HMRC, DWP or DVLA, for example, from being disclosed to the Electoral Register, who bears legal responsibility? If somebody is incorrectly registered or indeed omitted and or indeed registered of an address where they're not actually entitled to vote, and we'll automatically created registrations at secondary addresses, be excluded from constituency electorate calculations where appropriate. I think, most importantly of all, what level of erroneous registration would the government consider acceptable?

How will they measure that and how will they address it? This is why I think on the surface, it may seem very convenient to have automatic voter registration, but when we're talking about the integrity and ultimately deciding who forms a parliamentary constituency, who forms a government, I think actually a lot more detail needs to be had than what we have in this bill today.
20:45
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. Can I follow on from my noble friend's comments just now? noble friend's comments just now? And it picks up this question that Baroness Royall referred to earlier, which is this question of at least double, if not treble registration. Baroness Royall said that she hoped that all universities and academic centres will ensure that they have the maximum list, maximum registration of people resident resident in that town or city as voters. But those people will have a home residence as well. And therefore what one's actually doing is inflating the electoral roll in university cities to the disadvantage of those communities in other parts of the country which do not have university cities nearby.

Lord Rennard made reference to boundary reviews, and he also made reference to political advantage. Well, I must admit I admire him enormously in his comments about parliamentary boundaries in these circumstances, because the places which will, under automatic registration with the likes of high levels of student registration, the areas that will benefit are the big cities, the London's, the Manchester's, the Birmingham's. As he explained to his Lib Dem colleagues in the likes of Wiltshire and Somerset that come the next boundary review, actually there'll be fewer constituencies in Somerset and Wiltshire and Dorset and the other similar counties like Gloucestershire, a fair number of whom, much to my chagrin, currently have rather large numbers of Liberal Democrat MPs.

But I make the point quite seriously that if one is going to include all those people who register for a second residence, you will be expanding the electoral rolls quite dramatically in London and Manchester and Birmingham to the disadvantage of the shire counties, and I do not think that's an appropriate route to go. I do think there may be solutions where people register their first home, and the second residence is not included. For example, for parliamentary boundary revision. But we cannot have a position whereby large numbers of people are registered to the disadvantage of resident communities in the neighbouring shire counties.

Now, I make these comments on the basis that I've heard from a number of people, and particularly including the Liberal Democrats, that they want free and fair elections. Well, free elections is that people should be allowed to register to vote themselves. Encouraged, yes, but they should have the freedom not to do so. Now, the bill goes through an inordinate great length of saying, oh, well, we'll register everybody. And if you don't want to be on the electoral roll, you can deregister. But it is a pretty tortuous process involved and with large numbers of people who genuinely want to hide where they are for a whole series of reasons.

 And we, I say take, for example, abused women as a case in point. They're going to be on the electoral roll, and it won't be a case of, oh, we'll take you off immediately, because the people won't know that they're on until they're notified that they're on. Which takes me to another point, which is we've got to register all these people so that we can improve turnout. Well, actually, might it not be a good idea if politicians and I include ourselves in that category, and those in the other chamber improved their reputation with the public at large, so that those people wanted to turn out to vote?

Talking of which, the government actually has a very good website where you can register to vote. I could walk out of this chamber now and register immediately. People might wonder whether I hadn't got something better to do on Saturday evening, but I actually went on the site. And what astonished me was that 54 people had registered in the last few minutes. I challenged noble Lords to go on. On Christmas Day. They will be astonished how many people actually registered to vote on Christmas Day and Boxing Day. It is not that difficult. Baroness Coffey made the reference just now to.

In an election period, 2.8 million people registered to vote 2.82.9. Just between the two. The problem there is that actually some 40% of those people were already registered. One thing that we haven't done, I think very much so far today is pray. Pray, played enough, paid enough credit to both the public bill office here in the House of Lords for the speed with which they've drafted our amendments and ordered them, but also the day to day work of returning officers around the country. I shall return to this subject at a later point, but they do a phenomenal job.

And during an election where you have 2.8 million people registering extra to vote, which is to say, seems to show that it's not that difficult to do it. And by the way, if all these students who are moving off to university are so unable to go on to a website, I have a serious doubt that some of them should actually be at university in the first place. But the burden of the 40% of the people who registered at the last election, who were double registered, imposed an enormous burden on the returning officers. I have asked over and over again that we should move to a read only access process.

In other words, that if Robert Hayward wants to check whether he's on the electoral roll, he just goes on the website, has a password and can check that he is there, instead of which, because governments of all persuasions have refused to introduce a read only system, we impose a burden on returning officers, which is unacceptable at the time of an election when they are trying to administer all sorts of other things, and it's not difficult. We've been told by government and by officials over and over again, it's an expensive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and difficult process. Is it local authorities? I give way. I think you've highlighted very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think you've highlighted very correctly, my noble friend, how the process actually works. If you go process actually works. If you go on the gov website and so many of the district councils that or the other local councils who are registration authorities have their registration authorities have their own skin. On that same machine. own skin. On that same machine. When you type in your name and you put your date of birth and your National Insurance number, the system goes automatically to the HMRC and the DWP to validate you before you've even pressed the button. They will validate you almost immediately.

And I think the point you're making, which is absolutely the correct point, is having this unique identifier, the National Insurance number, or some other method that might be defined by regulations, gives an absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unambiguous way of determining whether you've got a duplication or not. I know my friend for his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know my friend for his slightly longer intervention than I'd hoped for, since I want to keep I'd hoped for, since I want to keep to my time, but say it's there is a system. We were told it's system. We were told it's impossible. But what of the Northern Irish done? The Northern Northern Irish done? The Northern Irish introduced a system of read only and they've done it themselves without any problem, and it operates effectively in Northern Ireland. So massive changes what I believe are unnecessary changes. Yes, advertise and I am I say massive changes without great benefit.

