Lords Chamber

Wednesday 4th November 2026

(began 13 hours, 54 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:02
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
the same place as well. Things move on now in every amendment in this bill and in other parts of the work in your Lordships House. I support in your Lordships House. I support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, but regrettably I cannot support his amendment one, cannot support his amendment one, two, four, which requires by law that elections must be started on the count overnight following the the count overnight following the polls closing. It's important to explain why running an election is a complicated task for election a complicated task for election staff. You have to recruit presiding officers, polling inspectors, count staff and handle all matter of other ancillary tasks like fetching and carrying the ballot papers.

Now, I know this happens at a general election, and it's important that we maintain the requirement for overnight counting in those contests, but we have to recognise that local government works over a much larger canvas. Geographical canvass. It often encompasses multiple constituencies. There are many more electors in the race. We have multi-member wards. We have funny business when it comes to alternative and supplementary votes for some contests and more people. Different and more complicated systems add complexity and time. Now local elections are different to the national elections, where simply the person with the most votes wins.

And let's not forget that unlike a parliamentary vote, where there is just one election to count, local elections may have many wards interspersed with town council by elections. So the number of contests isn't just greater, it's an order of magnitude larger. And of course, the ability to attract presiding officers and count staff who have historically come from our high street banks, tellers and other high street financial workers is harder. We just don't have the tellers to provide us who are used to handling banknotes in the age of tap and pay any more. So we've ended up with a diminished pool of talent to operate the election.

And the facts of life are that oftentimes we rely on the presiding officers who've done a stretch from 7 a.m. till ten, or to turn up again the following day to do the count. Now, you can't have people working for what would be 24 hours non-stop in the most delicate and mentally taxing work, which requires huge concentration, not just for validation, but also for the count, as well as the banding, bundling and tallying. If we want to have confidence in our democracy, and I should also say that local elections have many more types of parties, more candidates, and therefore a higher propensity for recounts where many contests are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decided by just a handful of votes So even the coin toss. But as I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So even the coin toss. But as I warm to my theme, what this short debate gives us is the opportunity debate gives us is the opportunity is to remind the Prime Minister that if he's minded to change the current parliamentary voting system, current parliamentary voting system, any changes are likely to prejudice the ability for overnight counts. the ability for overnight counts. If greater is introduced. The voters rejected electoral change in a referendum in 2011, but he doesn't seem to be listening. The consequences of change are likely to be that the ability to count overnight is diminished, or at very least, the announcement of the results and the clarity the electorate should deserve will be delayed.

I don't believe this has been taken into account in any other forum, and here's my opportunity to mention it. But to return to the amendment. This is detailed work. It needs a staff who are bright as a button and on the ball to do these local elections, which are more complicated, take more time and more opportunities to go wrong than parliamentary contests when often there are just 2 or 3 main candidates to slug it out. The majorities are weighed in handfuls of thousands, not handfuls of votes. And for this reason, I can't support my noble friend in his endeavour.

Attractive though it may be better to take your time and get it right than rush and live

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with the consequences. Before he sits down, will you at least concede that this is a not a prescriptive amendment? It's a it's prescriptive amendment? It's a it's a probing amendment, and clause four of the amendment does allow four of the amendment does allow electoral returning officers to disregard the obligation in emergencies or in specific circumstances. So it's not a draconian amendment forcing every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

euro to do the same. By following on from Lord Fellowes comments. Can I broadly Fellowes comments. Can I broadly express support for him in relation to the comments that he's just made? to the comments that he's just made? And while I understand Lord Jackson's intervention at the end of his speech, I think the key of his speech, I think the key factor that one has to look at here, which Lord to which Lord Fuller
12:06
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
which Lord to which Lord Fuller referred in passing is the sheer number of parties to which we now operate on a regular basis in multi-member wards. I'm looking towards Lord Pack and I'm quite happy as fellow pedant if he wishes to correct me. But if one looks back to the 2022 elections, I think there were only three wards in the whole of England which delivered three councillors from three different parties or independent parties. In 2026, there were actually three wards in Bradford alone that delivered three members from three different wards, let alone the rest of the country, and I see him nodding, so I feel reassured that I've been pedantic and accurate enough.

But that makes my point that the probability for recounts has risen dramatically in current political circumstances. Whether that continues is another matter, but we really should allow the E, ROS and the local councils the capacity to decide and decide sensibly in relation to how they conduct the counts, so that there are not errors. What is remarkable at the moment is that there are relatively few errors in local government elections, even where there are many, where there are recounts which have taken place many hours after the count started, let alone Election day has begun, which of course is many hours before that.

But having said that, in relation to disagreement with Lord Jackson on that particular amendment, I think it is important that I pick up on 1 or 2 other matters which he raised, which with which I would actually agree, he said. And I'm quoting here now, column 1449, that the objective of some of his amendments to and and contributions was to restore confidence in the electoral process. That is absolutely key in everything that we do on a daily basis, to be honest, in the complexity of which we now operate in this country, it is staggering that there aren't more errors.

And I refer here to the Electoral Commission's report on the elections in May, which identified very, very few actual genuine errors. But I still think it is important that everything we do in relation to this bill should actually be aimed at ensuring or restoring, depending on which is necessary. The public confidence in the electoral process, and it is both the public confidence and the candidates confidence that we should give consideration to. Lord Jackson also made reference to and Baroness Thornhill is not here, but she gave strong support to amendments in relation to influencing voters through judicial through religious messaging.

And I note that Lord Pickles is in his seat. And of course, he did a very, very thorough report in relation to a whole range of electoral issues, and this was addressed in the 2022 legislation. But I think it is worthwhile. And I note Lord Walney in his seat, and he's got an amendment, but unfortunately, he wasn't here previously. These things happen, but I hope I am going down the path that he would have gone down and that Baroness Thornhill did go down, saying that there are clearly issues that need to be addressed, need to be kept under consideration, and therefore they have to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that we are actually operating sensibly.

And my apologies for a slight interruption, but I'm going to have to rest on a crutch for the rest of my contributions. Can I also draw attention to the other comments that Baroness Thornhill made in relation to intimidation and crowds outside polling stations, which does nothing for confidence in the electoral process? I shall be returning to this issue later on in relation to an amendment that I've got on polling, issuing accreditation to tellers and the like, and the process of policing outside polling stations. But I would just identify, in supporting what Baroness Thornhill referred to, that I don't know how many members of this place are actually aware of the fact that in the most recent parliamentary by election, Holborn and St Pancras, there were so many crowds outside one polling station and the presiding officer actually asked for these people to be moved to.

And in the end, the agent of the Green Party had to come down and tell the people to move because they were effectively being realistic, intimidating the voters outside the polling stations. So this is a matter to which I shall return at a later stage, but I hope I've covered adequately at this stage the points, the different issues that are raised by the amendments that we're considering in this group.
12:12
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I wonder if I could beg the I, I wonder if I could, I'd move the wonder if I could, I'd move the amendments. I wonder if I can beg the indulgence of the House just to conclude my remarks on 129. I did have to curtail that because of time on on Monday, and I just wanted to make reference to what the noble. My noble friend Lord Heywood has said, which was. I was very grateful for the lived experience. Comments of Baroness Thornhill in Watford in supporting my amendment on undue influence, and I merely wanted to say, my Lords, that following the pickles report and.

And I'm delighted that my noble friend is in his place, that steps were taken in the Elections Act of 2022 to strengthen the provision with regard to adding undue spiritual influence. But the review noted that, quote, unacceptable activity which many people consider electoral fraud, including pressure and intimidation both in the home and outside polling stations. As my noble friend Lord Heywood has said, may not be reported by victims. So this is a valuable provision in law. It's important that it is regularly reviewed by Ministers to ensure that it is upheld properly, and is up to date with the challenges of the UK's changing demographic and religious landscape.

Because without regular reviews and monitoring, such provisions risk stagnating or becoming subtly and consistently subverted, the law means nothing if it isn't enforced, and the pickles review and recent legislative changes reflect the importance of the provision for UK election electoral integrity, and it's vital it is not diminished, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and I especially look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord Walney, who I know wasn't present on Monday and it was commented on from the Liberal Democrat benches, but I'm sure he'll explain that there was a perfectly good reason.

And his amendment one, three, six and my amendment one, two, nine are very similar, of course, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thank the House for their indulgence. Lord Deben Lord Walney wasn't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Deben Lord Walney wasn't here on the during the debate, so I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here on the during the debate, so I to. Add the. To the comments of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Add the. To the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Hayward. Some of the practical implications of the. Of the implications of the. Of the amendment one, two, four. Now, I want to make very clear that like many people here today, I love an
12:15
Lord McCobb Portrait Lord McCobb (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
overnight count as much as everybody else, and I've been to more than I can remember, including, ironically, as it happens, the ironically, as it happens, the count at which the Minister, the noble Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, was elected as a member of Parliament in 2007. And so, like Parliament in 2007. And so, like everybody else, I understand that election nights are special, and I understand the desire to preserve the excitement that comes with the excitement that comes with overnight counts, as well as for the broader public. A quick understanding of the implication of understanding of the implication of local election results for the country as a whole, and what it means for, for, for the for the government of the day.

But this amendment would not deliver that in practice. It requires only that verification begins on polling night. Not that a single vote is actually counted or a result declared. What it would do is, is remove a returning officer's ability to plan a count properly on those nights where in practice that judgement matters the most. So let me take a really extreme, but real example. On the 6th of May 2021, voters in the village of Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire went to the polls to be handed five different ballot papers. They voted for their county councillor for a district councillor in a by election, in a parish council by election for the combined authority mayor and for the Police and Crime Commissioner.

Now the law, as it stands, currently allows the returning officer to have ballot papers cast into either separate ballot boxes or into the same one for elections happening at the same time. And suppose the returning Officer had, as they are permitted to do, provided a separate ballot box for each election. If this amendment were implemented, three of those five elections would, by law, have to have begun the verification in the two hours between the close of poll and midnight. And and as you know, and the other two would not. But it is not uncommon for voters to put ballot papers into the wrong ballot box.

So in order to carry out the task on this complex, in this complex scenario, and to make sure that, for example, a parish council ballot paper sitting in the police and Crime Commissioner ballot box was found and properly included in the count. In effect, all five ballot boxes would have to have been opened before midnight in order for those counts to be completed in parallel. So today, a returning officer can use one trained team to verify each election in turn. Whereas this amendment would force all five verifications to be to happen in parallel. Parallel at the same time before midnight, that would mean more staff, more tables, more supervisors for already pressed local authorities trying to run elections effectively.

And so that would simply be impractical. The exemption that noble Lord referred to does not help either, because that covers emergencies and safety risks. It does not cover the ordinary foreseeable complexity of running multiple elections on the same day, using parallel or shared ballot boxes. And whilst this isn't this, that Waterbeach example is an extreme example of what might happen, it is a real one that did actually happen in practice, and returning officers are already accountable for how they run their counts. And ultimately, as one of the previous speakers said, accuracy order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like. To make a supportive comment in the sense that the Waterbeach example I used at Second Reading example I used at Second Reading because not only were there five different ballot papers, there were 2 or 3 different voting methods 2 or 3 different voting methods first past the post, STV 80 for the different mayoral and PCCs, and that adds a further complexity to,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that adds a further complexity to, I think, the point he's trying to make. I'm very grateful for that. For that additional point, yes. And so just to wrap up, returning officers are already accountable for how they run their counts. And ultimately, accuracy matters more than speed. So however much we love a traditional election night, we should not allow that desire to impose unworkable or unnecessarily restrictive practices on already stretched returning officers.
12:19
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yeah. >> I put my name to. Amendment one, two, four in the name of Lord Jackson. I just want to explain why Jackson. I just want to explain why and maybe bring one element into this debate that we haven't had so far, which is the voters and how they perceive the electoral process in in local elections. And of course, it is quite a recent development that counts have drifted into the next day. It's really only from the late 2000 in local elections. And we did seem to manage this situation perfectly well before that. Certainly elections have got more complicated since then as as many noble Lords have noted.

But nevertheless, we did seem to do it. And it's not an inherently implausible suggestion that we might we might be able to do it again. I do think that in UK elections there is a sense of drama, and that sense of drama is important, that something significant is changing as a result of this, this ballot, the drama of democracy is quite important. And that is, of course, more true at general elections. But it's something I think we shouldn't lose in local elections, which also have, you know, in many ways just as big an effect on on people's lives as general elections.

Now, on Monday, the noble Lady Baroness Thornhill said, and I quote, the main beneficiaries of immediate counts are not the voters, but the campaigners, the candidates and the commentators. And that struck me as an interesting comment, because I'm not sure I entirely agree with it. Speaking as somebody who has seen elections on TV and listened on the radio far more than I've actually participated in them, one of the things that has struck me with our longer counting process is that it allows much more opportunity for political parties, and the party leadership and party aligned commentators to spin the results long before we know what the actual results of a whole period of local elections are.

We have media comment on them. We have party spokesman telling us how to interpret these results long before we know what the actual results are. 1 or 2 councils take exaggerated significance because they come relatively early in the sequence and shape the narrative, and I think that suits political parties. I'm not making a party political point in the sense that I think is true of all parties. It it blurs what is important. It allows scope for commentary, it allows scope for spin. And the actual results of this process take longer to come out. By the time we know the results, the.

What is more important is the nature of the commentary. So I do think there's an issue here. I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend sits down. He's not addressed the issue of the not addressed the issue of the extra matters, which we give local voters the opportunity on which to voters the opportunity on which to vote. Now he refers to 2000. But in fact, in the previous conservative government and before that, we introduced things like environmental, neighbourhood referendum, mayoral elections, police and crime commissioner elections. Not going to delay the House by going on and listing them all. But that is one of the reasons why, as was identified, you finish up with people being asked to vote on three, 4 or 5 different

**** Possible New Speaker ****

occasions on one day. That will all make a very good point, of course, and it has been point, of course, and it has been touched on already that the situation is is much more complicated than it used to be, but complicated than it used to be, but I don't think those practical angles to this can be the only thing that is brought into the debate. We have to remember what we're doing here. We are marking, we're doing here. We are marking, achieving through democracy a shift in political power, potentially from one set of people to another, and how that's accomplished, how people see it happening, what the media discussion of that is, is, I think, just as important, it shouldn't be neglected.

When we consider how local elections are conducted. And that balance, I think, is important and of course, different authorities can reach different judgements on that, on that balance. And the noble Lord, Lord Jackson's amendment, as he noted, allows for that balance to be reached in certain cases. But we mustn't forget it. These are elections about the shift of power and administrative convenience and bureaucratic convenience. How it's done can't be the only determining factor. We have to think about what's happening here. And that's why I think the noble Lord, Lord Jackson's amendment deserves discussion and support.
12:24
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I will start with a different amendment in this group. Amendment one, two, three on the issue of poll cards, because I think they are probably a topic that is well suited to the sort of scrutiny that we rightly pride ourselves on in this House, and that there is a niche issue and a serious issue, but also not, I will concede, the largest of issues, but I don't think we should be too blasé about the issue, even though it is not the largest of issues, because a very considerable amount of money is spent on the production and distribution of poll cards.

In the second half of 2019, for example, £19 million was spent. And so that's excluding the local and European elections that year, just in the general election. So there are millions of pounds spent each year on poll cards. And yet I think it's fair to say if any of us was involved in a recruitment process for a graphic designer, and they were to show us as a pride of the main item in their portfolio, a modern poll card, we would quite rapidly be thinking, how can we bring this interview to an end? Because clearly it's not very good.

Now, in fairness, one should say everyone involved in the process has a really good alibi as to why it's not their fault, because there is a complex interaction of legislative requirements, IT systems and their capabilities, time pressures on returning off. All of those interact. Everyone can say it's not my fault, but the reality is we spend millions and millions of pounds every year on something that we all know when we look at is not very good. And we should also bear in mind that it is the one official communication that all everyone on the electoral register receives about the election, if that is, as it were, the front door, the shop window of democracy.

To voters, it is both a poor use of money, but actually slightly embarrassing in terms of how we present democracy to people. So I hope we will hear some positive noises from the noble Lady, the Minister, in due course on amendment one, two, three. And I certainly welcome the fact that elsewhere in the Bill, some of the proposed proposals in the Bill will simplify the legislative framework underpinning poll cards, and will make it easier to improve their design in future. Turning then to the issue that has taken up most of our time on this group this morning and I, as with others, admire the irony of the timing that we are.