And I'm quoting here now from the impact assessment to which I may return on another occasion. But on page 101 it says, we assume that the completeness of registers will increase by three percentage points from 85.9 to 88.9 by the end of a ten year period. We're going through all these changes for that. And just in conclusion, I must pick up Lord Rennard on his comments earlier on about my support for automatic registration. I believed that I had made absolutely clear that I support it for retainers, whatever they may happen to be, whatever age, because I want to introduce them to the democratic system thereafter.

I do not support automatic registration for that very small gain.
20:55
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Oates. I think we've heard two interesting contrasting themes two interesting contrasting themes in this group from some of us who are very keen on automatic voter are very keen on automatic voter registration and want to see it introduced sooner and better, and those who are nervous about the potential implications of automatic voter registration. So I think it's worth starting with a little recap of the reasons why something like automatic voter registration is required, particularly as Lord Hayward very eloquently put, as it were, the case against in many respects. Partly, I think it's because making good use of data is, when done well, an effective way of improving services and reducing administrative burdens.

And indeed, it's worth contrasting how a registration process would start under AVR with the current system, because, as several noble Lords have expressed concerns about how a database may result in registrations flowing from that data. But remember, under the current system, anyone can request and be sent a paper form that they can fill in without having to provide a National Insurance number. And that, under our existing system, is enough to start the process rolling for registration. So actually relying on if we are relying on the right good quality data sets is a much more secure starting point than anyone being able to request a paper form that anyone could fill in.

And I think it's, it's also worth bearing in mind that just the whole way the current system works, I think was very well described by one of the sort of international experts in, in elections which were lucky to have in this country, professor Toby Jones, who called it a Victorian system in need of repair. And I think that this bill's efforts to repair that are very welcome. And a good example of that is this very surge in registration applications that we typically have in the run up to a general election, because the Electoral Commission's latest research estimated that between 7 and 8 million people are either missing from the electoral register or registered at the wrong address.

So there is a substantial problem that needs addressing. And we've heard how in the run up to a general election, like, for example, last time there was a surge of nearly 3 million applications. As rightly pointed out, many of those were in fact duplicate applications. So when you strip those out from the numbers and compare that to the 7 or 8 million missing and wrong addresses on the register, even that general election surge isn't really getting us that far towards fixing the problem. So action is needed. Now, of course, we shouldn't therefore think that any action is therefore wise, but I hope therefore we will hear positive noises from the government, particularly on amendments 49, 50 and 52 from Lord Rennard and Wallace and Baroness Thornhill, Royal and Bennett, all of which in different ways would improve the supply of data into the system.

 There's also my amendment 58 to provide ward level data, which I think is important, particularly actually with local government reorganisation increasing the size of many councils. Council level data doesn't won't really tell us how well or how badly registration systems are working in future. We need that data at ward level. We need it to understand how the system's working. We need it for researchers and experts to work out. Figure out are the promises being delivered. We need it for the campaigners of all parties, and none who are in some ways trying to improve involvement and engagement with democracy, to be able to see where their efforts are most needed.

 And we need it for media and indeed US politicians to be able to understand how systems are working. Turning to some of the other amendments in this group. Amendment number eight from from Lord Fuller. I must admit I'm not convinced by the case that that the noble Lord made, because under the current system, with a voting age of 18, we register retainers some age 16 and most age 17. So the current system is that some people who are two years below the age for voting do get registered as retainers, and that's because of the use of the 1st of December cut off date in the following one year window, which means some people may be more than one year away and need to be in the records.

So if we're changing 18 to 16, it seems to be absolutely sensible that 17 and 16 in turn also get reduced by two years to 15 and 14. And therefore actually, I think Lord Fuller amendment with respect would achieve the opposite of what he he argued for, because we have an existing system that is well established that people are used to using, that works, and by reducing the years across the board, we are essentially transferring the existing system over to the new voting age, rather than creating a new system that wouldn't work. With that 1st December window and following 12 month period.

But I certainly think Lord Fuller made some good points on his amendment nine. And indeed, I hope, if we're interested to hear what the noble Lady the Minister has to say on how we can best ensure that the right data is available, because I think it's fair to say what we've heard from the government so far on on how data from educational institutions may be used is not yet fully fleshed out in huge levels of detail. I should also just touch on amendments 47, 51 and 62, all of which in different ways express, dare I say it, a slight fear of what might happen with automatic voter registration and wanting to put in extra safeguards for particular particular groups.

But again, I would make that contrast with how the existing system works, where anyone can request a form where you're not required to provide a national insurance number, or for myself at least, I think therefore the case is not made that actually a system based on data run by someone else is somehow less secure than the current system, and therefore needs those additional safeguards targeting particular groups. And I think the key thing, therefore, is not just to get AVR introduced and introduced well, but for this not to be something that is some very slow moving, long running process, I think we all hope that AVR will be in place before HS2 gets completed.

And therefore, if I turn to amendments 59 and 67, one of which is in my name and which both is Baroness Lister and Bennett have spoken to, I think it is important for there to be a little bit of pressure on the government to move at a reasonable speed, not a reckless speed, but a reasonable pace, particularly, as Lord Rennard has pointed out. And indeed Lord Dixon agreed with Lord Rennard on at least this point. We do have at some point, Parliamentary boundary review's coming, and part of the very logic for automatic voter registration in terms of improving the register is about improving that core basic data that parliamentary boundary reviews have to use, and therefore it is important that we have that data in as good a state as possible by the time we get to parliamentary boundary review.

So I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that topic.
21:03
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. and 63 in my name and my noble friend Lord Jamieson, and to address the wider concerns raised by amendments in this group, the fundamental question before us is not whether electoral registration should be accessible. Of course it should be. It's whether the government's proposals for automatic registration will maintain the accuracy and the integrity of the electoral register, as a number of colleagues have referenced tonight, individual electoral registration was introduced to ensure that people were properly identified and that responsibility for registration rested with the individual. Some areas have been particularly successful in ensuring a good level of registration.

The government's now proposed to move away from that principle without having demonstrated that automatic registration will provide equivalent safeguards. Therefore, amendment 48 would require a person's existence to be verified against three separate data sets before they are automatically registered. My noble friend Lord Fuller referenced my own surname earlier on, and the variance that you can get in different registers. Some databases don't acknowledge apostrophes. They certainly can't cope with two capital letters allied one one another. And therefore, you know, for a fairly simple name, as I would think it, you will get different variations coming out.

So I think that it's really important to recognise that not all databases are the same. It's a modest safeguard against what's a substantial change. Government databases do contain errors, and this is particularly prevalent in areas with high population turnover, including student accommodation and the private rented sector. And it could possibly lead to postal and proxy voting fraud. The noble Lady Royal earlier referenced students at university. You're absolutely right. But can you can go one step further. Would it be the university building or would it be the halls of residence or wherever their accommodation is? So you've got a number of different variants there that could cause issues.

And an inaccurate register is not simply an administrative inconvenience. It creates an unnecessary risk for the integrity of the entire voting process. There's a possibility that certain parts of the electorate could vote twice in the same election, by virtue of having two different registered addresses, or indeed even more. In short, this bill creates unnecessary risks for the integrity of the polling process. Therefore, can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us precisely which databases will be used for automatic registration? How will their accuracy be assessed, and why does the government consider verification for verification through fewer than three independent data sets sufficient.

The euros, we believe, should have access to database information. And I'll also agree with my noble friend Lord Hayward, that the Aeros are certainly professions that should be should be called out for their professionalism, but also their amount of service. And I think that's worth putting on record. Most importantly, will the electoral registration officers retain the discretion to refuse automatic voter registration where necessary? For example, if information is incomplete or indeed contradictory, as I've said earlier, I turn now to amendment 63, which would make clear that the proposed voter registration pilot powers cannot be used to alter the franchise for the parliamentary or English local elections.

There is an important distinction distinction between determining how an eligible person is registered and determining who's entitled to vote. The latter should be decided through primarily primary legislation and full parliamentary scrutiny, not merely through powers designed to test administrative arrangements. Will the noble Baroness Minister confirm that these pilots will not extend or alter voter voting eligibility? If automatic registration is introduced in some areas and not in others, registration figures may cease to be comparable and then arbitrarily based on some parts of the population. Does this not seek to prioritise some parts of the population over others?

Test only their opinion rather than the whole electorate. This could distort the 2029 parliamentary boundary review and the 2028 mayoral elections. Can the government guarantee that pilot locations and selection criteria will be published, and that their effects independently evaluated? I welcome my noble friend Lord Lister's amendment, which rightly seeks to address the verification of nationality and immigration status that is essential possession of a National Insurance number, or including inclusion in a government database, does not in itself establish your entitlement to vote. The rules governing qualifying Commonwealth and EU citizens are not straightforward, and an automated system must be capable of applying them correctly.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what steps the government are taking to ensure that checks will be undertaken against Home Office records before an individual is registered, and who will be accountable when an illegible person is added? Will it be the Secretary of State? These questions are echoed by my noble friend Lord Jackson, who proposes that an automatic registration should be restricted to British citizens. There are practical concerns. Does the noble Baroness accept this, and will she consider these sensible amendments? Moreover, my noble friend Lord Fuller highlights that if votes are introduced at 16, then younger voters who are registered at 15 will not meet the National Insurance criteria.

Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us how their identity will be verified? Where National Insurance National Insurance information is unavailable? He referenced the manual intervention required and how many hours extra work that might need for validation. The amendments concerning implementation tables, information sharing and independent assessment also deserve careful consideration. The government's own impact assessment anticipates only a limited improvement in register completeness over the over several years, while significant costs associated with the necessary computer system remains uncertain. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, provide an estimate of the full cost to the local authorities, including software staff training, data checking and correcting erroneous entries?

Who will bear those costs? I appreciate the noble Baroness may not have all the answers with her today, so I would accept a response in writing. My Lords. The objective should not simply be to produce a larger electoral register, a register containing more names with the risk of more errors does not represent progress. Administrative convenience should not take precedence over proper determination of electoral eligibility. Amendments 48 and 63 seek to establish two essential protections reliable verification before automatic registration and a clear constitutional limit on the use of pilot powers. I hope the Minister will address these concerns in detail, because public confidence in our elections depends not only on participation, but on the integrity of the system through the integrity of the system through which the participation takes place.
21:12
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> Are it's been a really useful debate. A lot of technical questions. I'll do my best to get through all of them, but I'll start with amendment eight and nine, which would change the age at which individuals can register to vote to 15 and change the age at which National Insurance numbers are issued. My Lords, we will all agree that no young person should miss the opportunity to participate in an election for the first time, because there was insufficient time to be correctly registered to vote. By extending the age of registration to 14, this two year window for registration ahead of turning 16 also allows for the enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, beginning with the act of registering the vote.

I recognise the noble Lords concern that 14 and 15 year olds will not yet have their National Insurance numbers. I understand the issue. At 15 years and nine months, but National Insurance numbers are automatically allocated to most young people in the UK before the age of 16. This age is set in line with the age at which young people become liable to pay National Insurance contributions, and the creation of an adult taxpayer record. Let me reassure the House that we will put in place an alternative mechanism using central government data in England, to ensure 14 and 15 year olds are able to proceed effectively through the registration service.