We are debating whether or not counts should be overnight on a morning when I think many of us would have Rathered we had been able to stay up rather later to watch the elections from the US. And I think there is an important lesson actually from from the elections in the US, which is that we shouldn't underestimate the importance of speedy election counts in terms of giving confidence in the security of the system. I mean, thankfully in Britain, those concerns, broadly speaking, are a long way in the past. But you know that the reason we have the the, the the system that where it used to be the norm, that just about everything was counted overnight was because of the fear that what will happen with ballot boxes, what will be interfered with them.

And I don't think we should be blasé about the risk of those fears in the future. But as several noble Lords, including Lord Hayward and Lord McCabe have pointed out, there are significant good practical reasons why overnight counts are not always possible and indeed in some cases would be so difficult to practically organise that one would even go so far as to say in some occasions, overnight counts are not even desirable. So while I very much sympathise with the thrust of Lord Jackson's amendment, I think a sort of central top down mandate in the way that it suggests is not the right way to progress on that, but to speak more positively about a couple of the other amendments in this group, including one from Lord Jackson, amendments one, two, one, two, five and one, two, eight.

I think their proposals are very welcome. I think we saw in our discussions on in the first day of committee, the value of election pilots. In this case, we were off. Several references were made to the pilots that have been carried out in Wales around automatic voter registration. I think those pilots do properly inform our decision making. I think it's fair to say the election pilots, on other topics that we've had so far have not been hugely successful. There seems to be a relatively small number of ideas which are regularly piloted and never turn out to be particularly effective.

So I think the spirit of amendments one, two, five and one, two, eight is very welcome, and I hope we may hear in due course from the government also a willingness to be a little bit more imaginative about what is piloted. And if I may just throw in one example of what I mean is, if you look at the academic research, that turnout in local elections, the evidence is pretty strong that if you have to walk more than 600m to your polling station, turnout drops quite significantly at local elections. There are different possible ways of piloting having more polling stations, so fewer people have to travel long distances to polling stations, which is the sort of slightly more imaginative approach to piloting.

I hope we can hear in the future. And then just finally on amendments one, two, nine and one, three, six, I have very little to add to what my colleague Baroness Thornhill spoke very eloquently about on this, and others have contributed on today, other than simply to add, I think it's fair to say, as we saw, for example, with the Gordon and Denton by election, there are significant differences of view about exactly what the scale of nature may be of the problems that these amendments seek to address, but it seems to me that is a good reason to want to face up to that, to want to have a good evidence base and careful consideration, rather than simply to ignore the issue completely.
12:30
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, my Lords. First of all, I must declare my interest as a councillor in Central a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. My Lords, I'm grateful to my noble friend Lady grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffee or Jackson for their amendments and also the amendments from other noble Lords. These do raise important questions about the safeguards and necessary to maintain public confidence in our electoral system, and I would echo the comments of my noble friend, Lord Heywood, that the objective of this should be to increase public confidence in the electoral system. Lady coffee's Amendments ten and 11 concern the exemptions applying to younger electors in relation to duties of election and electoral registration officers.

These amendments highlight a wider question about consistency in the government's approach to lowering the voting age, and the need to ensure accuracy of the register. As my noble friend lady O'Neill of Bexley observed at Second Reading, the government must explain where we draw the line between the rights and responsibilities of 16 and 17 year olds. If young people are to be entrusted with electing their representatives, it is reasonable to examine how that decision interacts with existing duties and protections in electoral law, as was made clear by the noble Baroness, the Minister, in debates on Monday, eras are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the Register.

Should not the same tools be available to an Ero, irrespective of age? Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain the rationale behind retaining these exemptions? Have electoral administrators been consulted about the practical implications? Now, as I said at Second Reading, electoral law is already overly complex and conflicting. We should be seeking opportunities to simplify its administration rather than further increasing inconsistencies. I turn to the amendments tabled by my. I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost, and the noble Lord Rennard and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill.

 Amendment 125 seeks to pilot schemes for more flexible voting, including early voting, mobile polling stations and alternative voting locations. Such pilots have already been undertaken locally. Amendment 128 raises the question of piloting electronic voting machines. Our established paper based system has considerable advantage in being straightforward and transparent. Electronic systems always raise the issue of cyber security. As we have seen with the single patient record in the health Bill. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us what assessment the government have made of the security risks associated with electronic voting machines, and how will the accuracy of an electric count be independently demonstrated and verified?

And the topic we have debated a lot this morning, my noble friend Lord Jackson's amendment one two for that counting should begin on the day of the election. Now, having stood as a candidate on many occasions, I have great sympathy with this and I would like to know sooner rather than later. However, as a previous leader of a council, I also have to agree with the comments of my many other noble Lords in this chamber about the difficulties and the complexities of doing a count. And I would say, as has been raised by a number, that local council elections are frequently much more complex than a national election.

 With multi-member wards, an increasing diversity of candidates making the process longer and more complex, the potential for multiple elections on the same day and at the same time, many councils are finding it increasingly difficult to get sufficient staff, a matter that has been raised elsewhere in this bill. Ultimately, I believe we need to trust the Ero to make the appropriate decision. My noble friend Lord Jackson's Amendment one, two, nine and the noble Lord Walney amendment concern undue influence, religious or spiritual pressure on voters. My Lords, the secrecy of the ballot is fundamental. Every elector must be able to vote freely without intimidation, coercion or improper influence.

And I appreciate the comments of many noble Lords on this. And so far, there seems to be consensus that this is a very important topic and that these amendments are need addressing. At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raised concerns about family voting and the particular vulnerability of younger electors to pressure they might face at home. These concerns deserve careful consideration, as the government proposes to extend the franchise. Does the noble Baroness, the Minister, consider existing law sufficient to protect voters from coercion, both in polling stations and where postal voting is used? And is it not just the law?

Sorry. And it is not just the law, but the implementation thereof that is important. Will there be further guidance given to polling staff? This also relates to amendment one, two, three in the name of the noble Lord Lord Pack and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on improving polling cards, ensuring eligible voters understand the secrecy of their ballot and understand the voting process is crucial. My Lords, we should remember that those responsible for administering elections must make these provisions work in practice. The robustness of our electoral arrangements is fundamental to electoral integrity. I hope the Minister will address the concerns raised in this group and explain how the government intend to preserve the security and transparency of the ballot, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
12:36
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful for this extended debate or should I say broken debate in the middle of the group. Can I just make a couple of general points before I go on to responding to individual amendments? First of all, to the noble Lord Hayward, I'm very grateful to him Hayward, I'm very grateful to him for using his crutch to stand up. If he does wish to remain seated when he makes his contributions, I'm sure the House will be very happy with that. Yeah, it's the comments that the noble Lord Pack made about the very interesting situation that we saw unveiling in the United States overnight.

I agree with him. It would have been very nice to have been able to stay up and listen to those results. I didn't, but I was very tempted to do so. And these it does point to some very interesting issues as we discuss this debate, which contains issues that go right to the very heart of our democracy. And some of the comments made earlier this morning by, for example, James Talarico about attempts at enormous financial influence and other influence in the elections process. We'll come on to some of those later in the discussion of our own bill and I.

It was it was a pleasure to see the power of the democratic process overcoming something of that. And I think we need to make sure as we go through our own discussions, that we retain that faith in democracy and that we continue, as Lord Hayward said, to give the people of this country the confidence that it is the democratic process that takes precedence, even when there are attempts to have financial and other interference. It's very important to all of us in this House. I would also like to and it was mentioned in the earlier session on this group.

Thank you. Excuse my sniffles. This is the second cold in two weeks, and I think I'm going to have to speak to my friend, the health Minister, to say that you are banned from having the second two colds in two weeks. I wanted to add my tribute to the heroes and the election staff, because we do have a very safe and secure system in this country, and that is down to a lot of work from our returning officers and our election staff. So I'm very grateful to them for all the work they do. Now to address the individual amendments.

My Lords, turning first the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness Coffey amendments ten, ten and 11 and schedule one stand part. These amendments would remove measures in schedule one that safeguard under 16 year olds. This would result in electoral registration officers or Aros, being required to conduct activities such as house to house enquiries and making telephone calls to under 16 seconds. And I would say to the noble Lord Fuller that election administrators, administrators are included in that. Was it noble Lord Dixon sorry, election administrators are included in these discussions, but these age based measures are important for implementing the franchise change effectively and extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds.

It is vital that they are given the same opportunities to be accurately registered as any other voter. The bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement will bring significant benefits, but it must be accompanied with additional measures to protect these young people who are not yet entitled to vote. This is the approach taken throughout the bill, including measures to safeguard young people's data, which are contained in clauses 7 to 13 of the bill, and this does mirror the approach taken in Scotland and Wales.

We should take the safeguarding of those under the age of 16 seriously, and these amendments would remove safeguards that we consider vital. I must emphasise to noble Lords that it is not those of voting age who are being treated differently, but those below voting age. And for those reasons, we cannot support these amendments. I thank the noble Lord Pack and the noble Baroness Pinnock for raising the important issue of how electoral information is communicated to voters in amendment one, two, three. We agree that the information provided to electors should be clear and accessible, and I take on board Lord Pack comments about polling cards.

We have already recognised there is scope to improve election documentation, including poll cards, and we intend to consider how their design and clarity can be enhanced as part of wider research into how people learn about the electoral process. However, we don't believe a statutory requirement to report to Parliament within 12 months is necessary to take this work forward. Frankly, we just need to get on with it and I'm very happy to report back to the House when we've concluded our work. In relation to the amendment one, two, four from the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough noble Lord Frost.

Of course, as someone who was elected over many times over the over 27 years, I recognise the importance of election results being declared promptly, and I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord Jamieson said about this. We all want to hear our results as quickly as possible. Local elections take place, as noble Lords have highlighted very graphically. I don't need to give any further examples and as such, require greater operational flexibility than parliamentary elections. Decisions about when to begin verification and counting are therefore best made by returning officers, taking account of those local circumstances.

This amendment would replace that operational judgement with a rigid statutory requirement, subject only to narrow exceptions for emergencies and safety risks. We do not believe that restriction is necessary or proportionate. The noble Lord Fuller under this amendment raised some issues around different elections on different systems. I would say to him. I do recognise the fact that there was a referendum in 2011 on different voting systems. The Prime Minister has decided the best way to take this issue forward is to initiate a National commission on Electoral reform, which is the right way to start a national conversation on this issue.

In terms of amendment one, two, five from the noble Lord Brennan and Baroness Thornhill, section ten of the representation of the People Act 2000 already provides powers to pilot changes to when, where and how voting takes place at local government elections. Powers the government has used to pilot flexible voting in the May 2026 polls, and which we will use again in a further round of pilots in May 2027. We understand the amendment seeks to go further by enabling flexible voting to be piloted at elections beyond those currently provided for under section ten, potentially including UK parliamentary elections.

We do not believe it would be appropriate to extend the piloting power to parliamentary elections. At this stage, our priority is to continue testing these approaches at local elections and build that evidence base before considering any wider changes. However, I share their enthusiasm for a more modern and flexible voting arrangements as a matter of principle, but I do think it's important that we test these thoroughly and build the evidence base. Before we go any further on this theme, I also thank the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his amendment 128. However, the use of electronic voting machines creates the potential for hacking computer error and interference.

Elections are no fail events. Well, at least they are in terms of process anyway. They should be. No, they're not always for candidates. We do fail from time to time. I have on occasions myself, but in terms of process, there must be no fail events and the integrity of the ballot must come first. And that's why we have no plans to introduce electronic voting in the UK. As such, it does not make sense to run pilots. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough and I will address the noble Lord Bowness amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as is in the chamber today as well. Apologies. Minister, for giving way and particularly, I thank her for her particularly, I thank her for her very generous comments at the start of her contribution. But can I just ask, in relation to Lord Pack and Baroness Thornhill amendments, something I omitted to to observe something I omitted to to observe is that when reviews do take place in relation to pilots, that cost should be considered. Because obviously if one's taking trials over a period of days, there are all sorts of attendant costs as well, as well as whether the system

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually worked. Yes, the noble Lords quite right. And any assessment of pilots must And any assessment of pilots must take cost into account as well. In relation to the amendments from the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Walney 129 and 136. We do. and Lord Walney 129 and 136. We do. It's it's been good to have the opportunity to consider this important and sensitive issue. Our important and sensitive issue. Our electoral law must protect voters from coercion and undue pressure, while ensuring that faith leaders and communities remain free to express their religious and moral views and participate fully in our democratic life.

I understand the noble Lord Jackson's wish to ensure that the provisions relating to spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure continue to strike that very careful balance and remain clear and workable for faith communities, campaigners and voters alike. Examples of what constitutes undue pressure have been provided in the explanatory note to the Elections Act 2002, and I hope I can offer some reassurance that the government continuously keeps electoral law under review, including to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and responsive to evidence about how it operates in practice. But setting out a requirement for a review in statute is unnecessary on the noble Lord Bowness amendment 136, as I'm sure he will be aware, spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure are already capable of falling within the undue influence offence in section 114 A of the representation of the People Act 1983, we do not consider a separate polling station offence necessary.

 Undue influence is already unlawful wherever it occurs, and the focus should remain on the coercive coercive behaviour itself, rather than creating a separate offence based on proximity to a polling station. My Lords, I'd like to thank a number of the peers.
12:47
12:48
None Portrait AMDT: 13 Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-

My Lords, I hope first of all, >> My Lords, I hope first of all, that I can please the government whip by indicating that although I've tabled a few amendments in relation to one particular aspect of this group, I could have tabled literally dozens of amendments on this subject, and the subject was possibly best described by what one might describe as a half Irish lyricist who's brought up in inner south London, who, when he spoke to this chamber four years ago, said, I hope that when we get a new Prime Minister, they will look at the whole issue of electoral law.

That half Irish lyricist from just south of the river was, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, making an observation in relation to the ballot secrecy bill, and I have given him notice that I intended to quote from his speech on that occasion, this. This morning. But the amendment, the First Amendment in this group. Clause, amendment 13. If one looks at the page of clause seven, the one amendment that I tabled there in clause 30 on amendment 13 runs for a whole page. We have to look at a string of pieces of legislation, many of which were introduced by my government and previous governments, but it has been a clear fact for years that our electoral law is a complete mess and is in desperate need of consolidation into one act, page after page after page of this bill is only just referring to one piece of legislation or another piece of legislation, or yet another piece of legislation.

I can understand if one was dealing, as Lord Deben referred on Monday, to devolved powers and therefore devolved legislation. But in far too many cases, that is not the case. We just have what I would best describe as a complete cacophony of electoral law. And if we think it's a mess, just imagine the sets of circumstances under which the returning officers have to operate, because whereas we can spread out our discussions in relation to electoral law over a number of days, the returning officers are operating, particularly when they don't have notice of an election, i.e.

a general election. They are working under extreme pressure and it really is astonishing that actually we have fewer cases, that we have so few cases where an error is made in one form or another. Just think of what we've just been talking about, whether it will be talking about whether it's postal votes, whether it's entitlement to vote from abroad, whether it's actually registration of votes, whatever it may happen to be. We, the poor returning officers, are looking at this on an hour by hour, day by day basis, and it is truly astonishing that we do not get petitions asking for re knew that matters.

Do not go to the elections Court challenging the result in one form or another, and I've paid credit to returning officers again previously, but I will do so again on this occasion. But as I say, there are many amendments that I could have put down which I chose not to in relation to the other broad category of amendments. This is where I do think we have a serious problem, and I would ask, when the Minister comes to reply, for her to clearly identify why on earth we actually need all these amendments that say, instead of a registration officer, we have a senior registration officer, or we have to ensure that councils call in every possible officer to administer the elections.

I'll come back to that in a minute. But we are talking here about devolution. This government, one of its great mantras is we must devolve powers. The Prime Minister went to Lanarkshire the other week to tell the Scots that they're not devolving powers enough. The Minister herself earlier this week started off her comments in relation to column one 407. As we extend the devolution programme, this government has made it clear that we think it should be the people with the skin in the game that in the local area who take the. The key decisions about those areas.