I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendments on amendment 47. I share the determination that only those who are eligible should be registered, and I reassure the House that, as set out in the bill, a rose must be satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered to vote before they are. Before they are registered with. With an application that includes assurances that the whole eligible nationality and, where relevant, immigration and were relevant immigration status. What data will the government use as part of the the measures to improve voter registration? I think Lord Woodley Lister mentioned this is set out in the government's policy paper, A blueprint for a Modern Digital Government technology presents us with the opportunity to improve the way that government delivers for the public.

And in line with this vision, our ambition is to transform our electoral registration system, enabling arrows to use data that is available to them to move towards an automated system so voters can easily register to vote and keep their registration details updated. We are exploring if government data could could also help identify people who may not be registered, and we are working closely with the Information Commissioner's Office to ensure that appropriate safeguards are going to be in place. Electoral register offices are responsible for determining eligibility for direct registration. They must be satisfied that a person is entitled to be registered before adding them to the register, if the available evidence is sufficient and they are or should not issue a notice of direct registration, and the arrow will be held responsible for that.

We are considering carefully with the election administration sector, which data sources electoral registration offices will be able to use to provide evidence of entitlement. Further detail will be set out in secondary legislation under the Affirmative Procedure in Guidance. Electoral registration officers already have powers to seek further information or documentary evidence where they are not satisfied as to the person's nationality or immigration status. They may also request that a person's immigration status is checked against Home Office records, and we are working with the Home Office on this. At the moment, in detail, amendment 48 would require an electoral registration officer to verify a person's existence through three separate databases.

 Data set sorry. Before they could be registered without an application, and I share. And I share the noble and noble Lords commitment to ensuring that only those who are eligible are added to the electoral register. However, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary under the provisions in the Bill. An arrow must only directly register someone where there are satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. The government does not consider it appropriate to specify in legislation a minimum number of data sets that should be used to determine someone's existence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But gives the Electoral Commission, in its evaluation of the Welsh Government's pilot, said it should be a minimum of two it should be a minimum of two databases, so I'm just interested to hear why they haven't taken at least notice of what the Electoral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Commission has to say. Basically, what we're saying here is that the that that we don't want to legislate for a minimum number of data sets that should be used to determine someone's used to determine someone's existence, the level of assurance provided by dataset will depend on its quality and the information it contains. In some cases, 1 or 2 robust data sets may provide sufficient evidence that individuals are entitled to be registered, but others may not. Requiring our arrows to consult additional data sets in every case could therefore impose unnecessary administrative burdens without improving confidence in the outcome.

 I hope this assurance shows the House that the government is fully committed to maintaining the integrity of the electoral register, and that they will feel able to withdraw their amendments. Amendment 49. My Lords, I welcome the intention behind amendment 49. The government is committed to work together. Work towards making better use of data across government for registration purposes. But we do not believe that creating a new obligation for the Department of Work and Pensions is necessary or would achieve the desired outcome. We intend to utilise the powers in the Bill to make regulations to facilitate the sharing of data between government bodies and assist arrows in carrying out their functions on the basis of agreed data sharing arrangements.

As part of this, we are exploring the use of DWP data. The MCHLG already has a successful agreement in place with the DWP to check the identity of individuals applying to register to vote, and we are exploring the potential to make greater use of DWP data for registration purposes. However, we know that the Dups data base include. National Insurance data does not hold all the data required to determine eligibility for registration. Therefore, we could not solely rely on the DWP data for those reasons. It does not think the government does not think this proposal is the right way forward.

Turning. Sorry, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just purely to help with my understanding as we go through this, because we're talking about auto because we're talking about auto enrolment, auto registration, which effectively means that we have an electronic system which will review electronic system which will review a series of databases and will then throw out. Right. You know, Fred throw out. Right. You know, Fred Smith should be eligible to vote in this this area. Now for in order to this this area. Now for in order to do that, you are going to have to program the system and the guidelines will be within the system.

It can't be up to the electoral registration officer to just have a whole lot of data thrown at them, which they then have to manually trawl through. So I not necessarily to answer today, it would be quite helpful to have a flow chart of how you envisage the auto enrolment, working with the data coming in, and what the system will throw out that the that the returning officer will then have to review because you're making comments. If the returning officer is not certain, well, he can only be certain or she sorry. Based on the information fed into the database and fed out.

So I, I, I appreciate all the statements he's made, but that sort of flow through I find a little hard. And I think it would be very helpful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

members of the House if they had that guidance and flow through of the system. No, this is the guidance is something that we are working on. something that we are working on. But at the same time, we're going to set off with a whole series of pilots to work out what works, what pilots to work out what works, what doesn't work, how we can improve it. And if you look at other countries, such as Canada, for example, they such as Canada, for example, they started this whole process in the 1990s for for automatic enrolment and the improving the system all the time.

And at the end of the day, if there is a problem with the ER or can make the final decision, if they thinks that that the information that is going to base decisions on is not accurate enough. Turning to amendment 50, we have explored the possibility of using the occasion of issuing of National Insurance numbers teenagers, when they are approaching their 16th birthday as an opportunity to register them to vote. However, I understand that nationality is not routinely recorded against all entries in the DWP data. In addition, not all young people are on the D, w, d DWP database.

For example, due to having been in care or their parents have not even applied for child benefit in line with the powers proposed in the bill. Individuals will also need to be of voting age, which for reserved elections is currently 18 and soon to be 16, before there could be added to the register without submitting an application once the relevant provisions are in effect. For these reasons, while sympathetic to their intentions, the government has serious concerns for this approach. The effect of this approach amendment 51, prevents non-British citizens who are eligible to register to vote from being registered without an application or their entry altered without an application.

Amendment 62 also seeks to extend this exclusion to any pilots of registration without application. The government has no plans to change the eligibility criteria for who can register to vote in reserved elections. We also do not think it would be fair to establish an automated voter registration system, in which some eligible citizens cannot be directly registered, or their details directly updated. Amendment 52 to require higher and further education providers in England to share data with electoral registration offices to enable young electors to be registered. This government is also committed to supporting more universities and college students to be registered to vote under the powers in the bill.