It is perfectly right that each of the governments around the UK are free to do what they feel is right. If we are devolving powers to local councils, how is it that clause after clause tells the local council what role and what status the registration officer should hold within a local council. Birmingham City Council the chief executive, is paid £300,000 a year. Surely he knows better than the Minister and officials in Whitehall as to who should be deputed to handle what aspect of elections is their responsibility. It's true throughout the land that we have highly paid chief executive officers, one after another, and yet Whitehall seems to think that they know best as to how an administration, an election, should be administered.

Now, I could understand if there had been a whole series of elections that had gone wrong, but I refer again to the Electoral Commission's report and the general election. There's not one reference to a general election going wrong in the local elections. There are 1 or 2 very, very minor exceptions. So why should it be? And I genuinely believe this is Whitehall dictating utterly, unnecessarily to local councils who should handle what. And the the amendment that the section of the bill that astonishes me most is the clause where it says that the Council should require all its councils, officers, whatever they may happen to be, is implicit in.

In the phrasing of the Bill should be called on to administer elections. Now, are we going to insert in an election, in an education bill that every member of a council employee of a council should be called to help with education, or that every employee of a council should be called on to help on environmental matters or hygiene matters, or whatever it may happen to be. There's no justification, given that we have not got a failed electoral system. We have an extremely challenging one, but we do not have a failed electoral system. I can see no reason whatsoever why the series of clauses, series of of sub clauses are in the Bill, which suggest that Whitehall knows best.

Can I, my Lord, in my Lords, in conclusion, make the observation. I referred to the Prime Minister going to Lanarkshire to deliver his message on devolution. I would suggest that he goes to Marsham Street and delivers the same message in relation to this Bill, and in conclusion, can I beg to move amendment 13.
12:57
Lord Shamash Portrait Lord Shamash (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause seven, page ten. Line 23. Leave out subsection brackets for. >> Once. >> It's a.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Heywood. I sort of woke up this morning thinking I would up this morning thinking I would love to quote Martin Luther King that I had a dream. The position is that if we just a tiny bit of history. Representation of people Act 1983 is the core bit of legislation that everything has sprung from. It is 18 years from that in 1983 till the creation of the Electoral Commission and I. I think maybe others were involved in the creation of the Electoral Commission in 2001. We are now in 2026.

It is 43 years since the representation of the People Act 1983 came into being. There have been repeated amendments, additions, election Administration Act, the elections bill, etc. etc. I mean, we're getting to a point now to be able to move the election law anyway. You need a pickup truck. It is completely crackers that we're in this situation. And what I pray for, yes, my noble friend is showing that. Believe me, it's about ten times that amount. Lord Hayward. But the most important thing that Lord Hayward touched on is consolidation. And my discuss this with others, including my noble friend the Minister.

The possibility of that. And it is a major undertaking, but there's a new kid on the block and that is AI. We must get to a situation where we could probably do this because it is impossible to operate, and I should have declared my interest as a former election lawyer to the Labour Party for many years. And having to deal with this legislation is very difficult, and you can miss things out very easily. So my plea is to the Minister to take it away to the officials so that my dream can actually come true, and we'll have a bit of consolidation in the RPA.

Thank you.
12:59
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
One more. made by my noble friend Lord Heywood, and also Lord Shamash, because we've heard in this debate, because we've heard in this debate, such as it is, that the bill, as it's been considered so far, that we need a consolidation and the points made by Lord Shamash are very persuasive. But not only do we not have a consolidation. Consolidation. This bill contains all sorts of contradictory provisions as inconsistencies. I can't wait to see what the government amendments are going to be, and I'm sure there'll be several groups of them. Almost impossible duties are being placed on the electoral registration staff and returning officers to make quite detailed judgements without the benefit of documentary evidence.

A lot of it hasn't been thought through, but my main point is as complicated as the situation is today, so much is still to be done through secondary legislation. For goodness sakes. There is a fundamental conflict of interest asking Ministers to change the legislation on the basis upon which they themselves are elected to suit themselves. Without Parliament scrutinising the detail. I don't deny that secondary legislation has a role in all walks of life and all. A lot of the work in which your Lordships House considers. But on democracy, which is the foundation of our society, the law should be clear in primary legislation, not so much left for Ministers to say, because otherwise it isn't just that the government has a lack of trust in us.

In turn, the voters have a lack of trust in the Parliament who can't be trusted to sort it out and be clear, and to make the public the electors voices heard. And if there's a lack of trust there, then democracy is imperilled. So I strongly support my noble friend and that of Lord Shamash in their claim that actually we should bring this together. This bill is as thick as it is, fails to address the fundamental problem, and especially in a world of AI and all, and and the complexity of the electoral system, which I will not dwell upon.

 Again, I strongly support my noble friend.
13:02
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I think this may be >> My Lords, I think this may be the group on which we have the most widespread agreement from all corners of the House. I very much agree with the broad thrust of the agree with the broad thrust of the comments from all three of the noble Lords who have spoken so far. And just to give one further illustration, in preparing my sort of ring binder of things that I thought might be useful to have with me during the Committee stage, I thought, well, it might be useful to print off a copy of the 1983 representation of the People Act, or the 2000 act, the two primary bits of legislation that we will be hopefully amending through this legislation.

I dutifully downloaded the PDFs for both of them from the legislation.gov.uk. One comes in at 543 pages, the other at 524 pages, which I made about the length of the last copy I saw of War and Peace. So I did decide not to print those off, but it does illustrate this problem that was quite rightly touched on earlier, about how many staff and volunteers have to grapple with understanding large parts of what is a very complex legal landscape. And I wouldn't want to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, by not, however, taking the chance to quibble just a little over a couple of his specific amendments in this group, because actually the noble Lords Lord Moore amendment number 16 would remove a cross-reference.

And actually I would go the other way. I would say we need more cross-references in legislation. But he, I think, is absolutely right with amendment number 17 and the way it. I'm sure there is some fine legal brain in this House who will be able to elucidate why the definition in referred to in amendment 17 is not simply a rearranging of the words. It does seem to me that that definition adds a very little meaning, but overall, I think it is welcome that we have seen in one of the more recent government amendments tabled for this bill, a tidying up by the proposal to repeal some previously commenced legislation.

And I hope the debate on this group will encourage the government to look at further steps of tidying up as we progress through the other groups on this bill.
13:04
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am going to be part of the agreement across this House of the agreement across this House on this one, and I am grateful that my noble friend, Lord Hayward, for introducing these amendments, and I will agree with all of them as a point of principle, to be slightly different to Lord Pack. You know, we need this debate on the complexity of electoral law and administrative bureaucracy, and I'd like to echo the words of the noble Baroness about recognising and thanking electoral returning officers for their job. It isn't an easy job, as various noble Lords have made clear, dealing with all the legislation.

I think noble Lord Pack added up just over 1100 pages on just two bills. They are long, they're complex, they're inconsistent. On occasion. They are in conflict. Electoral returning officers are having to deal with regular new regulation and guidance and changes. It's a surprise that anybody actually wants the job. And then there is not just dealing with this, but the sheer difficulty of running an operation. You may be dealing with 200 plus polling stations. You're having to make sure that you get all your polling booths there. You're having to send out thousands of postal votes and relying on the postal system, which in itself always has the potential for error, and you're having to make decisions on the spot in order to overcome all these various things.

I do find then to go into prescribing, as the noble Lord Heywood has said, exactly how someone is supposed to do the job who is supposed to be doing the job in the council. And as the Lord Heywood raised that specific point about requiring all staff to be made available, you know what happens if all staff are not willing to be made available? What sanction can the chief executive have? Is it going to be part of their work contract and needing them to be made available, potentially for another neighbouring authority? Who needs more people? My Lords, the system works.

The eras get the job done. It's a difficult job. As I said in my previous speech, let's trust them. And I'd just go through some of these amendments, beginning with amendment to clause seven that is in the bill, subsection four, later reiterated in clause 14, goes on to define absent voter records, overseas electoral lists, overseas electors, declaration registration, and voter registers. Subsection five then clarifies the roles of a deputy electoral registration offer, sir, and a person assisting the Electoral Registration Officer. And my noble friend has already raised concerns over how other Whitehall departments determine this.

I can go on through all the various clauses, and that's before I get on to the clauses in which my noble friend has opposed. In order to prompt this debate, it is clear that our electoral system, local government and layers of administrative bureaucracy are complex. My Lords, we're fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy, to work in a system which has evolved relatively organically over time. And so some legal complexity is perhaps expected. However, we're concerned that some provisions in this bill, rather than seeking to improve the situation, risk increasing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bureaucracy and complexity unnecessarily. I won't go. Through this all, but it is very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Through this all, but it is very clear from across this House that the bill is overly complex, adds complexity, and is not doing what complexity, and is not doing what it should do, which is making life simpler and more certain. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will take on board some of the recommendations made by noble Lords of how and where electoral law and administration could be made a little less complex without weakening the system's strength, especially at the local level. In fact, by increasing consistency and simplifying where appropriate, it will strengthen the system.

Perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, can give an indication of what further government amendments your House can expect. Sorry. The Lordships House can expect.
13:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful for that debate. It's been very interesting, debate. It's been very interesting, subject to discuss and knowing the noble Lord Hayward, I'm sure he will have equally lobbied his own will have equally lobbied his own side on these issues before this, this bill came into the House. But this is the first election law I've dealt with. But I'm sure all of the the legislation that's gone through in the last in the previous 14 years, who will have been urging his own side to consider these issues? Of course, this bill came forward to serve three very specific purposes.

One was to introduce voting for 16 and 17 year olds, which is a manifesto commitment from my party, to look at taking the steps towards automatic voter registration to tackle the issues of under registration of around 7 to 8 million people. And lastly, some of the steps to tackle overseas political finance during the course of the bill. Some of those issues have been subject of much public debate. And of course, we've had the Rycroft review of political finance, which has added to the bill, and there will be further amendments. They will be laid, I think, on the 9th of November.

So the noble Lord German request, he will have sight of amendments. Then, before we get to the second stage of committee on this this debate on this bill, in terms of the consolidation of electoral law, it's a very key issue, and I've heard loud and clear, both at Second Reading and in the engagement meetings that I've held with noble Lords. The importance of doing this in the process of this bill, it's not possible to tackle the whole consolidation of all the election law. I'm sure it's even more than the number of pages that the noble Lord Pack outlined.

However, I do think it's important that we take that on board and we look at what the process is going to be for what certainly is a job that needs to be done. I'm going to take that back to the department, and I will, at a later stage in the bill, come back on that, if that's all right, because I understand what noble Lords are saying. Can I also say I took the comments of the noble Lord Hayward about read only access to registers, which he made during a previous session. Very seriously. I pushed for more information on this.

There are some complexities around the localised nature of the register. In effect, we have 300 separate electoral registers, and I know that's probably the point that the noble Lord was making and around data protection, but I will do some more work on this, and I'm happy to discuss it with him further in due course. I recognise the broader concerns the noble Lord has around the complexity of electoral law, and the administrative burdens which are placed on those responsible for delivering our elections. However, removing important provisions which contain essential legal legal definitions from the Bill, which his amendments do introduce, I don't believe is the right way to address either of those concerns.

The legal definitions in particular, clarify the scope of the provisions so that it is clear who is captured by the provisions, namely registration officers and those assisting registration officers, and confirming that the measures do not attach to absent voting lists, which only relate to devolved elections. These clauses are not unnecessary additions. They contain substantive measures designed to improve the operation of our electoral system, as well as definitional information to aid the proper interpretation and application of the law. The noble Lord asked me some very specific questions around the measures on electoral registration officers and returning officers, electoral registration officers and returning officers carry personal legal responsibility for functions fundamental to the effective operation of our democracy.

Discharging those responsibilities requires access to staff, premises, systems and other resources from across the local authority, often within tightly prescribed statutory timetables and during periods of considerable operational pressure, requiring ultimate responsibility to rest with an appropriately senior officer will help ensure that the office holder has sufficient organisation, wide authority and accountability to secure the necessary support and provide effective oversight. This is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that returning officers have the authority and access to resources they need to run elections effectively. It provides a clear minimum standard while, of course, leaving local authorities the flexibility over who they appoint within that framework.

And of course, the House will have the opportunity to debate all the measures in the bill as it progresses. The government will continue to make its case for each of them. But I can assure the noble Lord I am listening carefully to all views expressed in the House. I thank the noble Lord for his proposed clause down part on clause 44, and I want to just explain briefly the importance of this clause to the Bill. At present, political parties cannot withdraw their support for a candidate once the nomination papers have been submitted. Even where serious issues arise, clause 44 enables parties to act where concerns arise during the nomination period.

The scope of the provisions is very carefully limited. Support may be withdrawn only up to 48 hours before nominations close, ensuring the candidate still has time to stand independently or for another party, and the party can nominate a replacement. This clause forms part of a suite of new safeguards designed to protect the integrity of elections and prevent and deter personation or false nominations, and removing it would weaken the bill. As I said, I have listened carefully to the debates, particularly around consolidation of election law, and I'm very happy to continue those discussions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Her comments in general, and I do want to continue with the conversation. But before she sits conversation. But before she sits down, can I just seek clarification in relation to the last comments that she made about the particular that she made about the particular clause? Are they fully. Are her comments fully supported by both comments fully supported by both the Electoral Commission and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

AEA on behalf of returning officers? My understanding is that the EC and the Association of Electoral Officers was consulted on. All is consulted on provisions in the Bill, so. But I will go back and check that and I'll answer him in writing,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

if that's all right. I've heard some interesting comments from the Minister, and as comments from the Minister, and as I indicated just now, I intend to. I appreciate the offer that she's I appreciate the offer that she's made to have further conversations in relation to the specific matters. I think we all knew that. On the I think we all knew that. On the question of consolidation, sadly, we're going to have to live with Encyclopaedia Britannica, whether
13:16
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
Encyclopaedia Britannica, whether it's on AI or any other system for the future. But it is a grotesquely challenging for everybody that's involved. But on that basis, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw. Thank you. Mr. President. The amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. President. The amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 14 Lord Hayward not moved. The question is that clause seven stand part of the bill, as amended. Of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it not content. The contents have it in clause eight, Lord. Lord Hayward amendment 15 not moved. The question is that clause eight stand part of the Bill, as amended, of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clauses 19 to 13 inclusive stand part of the Bill.

As many as of that opinion will say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it in clause 14, amendment 16 to 17. Lord Hayward not moved. The question is that clause 14 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. We will then move to lunch break business. We will to lunch break business. We will therefore not return to the bill before one hour, 15 minutes from before one hour, 15 minutes from now. However, to clarify, that will not cut short the debate of 90 minutes for the sea. That's just in the event in case it finishes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the event in case it finishes before and when we resume the committee business. The question is the House be now resumed? As many as of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Global human rights and international Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026. Lord Wood of MP.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excuse me. My Lords. I beg to move that the House approve the global Human House approve the global Human rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026. These revoke and re-enact with expanded purposes and designations criteria. The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations
13:19
Lord Wood of Anfield Portrait Lord Wood of Anfield (Labour)
-
-
2020. This instrument was laid on the 13th of October under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2018. The measures in this instrument, subject to the made affirmative parliamentary procedure, entered into force on 15th of October. My Lords, since 15th of October. My Lords, since coming into office, the Foreign Secretary has been clear that we will be stronger in our values, will be stronger in our values, bolder in our action, and relentless in pursuing alliances with our partners across the world. Sanctions are a powerful lever we have to advance that we have to advance our foreign policy goals in the face of action that breaks the law and is unacceptable.

When we impose sanctions, we do so to isolate those responsible, to restrict their ability to act and to change their behaviour. We do it to send a clear message far beyond those we target of the values that the UK will stand up for, and we try to do it where possible, alongside our partners to maximise the impact of the sanctions we impose. The global human rights sanctions regime now the global human rights and international humanitarian law sanctions regime is particularly vital for this. Since the regime began in 2020, the UK has delivered over 180 designations and under this government, we have used the global human rights sanctions regime to tackle issues such as forced labour in south east Asian scam centres to extremist settlers violently attacking Palestinians in the West Bank.