We plan to test registration without an application used locally, using locally available data in a number of areas around the UK. The Electoral Commission will then review the effectiveness of the new approaches tested. As part of this electoral registration, officers will be able to enter into data sharing agreements with higher and further education providers in their local area, so as to identify eligible individuals who are unregistered or have moved. Further. Detail will be set out in secondary legislation and in guidance, and I hope that provides reassurance to noble Lords. Clause 17 stunt part the debate we had on.

On that, I note that the Baroness Coffey and noble Lord Hayward intend to oppose the clause 17 stunt part of the bill. Voter registration is core to our democratic system. It is right that changes to voter registration are carefully scrutinised and assessed. Direct registration, alongside other measures, will support the objective of improving the completeness and accuracy of electoral registration. Together with clause 18, which will create a new duty for arrows to update people's personal details in the electoral register when they are aware that these have changed. These changes have the potential to reduce the estimated 7 to 8,000,000 million people were unregistered or inaccurately registered, which is a figure that has been used more than once during the debates this afternoon.

On this evening. Direct registration also has the long term potential to reduce burdens on arrows who should need to spend less time following up with individuals who have not responded to invitations to register to vote, and using data for direct registration. Arrows must be assured that the person is eligible. Irreligious registered to vote. Those who will be directly registered will be informed and have the right to opt out of the process during the response period. Particular categories of electors like anonymous electors will also be exempt. I hope noble Lords will be reassured that direct registration will at first be tested in pilots in a number of areas.

This will be in different locations and settings with different characteristics and challenges. We are working with the Electoral Commission to develop the assessment criteria and ensure a wide range of different areas can be. Areas can participate. I appreciate the interest the noble Baroness and others and others in voter registration. I recognise the importance of getting this right. This bill on secondary legislation will play the will lay the foundations for more automated voting registration in safe and responsible ways. Amendment 58. I recognise the intention behind the amendment, which is seeking to promote transparency around the operation of the electoral registration system.

It is. It is in support of that objective that substantial information on voter registration is already made publicly available. Noble Lords may be aware that the public may easily access information on registration applications at the online register to vote a performance dashboard. These arrangements already provide a significant degree of transparency regarding applications to register to vote, while recognising that applications are determined by registration officers who are statutorily responsible for maintaining the register for the area for which they are responsible. The amendment would have would also permit the publication of information at ward level. However, the Secretary of State does not.

 All registration data at that level of granularity and would therefore not be able to publish information envisaged by the amendment. Amendment 59 I welcome Baroness Lister and Burnett's enthusiastic support for the cause of automated voter registration, and I would like to reassure noble Lords that the government is committed to moving to more automated registration, and we are putting the necessary foundations in place through this bill, and I can assure the House that that the officials are working closely with counterparts at the Home Office, the the Passport Office, DWP and the HMRC to explore data sharing and support of more automated registration.

However, these are extremely complex new approaches and we will need to be certain we have the right arrangements in place and that we have tested those very robustly before they are rolled out widely. Setting a firm deadline in primary legislation before we can be certain that we will be ready, would not, in my view, be the best way to secure the progress that we all wish to see on amendment 61. Our plans for voter registration without applications are about making registration simpler and easier. These are significant reforms, and we need to test them to ensure we get them right.

We will. Pilots will commence soon after the necessary legislation is in effect. The Electoral Commission will undertake an independent review to inform decisions about wider implementation. So there will be a significant degree of external evaluation of the new approach. The Boundary Commission for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are independent of government. The timings of parliamentary boundary reviews are set by legislation which the government has no plans to change. Amendment 61 commitment to ensuring all eligible voters can participate and are appropriately represented in our democratic process is one I share, but I do not believe a further independent review is needed.

I now turn to amendment 63. If the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Concern is that these powers could be used to alter who is entitled to register and vote. I can assure the House that this is not the case. Clause 20 of the Bill creates a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to pilot changes to the voter registration process. Those voter registration process. Those powers are carefully defined and are limited to what the bill describes as voter registration describes as voter registration provision. The bill goes on to make clear that falls within that definition. What falls within that definition in clause 21? It is made clear that this is limited to to provision about registering individuals who are entitled, under existing franchise eligibility criteria to be registered.

It also allows for existing register entries to be amended or removed. Crucially, they do not provide a mechanism to alter the eligibility criteria for registration. Amendment 67 would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for implementing part two of the bill within two months of this, part of the part of the bill coming into force. I agree and share their goals that we must move as fast as possible. I am sure that the House will welcome the news that. More information about the direct registration pilots was put where will be published shortly. This will include further information about how the pilots will work in practice and the prospective timetable.

I'm further pleased to reassure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

30 pilots and I ask this question out of genuine ignorance. I'm not trying to make a point. I'm not trying to make a point. Could you please provide us with details about the level of accuracy that the Northern Ireland Register now has. Given that their process of read only access has been in of read only access has been in operation for some two years, I think now please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think now please. That I have to want to be fair, but. But I think perhaps that we will look into that and get back to the noble Lord. I'm pleased to reassure the noble Lords that our plan is for secondary legislation on the direct registration pilots to be introduced quickly after the Bill comes to force into force. Under the bill, there's a statutory requirement for the Electoral Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilots after they have finished. And with that, I would like to thank the noble Lords for the spirit and intentions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their amendments, and I hope that this information. Sorry. Dan, if I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dan, if I. Just may. I'm just trying. To get in my mind why it is that the things which he and his the things which he and his colleagues support in opposition in terms of automatic voter registration, are not now registration, are not now considered so practical. I noticed that the DWP data is not sufficient that the DWP data is not sufficient sufficient in itself to include somebody on the electoral register. But under the present arrangements you, either online or by paper, give your name, your address and your National Insurance number, and hey presto, you're registered.