To those responsible for the violent crackdown on protesters in Georgia, the global human rights sanctions regime is, of course, not our only tool. We also make extensive use of our range of geographic sanctions regimes. For example, last week we announced the designation of 15 commanders on both sides of the conflict in Sudan who are suspected of perpetrating or inciting heinous atrocities against civilians, in particular, conflict related sexual violence. As we mark the anniversary of the horror we saw after the fall of El Fasher, these designations remind the perpetrators of atrocities that the international community is watching them, and that actions have consequences.

However, that action on Sudan is only possible, was only possible because our Sudan sanctions regime permits designations on the grounds of violations of international humanitarian law. Before we laid this instrument, the government did not have the flexibility to respond in this fashion to similar atrocities taking place in countries that did not happen to have their own geographic geographical sanctions regime. As a result of these of this revisions. Now we do this instrument also expands our ability to stand up for our values, to tackle injustice, and to tackle suffering around the world in other ways. The expanded regime addresses a broader range of human rights abuses and violations by adding the right to security of liberty and person, and also gives the government powers to respond with sanctions, where aid has been deliberately, deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations.

I'll now turn to each measure within this instrument in a bit more detail. I want to be clear. This is a strong enhancement of our existing powers. The global human rights sanctions regime gave us the ability to use sanctions where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations or abuses of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to be fully free from slavery and not to be held in servitude, or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. These amended regulations allow all pre-existing sanctions to remain in force, but give us a powerful lever to respond to a broader range of situations.

The expanded sanctions regime now allows designations to be made where there are reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of international humanitarian law. This strengthens the UK's ability to respond to serious conduct that arises during armed conflict, such as the targeting or mistreatment of civilians, where international humanitarian law provides the most relevant legal framework. As the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on the 8th of September when he committed to laying this instrument, this legislation gives the UK the powers to target those constructing illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, such as those participating in E-1 settlement expansion.

As I have said, the previous version of the regime permitted designations where there were reasonable grounds to suspect serious violations of the right to life, the right not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. This instrument now adds the right to liberty and security of person to that list of rights. This ensures that the regime can now better address issues such as arbitrary detention and related conduct. The global human rights and International Humanitarian law sanctions regime also adds a new ground of obstruction of the delivery or distribution of, or access to humanitarian assistance.

This addition reflects the serious humanitarian consequences that can result when aid is deliberately prevented from reaching civilian populations, an objective I'm sure noble Lords will agree, is an important one. The amended regime also adds the power to designate by description. This allows the UK to designate where a specific name is not available, and in doing so, to capture all members of a specific group or organisation, allowing greater flexibility and reach under the regime. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lee, has tabled an amendment of regret, and I look forward to hearing from him and responding to his concerns.

My Lords, to conclude, this instrument provides the government with vital new general powers with which to stand up for British values and respond to serious human rights abuses and serious violations of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

international humanitarian law around the globe. I beg to move. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. Amendment Lord Leigh of Hurley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Hurley. My Lords, I rise to move the motion of regret standing in my name, and I declare my interest as name, and I declare my interest as set out in the register. Sanctions precisely targeted and founded on clear evidence, are a legitimate clear evidence, are a legitimate instrument of British foreign policy, and they have my support.
13:26
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
But these regulations do not meet that test. They seem to be to many to be there to satisfy local domestic political objectives of the Foreign Secretary and his government. This is a major change government. This is a major change in British foreign policy, made without consultation, made without an impact assessment, and without a an impact assessment, and without a vote in either House. Parliament is being asked to approve powers already in use. That is not already in use. That is not scrutiny. It is ratification. I move this motion because I believe this policy is a mistake.

The explanatory note makes no reference to Israel, but the Foreign Secretary statement in the other place, as the noble Lord, the Minister has made clear, and that his concern is about settler violence in the West Bank or Judea and Samaria, and that is driving this legislation through. Let me be quite clear. I condemn such violence by either side. Those who break the law should be arrested and punished. But I am disappointed that the Foreign Secretary made no mention whatsoever of the numerous attacks on Jewish people in that area. Violence by terrorists against any civilians must be condemned, and the government already have the tools to act.

38 people have already been sanctioned for settler violence, and the government's relentless and unequal focus on measures against Israel have left many Jews in this country fearful. The regulations came with three promises that they would be targeted, that they would not touch Israel inside the Green Line and that they would be global. Not one of them survives a reading of the text. The first promise was about that it would be targeted, but a person can be designated not for committing an abuse, but for providing support for it, obtaining any other benefit from it, or being associated with someone involved.

 That's not a scalpel, that's a net and the government know it. They have said themselves that these powers widen the net, quote unquote. To quote anyone who facilitates, promotes, incites or funds, unquote, the conduct in question, including the banks that finance settlement growth. So what does associated with mean a relative, an accountant, a customer? And when the penalty is seven years in prison, a British business is entitled to know where the line is drawn. It's a fundamental feature of the rule of law that the law, and especially a law with criminal penalties, be clear so that everyone knows what they cannot do and what they can do.

The second promise was the Green Line. On 8th September, the Foreign Secretary told the Other place that the government would absolutely ensure that it does not hit Green Line. Israel absolutely ensure. So where is it? These regulations contain no safeguard for trade inside the Green Line and no definition of where that line runs. And what of Jerusalem? Two weeks ago, I was in East Jerusalem as the UK chairman of the Jerusalem Foundation for the opening of the Beit Hanina Sports Complex. It's the first ever swimming pool in East Jerusalem. It was paid for in part by the city and in no small part by international Jewish donors, and it will be handed as a gift to the local community to run.

It's been so successful that we would like to build a second swimming pool in East Jerusalem to match the many in West Jerusalem. But donors have now told us they are not prepared to consider such a proposal because they may be caught under this legislation. So can the Minister assure British charities that their work will not be caught by this instrument when their trustees face a real possibility of criminal penalties? The government treat East Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, as occupied territory. So I ask the Minister, is the Western Wall within the scope of the regime, yes or no?

And could a British citizen who buys a flat in the Jewish quarter of the Old City from a Jewish seller, be at risk when the same purchase from an Arab seller would not be. The government. And every party to negotiations has always said that the status of Jerusalem must be settled in negotiations, not in regulations. And the real cost is trade between British and Israel, which is worth some £5.9 billion a year. And at the heart of it sits Israel's banks. Those banks lend across the country because Israel law forbids them from refusing customers due to where they live.

Under these regulations, a mortgage in a settlement could be support the interest of it a benefit and on suspicion alone, the bank suspicion alone the bank could be designated. Now, anyone who has worked in the city know how compliance departments work, and they will be faced with undefined tests and a seven year penalty or criminal sentence. So they won't ask is it lawful? They will ask is it worth the risk? And they will say no. And this is how a boycott of Israel begins, not by decree but by deterrence. The governments say they oppose the BDS campaign, yet they've written its sharpest element into British law.

So who pays? I'm afraid we in the UK pay British banks pay, and firms with U.S. operations pay, because under US federal law, it treats measures against any territory controlled by Israel as a boycott. So compliance with these regulations would expose them to US penalties. The NHS pays 1 in 7 generic medicine packs prescribed here comes from an Israeli company, Teva. British business pays firms with American operations now risk anti boycott penalties, and Palestinians pay some 30,000. Depend on jobs with settlement linked employee employers. This smacks of collective punishment. So I ask the Minister, will the Treasury issue general licences to protect NHS medicine supply?

The third promise was that this regime is global. Now take northern Cyprus. Turkey has occupied the northern Cyprus since 74. The UN Security Council has ruled the self-declared republic as legally invalid, and this country is one of Cyprus's three guarantor powers. So how many designations have the government made? None. Restrictions on trade none. One rule for Turkey, one rule for Israel, then Xinjiang. It's a settler corporation that has been sanctioned in full by the US since 2020, and here goods from the region enter without restriction. And Hamas and the Iran backed Houthis hostage, taking the diversion of aid the detention of UN staff.

Yet Ministers have given no indication that these powers will be used against them. This is not a global regime. It's a regime with a global title and a single target. My Lords, the cost is not hypothetical. Within a day of the announcement, Israel ordered the closure of our consulate in Jerusalem, expelled British personnel and from the centre co-ordinating.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I can I respectfully, my noble Lord, that the limit for this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was six minutes. I was graciously given a minute by Lord Wood's. But thank you. So I will conclude by saying that there will conclude by saying that there are. There were 9962 antisemitic incidents in the last six months in incidents in the last six months in the UK. This does nothing to reduce the tensions within the UK, and I'm going to conclude by asking the Minister six questions. Will you confirm that Israel trade within the Green Line will not lead to designation? Will he assure British banks that they will not be penalised for continuing to deal with Israel's banks?

Will the government define the terms on which people can be sanctioned and report annually to Parliament on how this regime is used, country by country, and will they assess the impact, particularly on charities, before going further? And lastly, will they refrain from designations while Israel forms a new government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at this crucial time? Thank you. Yeah, yeah. The original question was the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was the regulations laid before the House on the 12th of October be approved? Since when an amendment has been Since when an amendment has been moved by Lord Leigh of Hurley at the end to insert the words set out the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. My Lords. I speak from the perspective of being a vice president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, not as a spokesman of my group. This is an even more unstable and unpredictable time in Middle East politics than usual. We have the aftermath of elections in both
13:35
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Israel and the US, with lots of speculation, but not so much actual knowledge of what the next few knowledge of what the next few weeks and months will hold. I hope for a change of government in Israel. My party, the Liberal Democrats, is allied with Yair Democrats, is allied with Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, but everything is up in the air there as it is in is up in the air there as it is in Washington. The possibility of a US led renewal of hostilities in the Iran war cannot be dismissed, Iran war cannot be dismissed, regardless of the domestic Israeli situation and could influence the coalition talks there.

So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, firstly, what forethought is going into the application of these sanctions and their potential repercussions at this particular time. Let us recall, as the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley did, all the things that happened within a day of September's announcement, the closure of the British Consulate General in East Jerusalem and. And other consequences. Did the government foresee that response by the Israeli government as. Of course, it should have done. Does the Minister accept that the UK now has less influence over Israeli policy events in Gaza and the future of Jerusalem than it did on the 7th of September, and that its relations with the Palestinian Authority are made harder by a much reduced presence in East Jerusalem.

So looking at the situation now, and the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, about designations during coalition talks, will the government undertake not to issue designations while a new Israeli government is being formed? The Foreign Secretary said in the House on September the 8th that, quote, our argument is not with the people of Israel. Our argument is with the conduct of its government. So should. Should the UK government not prioritise getting a change in the conduct of a new Israeli government away from the destructive policies of the Netanyahu government? What assessment will it make before any designation of the impact, not only on those coalition talks, but also on relations with whatever government emerges?

The opposition changed. Parties have said they will thankfully crack down on the horrendous set of violence in the West Bank, show more flexibility in moving forward with the post-war plan for Gaza and mend fences with Israel's allies. So does the government really think now is a good time to be applying these sanctions, about which there are many questions. Will the noble Lord, the Minister, confirm that any designation will be preceded by a formal assessment of its diplomatic consequences, including in the light of emerging US policy? Finally, will the government confirm that the decision will be taken by Ministers, not officials alone?

Given the political and diplomatic minefield that is before it?
13:37
Lord Walney Portrait Lord Walney (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, yesterday evening some >> My Lords, yesterday evening some of us had the privilege of gathering in the robing room with the. With the permission of His Majesty, to celebrate the life of our dear friend, Mr. Lord Baroness our dear friend, Mr. Lord Baroness Ramsay. We miss her greatly, and I think I can say, after having had the privilege of serving with her when she was the long standing chair in the. In the House of Lords of Labour, friends of Israel, and I had a brief stint as chair in the Commons. I think I can say with confidence how dismayed she would be by not only by.

These particular sanctions targeting Israel and the way they do, but the turn that this government has has seen since the new Foreign Secretary took his place and the with the the Minister, the noble Lord, supporting him. Now it was reflected during the during the tributes how loyal and faithful metre was to the Labour Party over many years. More faithful, I have to say, than I have been. But. And so if this were brought to a vote, I think it's highly unlikely, given she only, I think, rebelled certainly only a half a dozen times or less in that in the whole career in the Lords, it's unlikely she would have voted against the government.

But I think the noble Lord, the Minister will know from his time observing her on the parliamentary committee how she would have made her views known in a cautious but persuasive but persuasive way. In her absence. Let me finish with a number of extra questions. The new obstruction ground in the sanctions covers those who facilitate or finance the. The. Dispersion of aid. Will the government use it against Hamas, which grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood and against those who finance and shelter it, including the IRGC and Hamas figures operating from Turkey? What safeguards will prevent the definitions of.

Associated with and supported. Those tests being. What were. What safeguards will prevent those tests being weaponized against Jewish charities, donors and trustees who wish to conduct lawful giving related to Israel? And finally, the government said these regulations would not affect freedom of religion. Has the government assessed their impact on Jewish religious observance, and will the media confirm that worship, religious physics and support for synagogues and other religious institutions will not be treated as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support for settlement activity? I declare my interest as set out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as set out in the register. I support my noble friend Lord Lee and wish to focus friend Lord Lee and wish to focus on one issue certainty. If these regulations are truly targeted, regulations are truly targeted, those affected should be able to understand where the boundary lies. understand where the boundary lies. Yet the government have failed to provide that clarity. Faced with serious penalties, many will, on the side of caution, can the government state clearly, when buying a home or making a
13:41
Lord Pickles Portrait Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
-
charitable donation in East Jerusalem, including the Western Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, what becomes grounds for designation? What legal test designation? What legal test distinguishes a lawful transaction from a sanctionable support? Will from a sanctionable support? Will the test be published? Trustees, the test be published? Trustees, donors charities should not have to guess whether lawful activity crosses the invisible line. If the government have a clear test, they should publish it. If they do not, this is precisely the problem. But there are wider consequences if charities and individuals cannot determine where the line is drawn. Why should banks and businesses?

Many will simply withdraw from dealings with Israel as the safest course. What assessment did the government make of the impact on UK businesses, particularly those with US operations? In light of America's anti-boycott laws? What assessment was made of any wider implication for the UK US relationship? What guidance will be issued if those assessments have been undertaken, they should be published. If guidance has been prepared, it should be issued. The House is not being asked this afternoon with the certainty is desirable. It's been asked to approve regulations whose boundaries remain undefined in practice with sanctions carry serious penalties.

Uncertainty is not a technical fault. It is a fundamental defect. If those affected cannot know with confidence where the line is drawn, the House should be concerned about what is being asked to approve. This is, in effect, BDS by the back door, whether it's intended to, whether it was intended or not. This is BDS and that is why I support the motion of regret.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Very good. The principle. Behind the global human rights sanctions when they were first sanctions when they were first introduced. But like many good things, this instrument, too carries a risk of mission creep. carries a risk of mission creep. And I fear it is what we see in the new regulations. I'm concerned about the extension of the regime about the extension of the regime to the three new grounds, and in particular, to violations of international humanitarian law.

And
13:44
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
international humanitarian law. And I'm also concerned about the new mechanism of designation by description. Whereas until now we've only been able to designate by name alone. Both questions matter because the threshold is quite low. Reasonable grounds to suspect is not a demanding test, particularly when applied in the fog of war. I don't think there has ever been a war in the history of warfare, in which there were not reasonable grounds to suspect that the laws of war were being broken, reasonable grounds to suspect, if we want to apply this threshold consistently, would require us to consider imposing sanctions in connection with every ongoing armed conflict, including those involving allies.

I also wonder if the government has given thought to the relationship between this instrument and the arms embargo regime. The threshold there is clear risk, which is a higher threshold than reasonable grounds to suspect, particularly when we then also consider the fact that individuals associated with someone may also be sanctionable under the new instrument. Does that mean that we could still potentially sell arms to individuals that we have sanctioned? Or how do the two regimes operate together? Also have some further questions for the Minister? Will the government publish examples that show what reasonable grounds to suspect specifically means in evidential terms, in the context of an armed conflict?

What independent assessment will the government make of evidence from the UN, NGOs, media or foreign governments, particularly where an allegation is repeated from in report after report, quite often based on the same second hand source? But I think, most importantly, how will the government ensure that these new grounds and mechanisms are genuinely applied consistently if the government imposes sanctions in connection with a settlement in the West Bank, will it set out the legal reasons for not doing the same in other occupied territories,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

such as Western Sahara and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? I apologise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to. The House and I beg the House's indulgence. For me, this is an a serious issue that places the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

serious issue that places the Jewish people under significant antisemitic. The debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The debate. That the government realises how serious this is. I beg the House's indulgence that I may make a few remarks. And I. I thank the House for that. I will be very brief, can't.
13:47
13:48
Lord Gold Portrait Lord Gold (Conservative)
-
-
Cyprus occupied by Turkey since 1974. The Xinjiang Settler Corporation in China is unsanctioned, and Ministers have not said that the powers will be used against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza or the Iran backed Houthis, who are detaining UN aid workers. My Lord's failure to take any action over Cyprus is particularly heinous as guarantor. Under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, the UK has a particular responsibility. The UN Security Council declared the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus legally invalid. The Council of Europe has condemned the colonisation by Turkish settlers, and the European Court of Human Rights has found that Turkey violated the property rights of displaced Greek Cypriots.

Indeed, homes continue to be built and sold on their land, including to British buyers, but no sanctions have been imposed. And yet the government claims that the sanctions regime is global. If so, why has no action been taken in these other cases? If the government's view is that settlement activity in occupied territory constitutes a serious violation of international humanitarian law, presumably that law that view rests on article 49, six of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies equally to every alleged occupying power. The government speaks out loudly against anti-Semitism, but singling out the one Jewish state for sanctions raises serious doubts as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the sincerity of such a claim. Yeah. Does the Minister accept that a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the Minister accept that a decision not to apply the regime to comparable conduct elsewhere could be open to judicial review? Yeah, be open to judicial review? Yeah, if it rests on a different legal test, and will the government test, and will the government undertake to publish the criteria it applies? Will the government it applies? Will the government also now confirm that action will be taken against those responsible for these other violations? If not, how will the government show it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not being applied to Israel alone? Yeah, yeah. I draw attention to my register,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I draw attention to my register, to my entry in the Register of Interest. When announcing these measures, the Foreign Secretary said the government would said the government would absolutely ensure this regime does not hit Green Line Israel and that trade with Israel would continue to trade with Israel would continue to be supported. And that trade, my Lords, is worth around £6 billion, with UK exports worth more than
13:51
Lord Austin of Dudley Portrait Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
with UK exports worth more than half of it a trade surplus in Britain's favour of roughly £1 billion. And over the last five years more than 400 Israeli companies established or expanded in the UK, creating 4000 jobs and bringing in £1 billion of investment. And this makes a huge contribution to the UK economy, the highly skilled and well paid jobs. And I'm sure the Minister will agree that none of them should be put at risk. But despite the to commit the Foreign Secretary's commitment, the Minister will know that business involved businesses involved in UK Israel, trade, people in Israel and many.

As we've heard from a number of speakers in this debate, people in the Jewish community want to be reassured about the precise impact of these measures and that they will not affect trade within Israel's pre 1967 lines. So can I ask whether the Treasury and the Foreign Office will issue clear guidance so that banks. No ordinary trade, finance and payments with Israeli businesses are not to be affected? And what assurance can we give to Palestinian banks, which clear shekel payments through Israeli correspondent banks? Given claims by members of Parliament that a recent event recruiting Jewish doctors to work in in Israel would have contravened these regulations.

Will the Minister make clear that lawful healthcare, medical recruitment and Jewish communal events are not within their scope and only. Only last night, these regulations were cited when. When Birmingham City Council's Lib Dem and Green Coalition supported, I have to say, by Labour councillors, passed a motion on divestment from Israel, including a review of pension fund investment and council banking relationships. Now this, my Lords, unbelievably, is a city which has had to be rescued from bankruptcy by taxpayers where rubbish has been piled high in the streets, where it's the youth unemployment capital of Britain. Yet the clowns on the council are more concerned.

Obsessed with a war 3000 miles away that they know next to nothing about and can do even less to solve. So will the Minister make clear that this is not government policy? Will he confirm that the government is opposed to boycotts of the government's opposition to boycotts of Israel, applies to Labour Councils two and commit to monitoring whether UK banks and businesses are withdrawing from lawful trade with Israel and to acting, and to act to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deal with that if they are. My Lords, I rise to support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support. My noble friend Lord Lee and. Provide a gentle reminder. Of why we're here today. Three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of why we're here today. Three. Years ago, on October the 7th, more than 6000.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more than 6000. Palestinian men invaded Israel. They slaughtered over 1200 men, They slaughtered over 1200 men, women, children and infants. They tortured, beheaded, burned alive, blew up, gang raped, sodomised their way through the Nova Festival
13:54
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
and a number of kibbutz. Their second war crime was to take over 250 innocent civilians, including children and infants, hostage, into the tunnels of Gaza, where they were tortured, raped, many murdered, were tortured, raped, many murdered, and some kept hostage. For more than two and a half years. Some than two and a half years. Some employees of the UN UNRWA were complicit, and these actions were supported by the Palestinian Authority, whose members have never condemned the attacks. In fact, it was due to their weakness and cowardice that Hamas and the Palestinian jihadists were able to take control of Gaza in 2006, when the one and only election took place, the Islamic Republic of Iran pulled the strings of its proxies, and the rest is history.

So, having witnessed one of the worst crimes in living memory on the citizens of Israel and ally, by the way, who provides us with intelligence, cancer drugs used by the NHS, and much more. What has this government done? Well, let's look, shall we? This government decided to recognise a Palestinian state despite there being no such thing. There are no borders, no rule of law or anything, in fact, which can warrant such a decision. This government has also allowed the pro-Palestinian anti-Semitic hate protests to take place weekly. To this day. The protesters, including Islamist supporters of Hizb ut-Tahrir, take part, and all of them continue to call for the annihilation of Israel and all Jews.

It is then surprising that the British Jewish citizens have and are being bullied, continue to be bullied, attacked and murdered on the streets of the UK, Jewish children and their families living in a ring of steel and anti-Semitism at a level I never thought I would see in my lifetime. So finally, my Lords, I'll come to sanctions because of a disputed territory of which we have plenty of our own. This government places sanctions on our ally with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Russia, Somalia, Syria and other despotic barbaric regimes and yet again gives succour to our enemies by appeasing and rewarding those terrorists who threaten to attack Israel again and again.

The truth is, this government has kowtowed to those who shout loudest and to who they hope will keep it in power. Their actions are shameful and a blight on the freedoms we have fought for, and run completely counter to the silent majority of this country. We know a distraction when we see one. And this regulation, my Lords, has to be one of the worst examples yet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

here. Includes a more general review of the expansion of the sanctions. of the expansion of the sanctions. So I hope the House will forgive me if I just focus on some questions relating to the government's relating to the government's current favourite target, Israel. My Lords, since the Clinton parameters, every serious peace parameters, every serious peace proposal has envisaged Israel retaining major settlement blocs while compensating with land swaps.
13:57
Lord Mendelsohn Portrait Lord Mendelsohn (Labour)
-
-
while compensating with land swaps. Now, this does not excuse violence, dispossession or unlawful expansion, but it recognises the compromises and complexities on which peace has always depended and the pursuit of it has always required. So I ask the Minister, is residential construction in those major blocks in itself a serious violation of international humanitarian law for the purposes of these regulations? If it is, what assessment have the government made of the effect on the prospects for a negotiated two state solution? Have they assessed how restrictions on civilian and economic life in these same blocks might affect the prospects of an agreed territorial compromise?

My Lord, has the Minister also considered how these. How these will apply? Banks and insurers, confronted with uncertain tests and grave penalties, may well withdraw from perfectly lawful Israeli trade. Now the government says it opposes boycotts if British institutions withdraw from lawful trade with Israel as a whole, how is that different, in effect, from a boycott? What does the government intend to do to set out to to prevent it? And please, would be very grateful for the briefings that officials have made on this, have indicated that they are setting terms which Israel cannot even even by breaching its own law, meet.

What assessment has the government made of the West Bank economy, and what support and arrangements are needed to support Palestinian financial institutions and banks, given the changes? Will the Minister please also give us some view as to what safeguards there are to ensure, if a company delisted or or where where it stops a relevant activity, the government will reassess its designation so that the regulations are always applied on an up to date factual basis. Why does regulation eight three on supplying goods or services contain no requirement of knowledge? When regulation eight three does, how promptly will a person designated by description receive usable notice, and how can they obtain clarification of whether designation applies to them?

How frequently will the government reassess the factual basis and continuing appropriateness of designation? Will it publish aggregate review outcomes? What remedy is available to an innocent third party suffering losses from a mistaken identification or mistaken ownership and control assessment? How will the government distinguish a remote or incidental financial benefit from a sufficiently direct benefit under regulation eight three F under regulation eight three E? Can a supply with no knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect wrongdoing nevertheless be treated as involved? And what proportionality safeguard would apply? What factors merely distinguish an incidental, professional, familial or charitable association from an association sufficient for designation under regulation eight one D?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Lord Shinkwin is taking part remotely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taking part remotely. My votes. I managed to speak in support of the amendment in the name of my little friend Lord Leigh name of my little friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. Yesterday I spoke to a group of amendments to the health group of amendments to the health Bill, which dealt with the need to address the pernicious threat to address the pernicious threat to the NHS posed by anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. I spoke then from a patient's perspective.

In my case, as someone who owes so much to my childhood Jewish refugee consultant, most of his family were murdered in the Holocaust and in whose memory I will always defend Israel's right to exist in peace
14:01
14:03
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the regret motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and in so doing draw attention to my entry in the Register of Interests. My Lords, I want to raise briefly two specific concerns on this proposed legislation. The first is the risk that the sanctions under consideration will not be effectively targeted. Now, the noble Lord Alli talked about the chilling effect. I think one could describe it as as of the ambiguity of aspects of these these sanctions and the the definitions.

That's a negative, if you like, risk. But the Foreign Secretary in the Commons, when announcing these sanctions, also set out a positive duty. He said, we will absolutely ensure it does not hit it. Green Line Israel. He said, we will continue to support important and valued trade with Green Line Israel. Now if that was not just words, they imply a positive duty to act by embassies, by government officials, by departments who support trade between the UK and Israel. And businesses need to know what positive, practical support the government can still give. Government officials need to know what they can do and can't do under these sanctions.

So I ask the noble Lord to the Minister, can he explain what the government will do to deliver on the Foreign Secretary's positive commitment? Will they publish guidance, for example, making clear what trade and investment is supported by HMG and its officials and what isn't? So that's my first concern. Second is how the follow up regulations to these sanctions are to be handled. In practice. They are presented as the first stage in a series of measures tightening restrictions over time, and the government's planned measures to prohibit or restrict import services. Advertising will be very far reaching.

They'll hit a lot of people who probably never imagined they were going to be hit by this, and there's a high risk of getting the detail wrong or having inadvertent, consequential effects. And my Lords, this does happen. Some of us may remember in 2023 the Russia sanctions amendment number three regulations banned legal advisory services. They were made on 27th June that year and came into force three days later. And then an outside stakeholder. It took an outside stakeholder, a law firm, to tell us, the legislators, that these regulations actually made it a crime for UK based lawyers to advise on how to comply with the sanctions.

The firm went on to say this was unnecessary and likely unintended, and your Lordships Secondary Legislation Committee went on to confirm this was actually in effect, and it took the government a year to get the legislation right. This happened in a sanction regime, which by then was well understood and often used. So will the government commit to doing the maximum to avoid a similar situation arising again, instead of drafting follow up laws and simply bringing them into force, will they commit to ensuring that measures under this bill will be published in draft, consulted upon and properly debated in this Parliament first?
14:06
Lord Evans of Guisborough Portrait Lord Evans of Guisborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. Frost, who has demonstrated his considerable knowledge and experience in this field. It is a experience in this field. It is a hallmark of bad law that it encourages shadow compliance and over compliance, because British companies and institutions quite rightly wish to obey the law, but also wish not to be test cases. It takes time and money to be a test case, and after all, it is not their job to clarify UK law. The government should be responsible for saying exactly where the boundaries lie. And because of that, I'd like to ask the Minister for his assurance about the assessments that the government had made, that their actions are going to be proportionate under this legislation.

So the government's stated aims, and also that this will be consistent with the government's obligations under international law. I have got considerable respect for the noble Lord. The Minister, and I understand that that he will want to do his best to get this right. But I think we always remember in this House that Statutory Instruments, we approve legislation that we approve will be used by Ministers in future. And that's why, because I don't necessarily trust people who in future might pick this responsibility up. That's why I'd like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, for a further safeguard.

That is, that he restore the duty

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to report to Parliament on sanctions regimes, Which was scrapped back in 2022

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which was scrapped back in 2022 because this is a considerable extension of the government's power of sanctioning. And I think it is of sanctioning. And I think it is right that both Houses of Parliament get a report every year about what has happened, who has about what has happened, who has been sanctioned and what the results are going to be. So I hope

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the will be able to reassure me on both those points. Good point. My Lords.
14:08
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
The acute human cost of current global conflicts provides the undeniable catalyst for today's debate. The plight of civilians, particularly the catastrophic situation in Gaza, is of profound concern. The government is entirely right to use these regulations to expand our foreign policy toolkit by making the intentional obstruction of life saving, humanitarian assistance and serious breaches of international humanitarian law explicit. Sanctionable offences. The government is creating a necessary legal lever to address atrocities worldwide. Crucially, these powers are truly global. While the immediate focus of many is the Middle East, the updated framework allows the UK to target perpetrators across other devastating theatres of war.

It strengthens our hand. As my noble friend the Minister has already outlined, it is to penalise those orchestrating violence or blocking food and medicine in Sudan, for example, where we have recently seen severe human rights violations and the restrictions of aid. It gives us explicit legal baseline to act decisively in conflicts across Myanmar, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Sahel region. Previously, punishing these acts required slow, country specific geographic regimes. Today, we establish a unified global standard for accountability. Furthermore, updating our powers to allow designations by descriptions rather than just by individual name provides the agility required in fast moving conflicts.

It ensures the UK can act in immediate lockstep with international allies to deter actions that undermine humanitarian law, whether against violent settlers, networks in the West Bank or warlords in East Africa. Procedural questions regarding delegated legislation and legal thresholds are fair matters for this House to scrutinise. However, technical caution must not paralyse urgent humanitarian leverage. Rather than regretting these regulations, our focus must be on efficient enforcement. So I ask the Minister to confirm that the Foreign Office has the dedicated intelligence resources to rapidly monitor aid obstruction globally, ensuring that these powers are deployed effectively to protect vulnerable civilians in Gaza, Sudan and beyond.
14:11
14:12
Lord McCabe Portrait Lord McCabe (Labour)
-
-
Hear, hear. Very good. My Lords. >> Hear, hear. Very good. My Lords. >> I draw. Attention to my entry. >> In the Register of Interests as Lord, we told us. This decision represents a significant change in the position adopted by British governments over many years, and it is also a serious departure from long standing Labour Party policy. Like many others, I worry about the implications of this and the damage it might do to our relations with a vital ally in many innocent parties. The Foreign Secretary tells us that we cannot outsource our moral responsibilities, and so he has taken the decision to act under our global human rights and international humanitarian law.

But surely, unless we are going to see a raft of other measures, that sentiment could have a very hollow ring. What kind of moral responsibility does it show to act in one instance, while turning a blind eye in many others? Like other speakers, I ask my noble friend if the government is applying a global approach. Can we expect soon to see measures directed at those who seized property and settlements in northern Cyprus? Real measures to kerb the IRGC in the Iran backed activities. Measures against China and the Xinjiang settler organisation, and against Hamas for diverting aid in Gaza.