So I'm not quite sure that such a barrier now. But if it is a barrier, surely the only bit of data required is to confirm your UK citizen. And since the government must know who is a UK citizen, if you have the name, you have the address, you have the National Insurance number and you know they're a UK citizen. You should simply put people on the electoral register and to help him answer the questions he's been asked about costs. This will be a great cost saving exercise compared to many, many forms being sent out in the expensive post, all the printing costs, etc.

and human beings having to go around door to door to do this. We could cut costs considerably if we speeded this up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think we want to do is to get this right, and obviously to keep costs down to a minimum. We've said costs down to a minimum. We've said that we're looking very extensively with all the database that we have offered from the Passport Office, DVLA, HMRC and as well as the DWP. DVLA, HMRC and as well as the DWP. And we just want to get this right. And and my assessment of this is not straightforward. It can be difficult, but we want to make it as efficient as possible because it will save money in the long run.

If we have an automated system that delivers what we want to say, which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is a vibrant democracy. Minister was able. To look. At some of the questions that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At some of the questions that I asked, which I don't think he's had the chance to answer and could write to me on that basis.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be more than happy to do that. And although it's late. So I will be brief, especially as the will be brief, especially as the new guidance and the companion tells me to be. So I was confused tells me to be. So I was confused by my noble colleague Lord Rennard in the in the debate when he first of all stood up to excoriate me and
21:34
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
then in his amendment 50 proposed something the same. So. But nevertheless, there are no hard feelings, which is why I've moved feelings, which is why I've moved towards him, because I sense that we are on one on the National Insurance issue. Now, I am Insurance issue. Now, I am concerned in the winding by the Minister, because what it's become clear for the first time is that so clear for the first time is that so much of the foundations of the democracy that our society depends democracy that our society depends on is to be left to secondary legislation.

Don't worry. It's going to be all right. I heard no reassurance from the Dispatch Box how we're going to deal with the 14 and 15 year old Attainders. Although I listened carefully to what he said about every body else, and he's he's placing impossible burdens on the electoral registration offices. And I do suggest that not only does he need to spend time with them, but possibly with some of the participants in this debate, because it's clear and I in danger of sounding like Lord Rooker now, there was clearly no consideration given in the other place, and this is the House of Lords at its best.

 I'm really concerned that all the unintended consequences here, whether it be by identifying identification as my noble friend Lord Jackson said on immigration status, I'm really concerned about the number of duplicates and the different spellings of the name O'Neill, for example. And is that one L or two? What is the role of the Electoral Commission? And we're going to deal with some of these there. But ultimately it's the integrity of the register we need to be concerned about. And I really hope that the Minister will commit here and now to having a follow up meetings on a cross-party basis from those who participated in this meeting.

So we can thrash this out, because what we've got up until now is a recipe for disaster at report, unless there is more more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clarification given. I bet I beg leave to remove. Is it your Lordships amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships amendment eight be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is. Clause three stand part of the bill. Clause three stand part of the bill. As many will say, content and not content. The contents have it. content. The contents have it. after clause three. Amendment nine. Lord Fuller not moved. Question is Lord Fuller not moved. Question is that clauses 4 to 6 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion will say content.

Not content for The contents have it. in schedule one. Amendment ten. Baroness Coffey.
21:36
None Portrait Amendment: 10 Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-

My Lords, I beg to move amendment ten. >> I'll also be speaking to amendment 11. And then I've also got a more general stand part on schedule one and my Lord Saatchi. schedule one and my Lord Saatchi. That last debate was really fascinating, and I've heard it already said why unelected peers interested about elections when we don't get elected to this place? Well, of course we care because we care about democracy. And I know several peers are also elected as councillors and other. Legislature legislatures. And indeed, we are concerned to try and make sure that we get this right.

Now, just building on from the previous debate, and I appreciate that. The Minister said he would look through and then write to me on various matters. The reason is I did have a response to a question basically saying the the centre, the government doesn't hold all these different things, so they can't effectively know whether people are registering or voting in more than one place and the like. And to some extent they should. But an important thing is, as has just been articulated, is making sure that the electoral register is correct and authentic. And that's why in this particular schedule, I've raised my concerns in particular about in it's on page one, two, nine of the bill that people are looking.

And it's paragraphs 4 to 6. And then on the following page, paragraph 11. And indeed, I will be referring to more broadly an amendment that we just passed or due to past we've already debated, which is amendment 12. And in particular on that I'm looking, which is page 521, subsection three. So where I'm going with this is that we need to make sure that the register is is authentic as possible. And yet the government has said for safeguarding reasons, it's blocking out the fact that lots of canvassing can't be done if somebody is under the age of 16.

 And my Lords, I do understand the issues that hold more broadly about that, but it is the government's desire to introduce voting at the age of 16 in all the elections across the United Kingdom, and especially reserved. And therefore, I think we do need to make sure that the the people going on that electoral roll are genuine. And that is the whole point of canvass. And canvass has largely focussed on actually, households that don't return the registration. So that's the principal role of what canvassers do. I don't mean canvassers as in party political canvassers. It's actually people working on behalf of the electoral registration officer and to try and get as complete register as possible.

But it's also to check and validate about people who are in that residence and who have registered to vote. Now, at the moment, it's not clear to me quite how soon will be in a situation where the automatic registration will have happened. Based on our current debate, but it feels that it will be possible for people to register young people to register far more quickly. And who knows when the next election will be. So that is why I don't understand why it is that the government is ruling out the opportunity for registration officer to make house to house inquiries in regards to somebody who's put themselves forward to become registered on the electoral roll, simply because they're under the age of 16.