If not, how can our government avoid the charge that this decision is about acting against and singling out Israel? And given the uncertainty and the potential risks associated with these measures, can I ask my noble friend, was the Department for Business and Trade fully consulted before they were announced? And can he say with confidence that the regulations and the planned import ban are compatible with the UK Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement?
14:15
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
I refer the House to. >> Over many years, I've taken more than 150 delegations of parliamentarians to Israel and the region, and I have seen what Britain can achieve when we are trusted and when we are in the room. And I have sadly watched this government give it all away. As Lord Lee said within a day of the announcement, or. Consul General in Jerusalem was ordered to leave, British personnel were removed from the centre, coordinating the Gaza ceasefire and rebuilding our training of Palestinian Authority security forces was stopped. Not one designation had been made and we lost our seat at the table before the ink was dry.

And for what? These regulations will not bring peace one day closer. And how would the government even know? How would the government even know? Beyond counting designations, what measurable outcomes will they use to judge whether these sanctions actually improve humanitarian access? My Lords, the Abraham Accords have shown that peace is built through trade, investment and partnership, and Britain should be part of that. Instead, with tests no one can define and penalties of up to seven years in prison, British banks and businesses cannot know where the government line falls, and many will simply walk away from Israel.

That damages British trade. It damages Israel and damages the relationship between our two countries. Can I gently remind the noble Lord, the Minister, that the British mandate ended almost 80 years ago? Only yesterday the Right Honourable Kemi Badenoch said in relation to our national security and defence, this is not a student union, it is the running of our country. My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this sanctions policy is another example of student politics at its worst. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. During this debate, I've sort of by my calculation, there have been by my calculation, there have been about 40 or so legitimate questions posed to the Minister. We did not have an opportunity before the sea have an opportunity before the sea was laid. So I struggle to understand how such a flawed policy can be rushed through with no can be rushed through with no parliamentary scrutiny, and done on purely domestic political considerations. With a by election in Holborn and, frankly, pandering to the mark. Yeah. Nor do these measures help the two state solution. The government, they say, the government that they say they support it, but there's no.

Lord Mendelsohn said every serious peace proposal since the Clinton Parameters of 2000 has expected the major settlement blocs to remain part of Israel. So if this policy is to stand, I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, how do these sanctions bring the two state solution closer? Second, if the Green Line is now the line on which British sanctions turn, will the government publish where it runs and say clearly whether East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights fall within it? And thirdly, will the planned advertising ban stop British estate agents, newspapers or community organisations from advertising homes in the Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem?

My Lords, peace is built through engagement, not sanctions. Britain should be building bridges in the Middle East, not burning them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. My noble friend Lord Mendelsohn admitted to declare his interest earlier and would just briefly wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

earlier and would just briefly wish to rise just to do so. And then we'll be on to. I apologise in hacking my speech down, I admitted at the very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down, I admitted at the very beginning to declare my interest as set out in the Register. My Lords, I should also state

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I should also state repeatedly in this debate there's been incorrect references. The
14:18
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
companion is perfectly clear that references to interest need to be specific. There's been a number of parts of this debate which I hope that the government whips in. The opposition whips will reflect on the handling of this debate. I welcome these sanctions. And indeed, having scrutinised all sanctions that the UK has passed since 2018, I have called for the updating and the expansion of the human rights sanctions. So I welcome the new elements and the new criteria, and also the fact that descriptions of actions will be put in place to prevent circumvention. There has been, let me refer briefly to the regret motion.

We already have designated individuals within the Israeli government. We have many Israeli actors who've been designated under the human rights regime. I slightly regret the partisan tone in this debate, because I want to quote from the Foreign Secretary. Today's sanctions place restrictions on those involved in some of the most egregious abuses of human rights. Extremist Israeli settlers are threatening Palestinians, often at gunpoint, and forcing them off land that is rightfully theirs. This behaviour is illegal and unacceptable. That was David Cameron as Foreign secretary under the last government in February 2024. There are many elements of this debate that is not new today.

Indeed, I agreed with Lord Cameron. In fact, I questioned him on those in this House, many who've taken part in this debate today did not. Outposts in particular are illegal under Israeli law. I do not understand why we should allow UK bodies to be immune from our law, which facilitates settlements and outposts which are illegal under Israeli law. We have an obligation in this country to ensure UK entities do not facilitate human rights abuses and egregious breaches of international humanitarian law. As Lord Cameron outlined in 2024, I welcome the fact that this is a global regime, as the Minister said, and indeed we can now move more quickly beyond Sudan, Syria, Myanmar and the DRC, where there are country specific scope which the Minister had indicated.

I am glad that the Minister mentioned Sudan. I welcome the fact that the commanders are now being sanctioned for the terrible human rights abuses within that conflict, but I hope the Minister he normally says the Ministers do not comment on individuals to be sanctioned. But it is worth noting that the UK still has not sanctioned General Bohan and General Hemetti, the two people who are most responsible for the world's worst humanitarian abuses. My final point is with regards to humanitarian relief. There is scope under these under these measures, to have a Treasury license for exemptions, a humanitarian scope is in place.

I hope that the Minister might be able to confirm that it is indeed the government's intention that there will be a humanitarian assistance license.
14:22
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, when. sanctions, both the government and the official opposition reasserted our commitment to the two state solution and Israel's right to defend itself. We all want to see sustainable, long term peace in the region, and I know there is a broad consensus in the House on that matter. My Lords, also, for the avoidance of doubt, we all condemn settler violence, and I hope that the Israeli authorities will clamp down on many of the abuses that we have seen. But as I said in September, the tests by which the government sanctions will be judged is whether they bring us closer to a sustainable two state solution.

 We on these benches are far from satisfied that the government's approach is any closer to achieving that. We were particularly concerned by the government's decision to announce these sanctions, which will take months to be implemented. Surprisingly close to the Holborn and St Pancras by election, which, incidentally meant creating a further political row during the lead up to the elections in Israel. This, in my view, my Lords, was a serious misjudgement, leading many of us to suspect that domestic political considerations were at the forefront of the government's consideration. I share many of the concerns raised by noble Lords across the House today, including, I am pleased to say, on the government's own benches.

I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to give full answer to the very many serious questions that have been put to him today, and if he needs to write to noble Lords to provide detailed replies, I would be grateful if he would commit to sharing those detailed answers with all peers for the information of the House, and lay copies of his replies in the library. I hope you will forgive me if I add some of my own question to his extensive list. On religious freedom, the government has said that these regulations would not affect freedom of religion.

What assessment have they made of the impact on Jewish religious observance, including acts of worship, religious visits, religious goods and related payments, and of compatibility with article nine freedom of Religion and article 14 Prohibition of discrimination in the European Convention of Human Rights that the government tell us they are also committed to, as given effect by the Human Rights Act of 1998. Will they publish objective criteria, distinguishing support for worship and religious institutions from financing settlement expansion before charities, donors and banks are expected to apply them? Will the government report annually to Parliament on designations and decisions not to designate by country, and build an annual review or sunset into the operation of the regulations so that efficacy, fairness and proportionality can be assessed every year by all of us.

And what assessment has the government made that the regulations will be applied in a manner proportionate, proportionate to their stated aims and consistent with the UK's obligations under international law? Can the noble Lord, the Minister, tell us whether the Treasury DfE t DHSC and relevant financial regulators were consulted on the wider effects, and will the government publish a summary of their assessments? And finally, on the necessity of these regulations, what specific conduct could not be addressed adequately under the 2020 regime, and what evidence led Ministers to conclude
14:26
Lord Wood of Anfield Portrait Lord Wood of Anfield, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
that these additional 2026 designation grounds were necessary beyond domestic political beyond domestic political considerations? I look forward to the noble Lord the minister's response. But should my noble friend Lord Leigh, put his motion friend Lord Leigh, put his motion to the vote, then I will certainly support him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support him. Lots of paper. My Lords, I'd like to thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and I'd like to start by echoing what my noble friend Lord Woodcock said about Meta Ramsey. We all miss her very much. She would have disagreed. I'm sure you're right. With much, if not the preponderance of today's see amendments. But we miss her very much. The expansion of the global human rights. Sanctions regime, and now the global human rights and international humanitarian law regime shows how the UK is taking bold action to stand up for British values around the world.

I'd like to respond to the noble Lord Lord Lee's motion, I'm sorry to see opposition. I understand many of the arguments made by noble Lord, Lord Lee and others on the specific cases of Israel that he focussed on and that most Lords, noble Lords focussed on, but I'm disappointed to see opposition to this as the vehicle by which they express their passionately, strongly held views on the question of Israel and the UK's relationship with Israel. Why? Because today is about something slightly different to what the majority of noble Lords have been focusing on. This is about an instrument whose purpose is to strengthen the UK's ability to respond to serious abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law, wherever they occur, wherever they occur.

And if Lord Lee's motion was successful, this House would be on record as regarding the expansion of the government's powers to act wherever abuses of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law occur across the globe. Regretting that, and I don't believe that's a message that this House wants to send. These regulations are not targeting any country. They are expanding the range of abuses upon which the global human rights regime will be based and upon which the UK government can act. They are global in scope. They are designed to ensure the UK has the necessary powers to hold individuals and entities accountable for serious misconduct across a range of situations across the world.

They provide an important and proportionate addition to our sanctions toolkit and strengthen our ability to act in defence of fundamental rights and international norms. And I take my noble friend Baroness Gill's point very, very much to heart. You need to maintain the ability to have strong monitoring of human rights abuses and international humanitarian law rights abuses, including information from the United Nations and many other sources as well. To get back to noble Lord, Lord Young's point. Now, the noble Lords motion raises specific, many specific questions about and. And his contribution raises questions about trade with Israel.

Let me be clear, as the Foreign Secretary has said, we will continue to support important and valued trade with Green Line Israel and its people. These regulations do not affect that trade. Indeed, this set of regulations is not about trade. I'll come back to this in a minute. This is about behaviour. The noble Lord also asked whether the government will publish clear designation criteria and an evidence based framework. Well, the designation criteria are set out in the regulations themselves, specifically in regulation eight, page six, I believe. Any designation must meet the legal tests established in sanctions legislation and be made in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998.

Decisions are made by Ministers on the basis of evidence, and are subject to the safeguards and scrutiny established by Parliament. And just as a passing remark, regulation eight sets out the designation criteria. It is almost identical to regulation six, I believe, in the 2020 regulations almost identical. The idea that there is some massive redefinition of the small print is simply not true. The main changes are in regulation four, where we have added serious violation of international humanitarian law and wider human rights grounds. Now, in our Lord's comments are not about are not correct in saying that there is a subversive expansion going on here.

In order to get in particular cases, it is factually incorrect. Any economic impacts arise. Excuse me. I apologise. Questions were also raised regarding impact assessments and reporting to Parliament. A de minimis impact assessment has been completed and concluded that the expected additional impact on UK businesses will be negligible, and that's because the regulations are enabling legislation only and are global in scope. The sanctions regime itself is not targeted at any specific country, conflict sector, product market or group of business businesses. Any economic impacts arise only if Ministers decide to designate specific persons under the expanded regime.

These designations are separate case by case, and each designation follows a robust legal process we designate according only to the specific grounds of the appropriate regime, and our reasoning must be properly evidenced with credible sources that can be relied upon in court. We regularly keep sanctions regimes and designations under review. Noble Lord, Lord Evans was right that the duty to report to Parliament annually was scrapped in 2022 by the previous conservative government. However, this House and the Other place do have a range of mechanisms through which sanctions, policy and implementation are examined through debates, through questions, through committee scrutiny, through correspondence, through evidence sessions, through extremely friendly text exchanges with friends like my noble, noble Lord Lord Polak on a regular basis, my hon.

Friend Minister Doughty, writes regularly to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee setting out the government's sanctions work in detail. Such correspondence is available in the libraries of both houses, and I also committed, as I'm sure, noble Lords across the House already know, that I am committed to continuing regular engagement with members across the House on sanctions issues and related issues. Let me respond quickly to some of the. I can only do some of the. Of the individual remarks. A number of noble Lords raised the question of whether this was singling out Israel in some way or focussed on Israel.

Not only is this not about Israel, it's about the global human rights regime. It's a Statutory Instrument amending the global human rights regime. But let me just refer to some of the designations that have been made to Georgia. As I mentioned before, in Sri Lanka, where we sanctioned individuals responsible for serious human rights abuses and violations during the Sri Lankan civil war in Cambodia, where we've used to deliver high impact sanctions against global conglomerates running sham and scam centres, as well as their enablers. We. It's not true. It is simply not true that this is a regime that is targeted on Israel or any one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

country. It is not true. Yes. May I just bring to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. May I just bring to the attention of the noble Lord, the Minister, a press release that came out on the 8th of September, a week after Sir Keir Starmer resigned, which read the UK to bring forward which read the UK to bring forward new powers to respond to moral emergency in Palestine and target emergency in Palestine and target illegal settlement activity in the West Bank to protect the viability of a two state solution. I'll happily give this document to the noble Lord, the Minister, when he's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

completed his response. All right. Thank you. I'm familiar with that document. I may have even had a hand in helping to write it. There's a confusion, if you don't mind me saying so, at the heart of your question, because the Foreign your question, because the Foreign Secretary in September announced two things he announced. In fact, he announced many things, including which some noble Lords have which some noble Lords have forgotten a series of sanctions on financing arms of Hamas and Hezbollah. But he also announced two other things. Particular he announced the expansion. Excuse me. He announced that there will be a new sanctions regime designed to stop UK economic activity supporting the expansion of illegal settlements, and that that will be laid before Parliament within 6 to 9 months.

Many comments of noble Lords and noble Ladies in the last hour have been focussed on a Bill that is yet to be produced and measures that have yet to be clarified, and I take very seriously the injunctions of many noble Lords, including Lord Mendelsohn, for clarity to be provided as much as is consistent with those new rules. But today is about the expansion of the second thing he talked about the expansion of our existing global human rights regime. That's what we're discussing today. That is not what the quote the noble Lady read out was about.

I don't have time. I'm afraid I will very happily come back to noble Lords on specific, specific issues. I don't have time to go through everything now. I'm afraid if this motion was successful, as I said earlier, we would not be taking any action with regard to any one country. We would be saying no to the expansion of the government's right or ability to act, not the right, the ability to act in response to abuse of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law. Is that really the message that we want to send today, a general modification to an established and successfully operating set of regulations to expand abuses that we all debate day to day people get rightly upset about and ask moral questions about on a regular basis.

Do we really think that that is the message we want to send?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord said, just the importance I understand the noble Lord wishes to make progress, and I Lord wishes to make progress, and I welcome the fact that more time was given to this through usual channels. But will the noble Lord give an assurance to the House? He says he has no more time now that he will place in the library a full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response to all the questions raised by noble Lords in this debate. Yes I will. I'll happily provide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes I will. I'll happily provide answers to the questions I haven't been able to address. I'm happy to put it in the library as well. My Lords, the UK has. Indeed. My Lords, the UK has transformed its use of sanctions in recent years and continues to lead internationally in their implementation. This amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime gives us a stronger and more flexible means of promoting accountability and responsibility, and responding to some of the gravest abuses seen around the world. So I therefore respectfully urge noble Lords not to support the amendment by Lord Lee, because Lord Lee's amendment is an amendment motivated by things which are not the substance of today's amendments.

Today's amendments are for the global human rights regime rules. To conclude, I once again wish to thank the House for many insightful contributions, continued cross-party support of our sanctions regimes. We continue to lead internationally on sanctions implementation and this amended global human rights and international humanitarian law regime will give the UK a powerful tool to respond to human rights abuses and international human law, humanitarian law violations across the world. I beg to move.
14:37
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I. Chief Whip? No. My Lords, can I thank the very many noble Lords who have spoken on this debate? It is. I have listened to some extremely I have listened to some extremely powerful, passionate and very well informed comments from actually all sides of the House. And I'm sides of the House. And I'm extremely grateful to those noble Lords who have taken the time and trouble. So to do. I think there trouble. So to do. I think there were some 40 questions. There were maybe 50 questions. I think the noble Lords Ministers answered about ten.

And this is the purpose of our chamber, is to look at things in more detail and express reservations. And there are clearly enormous reservations about these Statutory Instruments. They do not. The protections we've asked for, the concerns we've had raised have not been answered, and it is therefore more than appropriate that the opinion of this House is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tested, and I wish so to do that. Yeah. My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that the motion in the name of Lord Leigh of Hurley be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say content. Consent to the contrary, not content. Not content. Question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There may There may be There may be a There may be a small There may be a small technical

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There may be a small technical delay that we are. So I'm going to sit down, but I strongly advise My My Lords, My Lords, voting My Lords, voting is
14:39
None Portrait Division
-

My Lords, voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They know They know your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give Give it Give it to Give it to me. Give it to me. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give it to me. I would Give it to me. I would like Give it to me. I would like to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that the motion in the name of Lord Leigh of Hurley be agreed to. As Leigh of Hurley be agreed to. As many as our opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. not content. Contents will go to the right by the throne, the go to the right by the throne, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The second.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that the. That the motion in the name of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, they My Lords, they have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, they have voted. Contents 94 not contents. 90 so the not content. The contents have it. not content. The contents have it. The contents have it, my Lords, I'll take a moment before putting My My Lords, My Lords, my My Lords, my Lords. My Lords, my Lords. The question is that the original motion, as amended, be agreed to as many. So of that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. I will just take a moment for any noble Lords who wish to leave the chamber now to do so quickly, so that we can get on Has Has to Has to be Has to be again in Committee on Representation of the people.

Bill Baroness Taylor of
14:51
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026 - motion to approve and the associated regret motion in the name of Lord Leigh of Hurley
-

Stevenage.
14:52
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move the House to again resolve itself into a Committee upon the Bill. a Committee upon the Bill. >> Question is that the House resolve itself into a committee upon the Bill. As many as have that upon the Bill. As many as have that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Lords Representation of the People Bill. Clause 15. Amendment 18. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fuller. My Lords, I've got two amendments in this short group 18 amendments in this short group 18 and 19, and both are related to the way in which looked after. Children are encouraged to register to vote. are encouraged to register to vote. The information that has been provided to them to inform that choice, and then to ensure that choice, and then to ensure that party politics is played. No part of that decision if there's of that decision if there's automatic registration so that one political outcome is not unduly influenced over the other. Now, both my amendments relate to the entirety of the United Kingdom, with 18 referring to Great Britain and 19 the mirroring provision for Northern Ireland.

It is the local state in Great Britain that is, the councils and their agents who have responsibility as corporate parents for. Looked after children, the relevant young people referred to by these amendments and in some cases that corporate parenting responsibility lasts all the way up to the age of 24. Now, my Lords, there are some things that should be apolitical, but it is an inescapable truth that councils are political organisations. Whilst this amendment does not suggest that, in any case, councils behave politically in every decision they take, given the importance of this Bill to the underpinning of democracy in the United Kingdom, these amendments make a belt and braces approach to being absolutely explicit that in encouraging young people to come on to the Register, that choice cannot or should not be tainted or otherwise influenced by party political considerations.

We must remove the temptation for anyone to improperly influence the register by tilting the balance so that only some cohorts are registered, but not others. Now, nothing, as I say in this group, is meant to imply that councils are seeking to act improperly. We have to recognise that councils now engage with certain external organisations, private care homes, privately run caring establishments or even charitable bodies to deliver their caring and corporate parenting responsibilities, which may be within the council's own territory, or it may be in other parts of the country. So both my amendments together would ensure that the duty of neutrality would be extended, not just to the local authorities or health boards, but to those in that wider care ecosystem that benefits children but are paid for by local government wherever they are.

These organisations, councils or care homes are in an extraordinarily influential position in the care of relevant young people. They provide the food and accommodation, they're responsible for health and welfare and all the other issues of day to day life. By definition, these children are more socially vulnerable and susceptible to undue influence without the guiding hand of their natural parents. These amendments therefore, provide an additional level of certainty and assurance to ensure that these vulnerabilities are not taken of politically taken advantage of by the Council through its policies, more subtly by the political predispositions of individual care workers, wardens or other members of the professional staff on the front line, or as well as by that ecosystem of contractors and charities.

It's as simple as that, really. I beg to move.
14:55
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Said amendment. Proposed clause 15, page 21, line 15 at end. Insert the words printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will speak to my amendment 18 and also touch on issues raised in and also touch on issues raised in the similar amendments by Baroness Lister number 43 and by Baroness Lister number 43 and by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle 44. We are very much concerned that the very much concerned that the reduction of the age limit to 16 has to be accompanied by a real has to be accompanied by a real effort at proper civic education. I would say, as a Liberal, that there should have been a much greater effort at civic education anyway. The extent to which our young are not taught about British values, about the rights and obligations of British citizenship, is profoundly worrying and needs to be overcome.

Others will speak about some of the surveys that have been done about the the thinness of civic education in schools. I went round three schools, one in Yorkshire and two in London in the spring, just to see from a very unrepresentative sample what they were doing and was shocked even in the public school which I attended one of Britain's best public schools at. How little time is spent on this. I was given the. The lessons plan by the head of Pshe at one school for all the things she had to teach in one hour a week each year, including sexual behaviour, financial education.

 Disease, Heaven knows what else. And of course, political education. Fitting into that. All of the teachers I spoke to said this is simply not possible to achieve. We need to have more time and that is part of the the message which we want the Minister to give us some answer on that. The current curriculum review recognises this and that it will be expanded. Teaching citizenship is for liberals, for people who believe in liberal democracy, a fundamental part of teaching people how to take their part in a democratic society. I'm well aware that there have been many, particularly in the conservative ranks, who are doubtful about the possibilities of teaching people political education, particularly in state schools.

I remember, and I as a historian, I've read a number of debates from the early 19th centuries in which conservative peers doubted that education as such should be provided to the working class because it would give them ideas above their station. And education, of course, is subversive. It teaches people how to question the conventional wisdom. It teaches people how to think for themselves. That's part of what we should be doing in the United States. We've seen recently, of course, an even more fundamental attack on liberal education in the Trump administration's attack on American universities as being unavoidably left wing and liberal institutions because they are concerned about evidence, about doubt, about argument, and about a number of things that the Trump administration appears not to like.

I hope that all of us here do not share such a view. There has, as we see in some amendments in this group and later Policies of neutrality. And I declare an interest. As someone who spent much of my career teaching politics and international politics in various universities. Yes, of course, we all come with our biases. But what we try to do is, again, to teach people how to think for themselves. I had, when at the London School of Economics, a number of Hong Kong and Singapore students, and the hardest job I have with them was to persuade them that they were supposed to disagree with their teacher.

And we worked on them. I see the noble Baroness Boyle nodding in agreement. Evident examination. Debate is what makes someone a worthwhile citizen. Teachers know that the civics teachers I have spoken to are very clear about their own responsibilities. I had a range of students from all sorts of different opinions. One of them indeed ended up shortly afterwards as speech writer to the German Chancellor. So I think it could not be said that I indoctrinated him too much with my opinions. But what we have is the possibility of providing training for teachers. And again, I hope the Minister will touch on that to provide the sort of political education which will catch the attention and enthusiasm of teenagers.

There are those also, as reflected in other amendments, who doubt the capacity of teenagers to show the level of interest and concern and judgment or understanding. Well, when we get into questions of capacity, we are in a difficult area. I'm not sure that if one doubt, one looked at the capacity of some people in their 30s or 40s or 50s, we would find levels of interest and concern and understanding sufficient for the critical observer. I have found, and many other noble Lords who've been to schools have found active interest among teenagers in the way we are governed, the choices we have to make and we should be feeding that and providing the information which is needed for them to engage in the public debate.

And that's the last thing I want to talk about, which is information which, again, we will come back to, particularly with reference to social media. It does mean that materials need to be provided, and there are a number of projects already underway with NGOs and with the Electoral Commission on that. It does mean that we need to provide on social media some of the information, and I would here say that the BBC has the potential to be extremely useful in this regard. I discovered during Covid, when I was trying to help my children with the teaching of their children, that BBC bitesize had some absolutely superb stuff for which to teach people in key stages two and three.

And I think one of the ways in which we should be using of background information, what we need on this. And I appeal in particular to the conservative benches. Here is a cross party approach. We do need to engage our younger generation. We do need to explain to them that democracy matters and that they have a stake in it. And for that to be successful, whether or not we go down to 16 at voting or not, we need a much better, better and higher quality of civic education than we currently have. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to these probing amendments with some reassurance that the government is actively taking this on board.
15:03
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
I will speak to amendment 43 in my name. It seeks to ensure that extending votes to 16 year olds, as argued by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace Voltaire, that is accompanied by the necessary citizenship education to prepare young people to exercise their new rights and responsibilities as citizens. And a number of noble Lords emphasised this in the context of debates about 16 and 17 year olds in our first day in committee. The amendment calls for a catch up programme of political and media literacy and citizenship, supported by teacher training, with particular attention to the needs of student groups facing socioeconomic disadvantage or who most lack electoral confidence, including girls and young women.

I applaud the extension, as I said on day one. I applaud the extension of the franchise. Oh, sorry. Before that, I should say that Baroness Bennett Amanda Castle, who has added her name in support, asked me to give her apologies that she can't be in her place and that she can't speak to her own amendment 44, which would place responsibility for citizenship education on the Electoral Commission, but otherwise is very similar in its tone to my own amendment. So I said I applaud the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, but I'm well aware from research that I was involved in as an academic some years ago, that some young people lack confidence about voting.

Not surprisingly, Professor Bryony Hoskins of the University of Roehampton, who has conducted more recent research and whom I'm grateful for her assistance, tells me that young people approach their first election with unequal access to political learning, unequal confidence and different opportunities to practice making their voices heard without action. To address these differences, there is a risk that the reform will disproportionately benefit those already equipped to participate. This underlines the importance of good citizenship education. I was a member of the Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement. The spirit of which lived on in the recent.

She said, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. The committee emphasised that citizenship, citizenship, education has a crucial role to play in helping to build active citizens and that it is important, is all the greater in the context of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. More recently, the APPG on political and media literacy, supported by Shout Out UK, to whom I'm also grateful for their help, has pointed to a growing body of research indicating that young people who receive structured political and media education demonstrate higher levels of civic engagement and greater resilience to misinformation, and they're more likely to become first time voters, which increases the chances of them voting subsequently.

 With regard to gender, Professor Hoskins research has shown that even though girls tend to outperform boys in civic knowledge, they demonstrate lower confidence in their ability to understand and engage in formal politics. Longitudinal research in England shows that the gender gap in political competence widens between ages 11 and 16, precisely the years preceding the proposed voting age. When it comes to socioeconomic disadvantage, the I pad UK adolescent study found that civic confidence diverges sharply by place, and his report suggested that democratic competence is shaped not only by age but also by socioeconomic experience. Another study by Doctor James Weinberg of the University of Sheffield, underlined the current fragmented state of democratic education in England, with stark disparities between private schools and state schools serving affluent communities on the one hand, and state schools in economically deprived communities on the other.

 Moreover, more affluent parents were more likely to talk to their children about politics and to feel confident doing so. It's perhaps not surprising that other research found that when they have access to it, disadvantaged students often gain more citizenship education than do their more privileged peers. G epic gender empowerment through politics in the classroom. Research undertaken by Professor Hoskins has developed and evaluated teaching approaches designed to strengthen political confidence, particularly among more disadvantaged girls. Their research should inform the kind of catch up programme envisaged in this amendment. Indeed, at the Association for Citizenship Teaching, who have done so much to press the cause of citizenship education, are currently promoting these teaching resources.

Now, I welcome the government's appreciation of the importance of citizenship education, especially to newly enfranchised voters, as expressed, for example, by my noble friend Baroness Smith of Maldon. In winding up the recent qsd. I have a number of questions to put to my noble friend the Minister now. One how will the government ensure that newly enfranchised young people receive appropriate citizenship education before their first opportunity to vote? Two how will that provision address the gender and socioeconomic inequalities in political competence that I've raised? Three what teacher training and resources will support inclusive delivery? And four how will implementation be evaluated to establish its success in benefiting young people facing the greatest barriers to political participation?

 My Lords, in concluding, I want to stress the urgency of this kind of catch up programme envisaged in this amendment. In their briefing on the bill, the Electoral Commission notes we have long recommended improvements to the democratic education in schools, and the lowering of the voting age makes this more pressing. As my noble friend Baroness Smith and Morven said at the end of the Q SD, this is a pivotal moment for citizenship, education. The need to act quickly was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, the honourable President of Act, who regrets he can't be in his place.

He warned that if we fail to revise the curriculum so as to inform, educate and equip young people to take on voting at the ages of 16 and 17, it will be a dereliction of duty. Please can my noble friend the Minister, reassure us that we will fulfil our duty to the young people who will exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens for the first time. Hopefully at the next general election.
15:10
15:11
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
I'm rising to speak to my and lady mayors, amendment number 24 and also to amendments 280 and 287. My Lords, at Second Reading I spoke against plans to lower the voting age to 16 on three grounds evidence of brain development. The confusion that these plans bring to our policy approach to maturity and their playing, to the imperative to give ever more stuff to voters, in this case, young people. Young people face far more pressing issues which are far harder to resolve. Progress on these would lead to much more substantive and beneficial change. Now, today I will focus on the first of these.

I tabled amendments 24, 280 and 287, partly in response to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response. I am grateful that she found time in her closing remarks at Second Reading to refer to my speech. But what she said concerned me as to how clear I had been. She mentioned scientific evidence I gave against 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote, saying, and I quote, we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities. And that applies to 16 and 17 year olds, as it does to all our voters. I had not at all been arguing to restrict voting to those with sufficient cognitive and intellectual ability.

That would be elitist. I was not talking about what a 16 year old understands. My remarks were exclusively about maturity. I mentioned how staff across the Youth custody service always refer to 16 and 17 year olds as children, not because of their cognitive ability, but to remind themselves of their relative immaturity. Neuroscience has quantified and plotted on a graph what brain maturation looks like at 16. I cited the much respected developmental psychologist Professor Laurence Steinberg, who studies have found that across all demographic groups and both sexes, resistance to peer influence increases in a linear fashion between between ages 14 and 18, and seems pretty set for the majority at the end of that period.

Hence, typically by 18, most young people have developed the capacity to stand up for what they believe and withstand peer pressure. I highlighted other studies of the brain's control system, or executive functions, which enable young people to regulate their emotional reactions, perhaps to a shared real or video short, and make independent judgements. They only stabilise to adult levels in late adolescence, 18 to 20 year olds, as the researchers of a key study say. Results provide a cannon, a canonical trajectory of executive function maturation that demarcates the boundaries of adolescence. Lowering the voting age tramples these boundaries and appears evidentially indefensible.

My and Lady Maier's Amendment 24 requires that the four, 16 and 17 year olds are given this responsibility. Evidence of their decision making capabilities, maturity and capacity for independent decision making is compared with that of 18 year olds, and the assessment published. This major constitutional step should not be taken without serious consideration of the evidence base. Amendments 280 and 287 enable this requirement for the delayed commencement.
15:15
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, sorry, my Lords, I >> My Lords, sorry, my Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 24, tabled by my noble friend Lord Palmer, to which I have added my name. This amendment asks for something entirely reasonable. Proper assessment of the evidence about the decision making capability of 16 and 17 year olds, compared with those of 18 or over. Surely, before lowering the voting age, Parliament should have that evidence. This is not about questioning young people's intelligence or enthusiasm. It is about whether at that age, they have developed the maturity and independence of judgment to understand the long term consequences of their decisions.

Scientific evidence is there. To give an example. Professor Sally Baxendale, a clinical neuropsychologist at UCL, explains that during adolescence, the brain undergoes extensive rewiring. The connections responsible for rational judgment, impulse control and assessing long term consequences are still developing. In other words, a 16 year old at 16, the brain is still very much a work in progress. Research also shows that teenagers are particularly sensitive to emotions, immediate rewards, and peer pressure. This is particularly so in today's world of social media. Influencer foreign interference and online campaigning. Of course, many 16 year olds are intelligent and politically engaged, but intelligence is not the same as maturity.

Most of them are still at school, living at home and having yet experienced real independence. Voting is not just about expressing an opinion, it's about choosing who governs us, who taxes us, and who makes decisions affecting our future. We already recognise that young people need protection. Both the Children's Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child generally recognises that those under 18 are children. As noted before, in England, young people cannot marry, buy alcohol or tobacco, serve on a jury or stand for Parliament until they are 18. And let me remind this House that the marriage and Civil Partnership Minimum Age Act of 2022 passed with a cross-party support, including Labour raised the minimum age of marriage to 18, even with parental consent.