Now, I'm conscious that there are plenty of vulnerable people who are on the electoral roll. People of no fixed abode, anonymous electors. There's a whole series of people who could be seen to be deemed vulnerable. And I do understand the broader point, but I would hope that electoral registration officers and the people they employ should be trusted to deal with such sensitive or indeed, if necessary, turn this into a regulated activity. That means that it becomes eligible for a DBS check, because this comes back to integrity of the electoral roll. That's why I think the canvass should be included.

I'm not so focussed so much on to be open with you. Paragraph five, to be open with the House rather. But I am more concerned about a requirement under subsection 4th May not be imposed under the person under the age of 16. In relation to registration, I am concerned about the fact that may not authorise or require a registration officer to take steps in relation to register parliamentary electors in visiting a particular address, in order to speak to a person under the age of 16. And I am particularly concerned by the new amendment G 12 with 21 subsection three, so it doesn't include the power to make enquiries.

 So the answer really is why not? Why is it that something as precious as having the opportunity to vote in a general election does not come with an opportunity for that to be validated? This is something that really does concern me about how people get added to the electoral roll. The whole point of the registration officer is they have to be satisfied. We've heard that extensively in the last debate, and now all of a sudden, we're expected to be taken somebody's word for it that X, Y, z is just can be added to the electoral roll without any validation whatsoever.

If they are purporting to be of that age. So my question to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is why? The proposed scheduled one page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The proposed scheduled one page one, two, nine, nine, 16 leave out paragraphs 4 to 6.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to amend to move the amendments or three amendments in my name. The first amendments in my name. The first two amendment one, two, four and one, two, eight are essentially probing amendments. This. The final one is. I think, a much one of much more significance and import in terms of protecting the integrity of our current electoral system. And I'll elucidate on that a little later. I'll be as quick as I can in terms of amendment one, two, four. This is about the commencement of counting at local elections. It's been a bugbear for a number of us over the years that there has been an increasing tendency for returning officers to delay the commencement of counting, particularly in local government elections, until the following day.

Now, in some cases, it's understandable when you have a very significant local election, such as the Greater London Authority and the election of directly elected mayor to for London world city of 9 million people. It probably does take longer to put the arrangements
21:44
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
in place, but most recently at the May 2026 local elections, only 46 out of 136 local authorities were scheduled to count and declare results overnight. We've talked results overnight. We've talked about the size of the country. The UK is a relatively small country. We're not talking about the sort of We're not talking about the sort of Australian style parliamentary seat, which is the equivalent of the the which is the equivalent of the the length or width of three countries. We're talking about relatively small geographical areas for which to collect ballot boxes from polling places. This amendment would bring consistency and timeliness to the electoral counting process, helping to restore voters confidence in that process.

It's not an unrealistic proposal. At general elections, the law already requires that the counting of votes must begin as soon as practicable, within four hours of the close of poll in 2024, only eight constituencies did not begin counting within the prescribed timescale, beginning the count at local elections on polling day can be achieved. My Lords, an efficient voter count improves the efficacy of voting as an accountability measure and a mandate conferred upon representatives, and it does have an impact on voters decisions. And they don't. I don't think most voters favour lengthy counts. And and we've got to think of the trust they have in the electoral process in terms of amendment one, two, eight.

This is one for the serious electoral anoraks, the voting machine pilot schemes. And I look to the noble Lord Lord Pack in that respect, because I know that this is the sort of thing he. Apart from focus leaflets, he probably thinks about more than anything else. This kind of thing, this new clause will allow a small number of of supervised pilots, of voting machines at local and general elections with a paper audit trail, independent certification, and an evaluation report to Parliament before any wider rollout. This isn't totally unknown. It has been tested in real elections around the world.

19% of countries use e-voting at a national or subnational level. Electronic voting could reduce administrative costs and make voting more accessible and straightforward for many voters, potentially contributing to improved voter participation. Indeed, over a decade ago, the Electoral Commission called on the government to, quote, to bring forward proposals for a comprehensive electoral modernisation strategy, setting out how the wider use of technology in elections will ensure the achievement of transparency, public trust and cost effectiveness. Stating that he'd been arguing since 2007 that government should, quote, conduct a comprehensive electoral modernisation strategy, unquote. The government now has the opportunity to implement to implement through supervised pilot schemes what the Electoral Commission has believed was necessary for over ten years.

And the UK hasn't conducted electronic voting on all counting pilots since 2007. My Lords, I move finally to the very important amendment. I think about the review of the review of undue influence offences. And I'm sorry, my noble friend Lord Pickles is not in his place because he would be much better qualified in speaking to this amendment and in passing, I. I commend the amendment. Again, he's not in his place. The noble Lord Walney his amendment one three, six, which is a similar amendment about religious influence and coercion. My Lords, this clause requires Ministers to review the spiritual injury provisions regularly.

The pickles report recommended that the offence retain a reference to spiritual or religious influence. The representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits spiritual injury as part of its undue influence provisions. The provision was historically an attempt to limit the perceived undue influence of Roman Catholic clergy when introduced as the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act of 1883. High profile, high profile recent case involved Lutfur Rahman, who was elected as the mayor of the London borough of Tower Hamlets in the 2014 mayoral election but was subsequently found guilty of electoral fraud. With the election declared null and void.

Irlam versus Rahman 2015 found Rahman guilty of undue spiritual influence during that election for mayor of the London borough of Tower Hamlets, and this referred, for instance, to a letter in his support signed by 101 imams. This letter stated that, quote, our opponents are spreading jealousy and hatred in the community. We consider these acts as abominable and at the same time, condemnable. The court also found that Rahman had engaged in false statements about an opponent, including claims linking him to racism and hostility towards Muslims, bribery and illegal election expenditure. My Lords, we don't have enough time to debate this issue as fully as I would like, but I think this amendment provides an obligation for Ministers to keep this issue under constant review.

It is about the electoral integrity of of the of our electoral system. And significantly, it's about protecting ordinary voters, whatever their background, whatever their religion, whatever their belief, from undue influence and de facto threats by individuals and groups and organisations. So on that basis, my Lords, I'm happy to put forward all three amendments, and I look forward to the noble Lady or the noble Lord. The minister's response, my Lords.
21:50
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment 125 in my name, and that of my noble friend Baroness that of my noble friend Baroness Thornhill, inserts a new clause to confer upon the Secretary of State statutory powers to establish pilot schemes for flexible voting options. We worry that turnout in general elections less than 60% in 2024, are caused, in part because it's easy for people who are retired or not working to vote on a particular Thursday, but it's rather hard for other people to vote. That's why we want to extend the ways in which people can cast their vote and hopefully increase participation.

People who are busy working or working shifts or long hours, or with long commutes, and those with caring responsibilities and looking after their children. They don't find it so convenient to vote, and we believe they may be discriminated against. Our our amendment establishes a few possibilities which we would like to see more controlled, evidence based innovation on. Although we are aware that the Electoral Commission is carrying out a number of pilots, in particular, we would like to see an extension of advance voting in the days preceding the main polling day. We'd like to see additional polling days in particular weekend voting, which I think is not being piloted anywhere.

And on weekends, people with families may have much greater flexibility, and those with jobs that may still last Monday to Friday, community voting hubs situated in accessible, busy locations could help, and different polling stations allowing voters choice over where within their electoral district to vote could all help, as could transportable or mobile polling stations bring the ballot box directly to underserved rural communities or into care environments. My Lords, flexible voting is, I think, a modernising, modernising necessity, but it requires some other changes in the way in which we conduct elections and in particular with by elections and general elections, because they can be called at short notice.

The Electoral Commission is seeing some pilots at the moment. We believe they should go further in scope and at a faster speed. We'd like to see them evaluate these schemes, but we also need them to consider whether or not we need to extend the election timetable, because there is a problem with postal voting, perhaps 26% of the votes in the last general election were cast by post. If use early voting, say, ten days before the polling day, many votes will be cast at a halfway point in the election campaign. So if we move to alternative methods of voting, we 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 between the calling of a by election or a general election to consider the issues before they have to cast their votes.

 briefly.
21:54
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
To amendment. the last paragraph. >> In the name. >> Of my noble. Friend Lord Rennard and myself, and then talk to and myself, and then talk to amendments one, three, six, and one, two, four in the name of Lord Walney and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, respectively. One, two, five is a modest amendment and a sensible proposal, and my reason for supporting it was really to share with you my own experiences during my time in local government in Watford. We actually participated in a number of electoral pilots. We had a very go ahead. ER, oh, so we had voting in supermarkets and we had weekend voting alongside other things.

Now some of these approaches worked better than others. And every innovation, not every innovation, produced the increase in turnout that we'd all hoped for. In fact, one pilot involved voting the weekend after the whole country had already cast its ballots. It felt distinctly odd. Everyone seemed to be discussing the results before we had even voted. It didn't work, but we did it and we learned from it. And I think that's the important point that my noble friend was making. It's why pilots matter. They allow us to test assumptions against reality, and I think we should be more eager to try them, rather than finding lots of reasons to stick with the status quo.

Turning to amendment one, two, four noble Lord Jackson, I absolutely understand the attraction of overnight counts. Those of us who stood for election. We know the adrenaline rush and. And indeed, we feel the frustration of going to bed without knowing the result and probably not sleeping. I've certainly felt that myself. The whole count experience for us is a buzz and an important occasion, which definitely feels diluted the next day. But I think we should be honest. The main beneficiaries of immediate counts are actually not the voters. They're actually 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 people, many of whom have already worked a very long day, especially since the hours have been extended.

And, you know, we've had counts going on well into the night, more so when we haven't had enough people. So fewer people have had to count, you know, more votes. And that 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. And this is what my argument is leading to my Lords. Different councils face different staffing, logistical and financial pressures. Even the geographical location of where they're counting can be an impediment against counting 3:00 in the morning. So what what we what we need to do, our instincts are to trust Aros and local returning officers who often do and in my opinion, should be discussing this with the party political agents to make the right decision for their own circumstances.

And that can vary from year to year, election to election, and there can be compromises. We've also verified on the night and counted the next day. A good counting agent can tell a lot from the verification, even if it's done face down. In short, my Lords, our view is that it's not an issue for central diktat. I have some sympathy with amendment one, two, nine and 136, and I'm really disappointed. I'm sure there's a good reason that Lord Walney is not in his place, because I actually would have liked to have heard his views as he has worked on this.

His concerns, the concerns you've raised, or 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, and I've seen it very often against women. Sometimes it actually 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. And what concerns me as a liberal most of all, is any assumption that people should vote in a particular way just because they belong to a family, a faith, a community, or an 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, no family, no community leader, and no political party owns that vote. This is not about any one. Religion or community. Pressure can arise in many different settings. We've 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. My Lord, I believe the concern underlying these amendments is legitimate one for every voter, regardless of background, belief or circumstance, should be able to enter that polling station and into that booth with the stubby pencil, as the Minister referred to, and know that the decision they make is theirs alone.

And to me, this is a principle worth defending.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you seem to be a convenient time to pause proceedings for the day. And I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proceedings for the day. And I therefore beg to move that the adjourned. The question is that the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the debate on amendment ten be adjourned. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. To move the balance be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move the balance be resumed. Question is that the House be resumed as many as are of that opinion. Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary, opinion will say content contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content be. Contents have it. Back to the House. Do now adjourn. adjourn.
14:00
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Aglionby and Baroness Kitching of Penistone
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page