Why? To protect children from forced marriages and family cohesion. Coercion. If we protect children from family coercion over marriage, should we not equally. Be concerned about pressure from parents or other adults to entice them to vote in a particular way? Surely the principle is the same protecting children from coercion. Only a few months ago, the government announced plans to restrict children's access to social media to give kids their childhood back. But how does involving children in political decisions give them their childhood back? And is it not bizarre that the government considers 16 year old still in need of protection from TikTok, yet old enough to choose who will govern the country?

 And my Lords, the bill proposes bringing children into the electorate registration system before they're even old enough to vote. When questioned the other day, the Minister told us that even by the age of 14, children have decided what subjects they want to continue to study as a reason why children at 14 should be involved. But surely choosing school subjects is hardly comparable to choosing who would govern our country. Several noble Lords who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Forgive me. I don't know if the noble Lady was in the chamber when we discussed these issues, but two we discussed these issues, but two days ago. But all of the arguments to which she has quite rightly to which she has quite rightly addressed this afternoon were indeed rehearsed two days ago. They have been discussed and debated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have been discussed and debated very widely, but I. Was basically talking on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was basically talking on the amendments, which requires evidence, and this is why I was talking about that. We don't have the evidence. And in fact, the evidence we have shows us the contrary, that under the age of 18, children are probably not mature enough. So, as noble Lords did point out before, so I was talking about sorry, but surely choosing which subjects you study at school is not comparable with choosing who should run our country. And this is where a lot of noble Lords before me questioned whether this is not a question that the government thinks would encourage young people to vote for their government.

And I cannot. But I suspect if the figures were different and young people voted for the conservative government, we would have a very different argument at this stage. Changing the voting age should not be a member of a matter of principle. But sorry, I've been interrupted. I can't go on like this. Changing the voting age should be a matter of principle, not electoral advantage. I'm particularly concerned about vulnerable children, including children in care, who, evidence tells us, are more susceptible to pressure or manipulation. So surely, before extending the franchise to younger and potentially vulnerable people, the government should establish whether they have the maturity and independence of judgment to exercise the right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without undue influence. Someone who grew up a child in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Someone who grew up a child in care, I can assure the House that I did not fit into the description did not fit into the description put forward by the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

put forward by the noble Lady. Sorry. The government points out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. The government points out that in Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, children at 16 can vote in certain elections. But, my Lords. UK general elections. Who takes responsibility for national defence security are quite different to elections in those smaller countries. These are decisions on war and peace. So if the government is confident that 16 year old is appropriate for voting age appropriate voting age, surely it should welcome a proper assessment and explain why it is prepared to disregard scientific concerns about maturity and independent judgment. Or is the political advantage the real reason, behind this proposal?

 So I therefore ask the government to look at this amendment and bring forward some evidence. And frankly, some of us might even question whether we're fully acquired. The elements needed to vote at the age of 18.
15:24
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, my Lords, I share some of the worries summed up by amendments 18 and 19. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about ensuring that all sides of the argument are heard by our newly enfranchised 16 year olds, especially looked after children. I've noted as well amendments 43 in the name of Baroness Lister and Amendment 44 in the name of Baroness Bennett, that both focus on the role of education and the role it can play in preparing young people for voting. And of course, as a former teacher, I always welcome more knowledge based education, but I am concerned for a number of reasons, which I just wanted to raise.

Now, firstly, that this puts an undue burden on teachers because as we know, every time there's a social problem in this country, somebody says education will solve it, and teachers are tearing their hair out every time they hear it. But secondly, how on earth might we trust that if this is the main source of information that young people are going to get before they vote, that it's suitably impartial? In an earlier group, there was a very important discussion and concern about undue influence on voters, sometimes from families, sometimes women being coerced, sometimes religious groups and so on and so forth.

And we all took that very seriously. It's a very important debate. But here we have to ask whether young voters could be unduly influenced, too. And we have to ask by what. And so I'm concerned about how we ensure that if we talk about education and link it to directly, as these amendments do to 16 year olds being prepared to vote, that it's based on impartial information, as my Lords will know, or note my concerns in relation to votes for 16 year olds is about their dependence on state bodies. As people who have not got the majority, because I want to protect the notion of independence of all voters.

And it seems to me that we're going to have a group of voters who, by the nature of the way society is organised, are not independent, and that most expresses itself, funnily enough, in school or in instances of, for example, looked after children or dependence on the state or local councils. As the noble Lord Fuller explained. There's a general concern that. I've also got that this whole discussion could lead to the politicisation of schools. That really worries me. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and I made the point that education is subversive. Absolutely. And to be fair, I'm a great fan of being subversive, and I kind of try and make a bit of a habit of it, but it's just that I don't necessarily think that linking education as subversive with.

And then you must now go out and be responsible citizen and vote could get us into some difficulties in Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Blisters amendment. Oh, sorry sorry sorry, sorry. Refer to my amendment and you have concerns about it. I would have concerns about it. I would remind you I did make the point about in my questions about training and resources, because it training and resources, because it does have to be adequately resourced. But could I ask, noble Lady, does she not agree with the whole concept of citizenship whole concept of citizenship education? Because that does seem to be the tenor of her remarks. I to be the tenor of her remarks. I mean, it's I, I, I wondered whether the noble Lady disagreed with the whole concept of citizenship education, because that does seem

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be the tenor of her remarks. No. And I'm about to explain my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No. And I'm about to explain my concerns about the amendment of the noble Lady, Baroness Lister. I noble Lady, Baroness Lister. I actually think that citizenship education can be excellent. But I education can be excellent. But I also think and I think it's it sounds like a sensible, impartial intervention, pragmatic as a catch intervention, pragmatic as a catch up programme on political and media literacy. But I have concerns, which is why I'm raising them, not opposing and raising them and probing citizenship. Education in recent years has, in my experience, of going into schools and, and, and working in educational settings and so on, become somewhat muddled in terms of its agenda and is often a vehicle for social justice campaigning.

And when you actually look at what's going on, if I can use one example, there's a there's a call in the amendment, for example, for experts, charities and civil society organisations to give advice to the government on the kind of citizenship education. And that sounds as though we're talking about, you know, charities. What could go wrong with that? Or civil society organisations or NGOs, except that we all know that actually very often they're highly politicised, highly partial, and there's all sorts of controversies about it. And we have one recent example, which was during the the Black Lives Matter period in relation to George Floyd, many schools actually invited in NGOs and charities and organisations to help them sort out how they best deal with the response to that.

 Black Lives Matters. And we ended up with quite extensive and in some instances, toxic examples of the introduction of critical race theory into classrooms, unconscious bias training, children going round, accusing others of having white privilege, a decolonising the curriculum off the scale, and so on and so forth. Also to note that when we. So I'm I'm. My query is we have to be careful about the use of. Or the idea that charities and third parties in relation to educating children for elections are not just a vehicle for political propaganda. And just on that, that by the way, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, cited favourably BBC bitesize as an educational provision.

I don't know if he's noted that BBC bitesize has been withdrawn by and large by the BBC because it's decided that the material was partial and there was a lot of problematic content in it on on everything from gender ideology. It was at odds with equality law, and a lot of the advice it got was from Mermaids and Stonewall, who have also been invited into schools as third party organizations in relation to that particular issue. So I'm all for civics education. In fact, I'm an enthusiast for it, but I just don't think you can say the words and hope you get what you think you're going to get.

And I think here, I'm sorry, sorry, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My best to follow the logic of the Baroness's argument. Is she saying that civic education is fine,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

saying that civic education is fine, but no social justice should be taught. I'm suggesting that social

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm suggesting that social justice, in a particular reading of it, is one sided and political in a way. So this is where I was going that we need to show some caution, that we need to show some caution, because civics education per se, is one thing. This is an argument that civics education should be used to prepare young people to vote in elections, which is a different thing. And I'm saying we have to show some caution, and I'm going to come back to this. You'll be delighted to know in a later group. But anyway, just to finish with one example that I think might illustrate my point at a debate on education, that I was on panel after the last after the last election.

In fact, a headteacher on the panel shared with the audience with horror that a citizenship studies mock election in his school had seen some pupils stand as reform candidates. Even worse, they won overwhelmingly. He used this as an example of the dangerous radicalisation of youth and the need to tackle extremism, and that the school was now working on ensuring that pupils who exhibited such traits would be introduced to ideas that would counter them. Now I make no political party political point here, but I do think that it raises the kind of issues that I'm concerned about, which is how dare the headteacher say a political party in this country as the wrong political party.

But in the context of votes for 16 year olds? I mean, I was shocked then, but and I argued back, you can imagine, but I just think that with 16 year old voting on the horizons, we have to ensure that such political prejudices don't become undue influence over political decision making by 16 year olds who are being told that they're being treated as adults to make up their own mind. But if we depend on schools to shape their minds around the very particular political issues that they'll have to choose around, we're in trouble.
15:34
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
Well, sir. to once again follow Baroness Fox on the debate on this bill. And I want to pick I want to pick up two amendments, two amendments that I would like to speak to first. 24 and can I congratulate Lord farmer, Baroness Mayer, who do know a huge amount in this field and are experts in this area, and I'm very grateful to them for their contributions and their amendments today. And the area I want to focus on is peer pressure. And Baroness Royall is right. We did we did discuss this two days ago. This is a different, slightly different perspective.

When I raised peer pressure and last time, I think the noble Lady, the the Minister responded to the extent she did about saying that the government doesn't go into cognitive development and doesn't wish to go into cognitive development, which I accept. But this is a different issue. This is about peer pressure. And again, last time Baroness Royall challenged me on the scientific evidence I claimed. And you know, my noble friend Baroness O'Neill gave some answer and it was confirmed by Baroness Mayo independently, by the way, that the expert in this field, Professor Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, has written both on his own and with others, extensively about the the peer pressure and the inability of children to resist peer pressure that gets better for children as they reach to and beyond the age of 18.

But it does raise some very important questions, which is the government, and I say this hopefully in a cooperative spirit, the government really needs to recognize that there is a potential problem of peer pressure for voters of the age of 16, and it needs to take steps to ensure that children are able to make decisions without that peer pressure. Lord Wallace of Saltire made a very good point after he had gone into the internal machinations of the Conservative Party, which was one of his favorite subjects. But he made the point that it's vital that voters make independent choices, making independent decisions based on their own experiences and their own determination.

And my fear is that there will be gangs, there will be influencers in certain communities. There'll be family pressure, extensive family pressure for for people to to make their vote in a certain way. And the response from the frontbench before was, well, as you know, there's always peer pressure is, is fair. But what we're saying here is that there is evidence that 16 to 18 year olds are more susceptible to peer pressure than people over the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

age of 18. So what steps will the government take to ensure that they are protected and the. Noble Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lords. Give way? Thank you. My noble. Friend has just mentioned about the people who are 16 to 18 and can the people who are 16 to 18 and can vote. But but throughout this bill, we're assuming that people aged 14 we're assuming that people aged 14 or above as retainers are going to prepare to vote. And I just wonder whether the noble Lord would think whether the noble Lord would think a little bit about those people, not just who have reached 16, but who are under 16, and even more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

susceptible to peer pressure. Well, I couldn't agree more, but I didn't want to go down that route I didn't want to go down that route because I would then be accused because the counterargument would be, well, we're only giving the votes to 16 year olds, although who votes to 16 year olds, although who knows, in future it may be 14 year olds. But the noble Lord Fuller, my friend, is absolutely, absolutely friend, is absolutely, absolutely spot on. The Second amendment I wanted to address is 44 A. In the wanted to address is 44 A. In the absence of Baroness Berridge, I am very worried about this, I.

I have done a lot of canvassing. I've actually canvassed in every election since 1979, all for the same party, I hasten to add, and not always with much success, but nevertheless, I've been out there regularly in a multitude of constituencies, very many. And I've regularly, particularly in my own constituency, Queen's Park and Maida Vale, which was Westminster North. Farmers are canvassing people who literally spoke no English. And when I knock on the door and try and communicate with them, they immediately pick up the phone and speak to their spouse or someone I don't know who, and ask for instructions what to say.

So that is one issue. But the particular issue in 44 A is about protecting children. And again, as a canvasser, and I'm sure everybody in this House, all your all noble Lords, have done their share of canvassing when one when the door is answered by a 16 year old. In the past one has simply said, can I speak to your parents now we're going to have to engage with 16 year olds, and this presents some. Some, in my view, presents some challenges. I'm personally not particularly comfortable about the idea of having to knock on a door and engage in conversation with a 16 year old, trying to persuade them to vote for my party.

I don't want to be. I just don't want to be in that position. I'm comfortable with an 18 year old. I'm not comfortable with doing that 16 year old. And indeed, the government recognises that 16 year olds have to be protected. If I want to interact with 16 year olds at the various schools where I'm involved, I have to be cleared to do that. I can't just rock up into the classroom without having various checks, but as a canvasser, I can knock on the door and engage with the six year old in with the 16 year old without any checks.

And OK, I'm not worried about me, but I am worried about other people. And let's take this to let's take this not to absurd, but to a logical conclusion. What is to stop predators identifying children now on the electoral roll, identifying them and going to see them, supposedly to canvass them, but actually with other purposes in in mind. And, and I, I, I'm very worried about this because I can see that they can justify that to the authorities, that they are entering into dialogue with the 16 year old because they all claim they're out canvassing, but they have an ulterior motive.

And so what I want to know from the government is what protection do they plan to give in those particular circumstances? And of course, it gets a lot worse if we're saying that 14 and 15 year olds need to be educated, because what then happens to someone who says perhaps with some some credibility, I want to go and talk to a 14 or 15 year olds because they need to be persuaded to vote for my party, and heaven knows what's going to happen on the doorstep regularly. When I go canvassing, I'm invited to go in to discuss the subject over a glass of wine or a cup of tea or whatever.

And of course, I always refuse because that's the guidance. But that doesn't mean that other people will do that. It means you. We are giving people the opportunity to enter vulnerable people, homes and children's. If children are on their own homes to go and have a discussion with them, supposedly about political matters, but who knows? So I don't have the answer to this problem, but I. I can see that it is a real problem, and I'd be very grateful if the noble Lord, the Minister, can address it either now or later. My Lords, as a young person, I was so susceptible.
15:42
Lord Brennan Portrait Lord Brennan (Non-affiliated)
-
-
To subversive influences such as >> To subversive influences such as the BBC, Television news, the radio four World at One, which I listened to every day, and my buying the Guardian Daily. Also that by the time I was 14 I was the treasurer of my branch of the Liberal Party. Yes. And at the time I was 16, I was Secretary of the constituency. Now, I don't suggest for a moment that it is normal for a teenager, but my point is that people are very different and should be treated differently. Turning to these amendments, the most publicized aspect of this bill is that which we debated on Monday.

The principle of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. And I don't wish to go arguments again, but I do wish to say that the good of seeking to encourage the engagement of young people in political processes will fail unless we do much more about citizenship education. If we don't, I accept that there are greater risks to our democracy, especially in the internet age, as most young people rely on information obtained online. Now, the all party parliamentary Group on political and media literacy, of which I'm an active member, it says in its briefing that foundational political and media literacy education is crucial to the health of our democracy.

It warns that simply changing the voting age will not in itself encourage more civic responsibility or more sustained participation in democratic processes. I mentioned on Monday how Jersey lowered its voting age to 16 in 2008, but it was not such a successful experience because of the lack of civic education to support it. The research, compiled by the Academic Advisory Group to our APPG, reveals both an overwhelming desire among young people to engage and a troubling structural deficit in how our current school system prepares them for it. Young people rely heavily on social media, therefore they are more vulnerable to digital misinformation unless educated and equipped with critical media literacy tools that should be part of citizenship education.

Baroness Lister of Butter said quoted the excellent research from Doctor James Weinberg. He studied information from over 3000 teachers across over half of all secondary schools. He found that at present, less than a third of secondary schools currently offer weekly lessons in political or curricular citizenship education, and over 25% provide no democratic education whatsoever. She also drew attention to how state schools serving economically deprived communities provide significantly less political literacy education than private schools or state schools in affluent areas. It seems to me, my Lord, my Lords, that democratic confidence confidence must not remain the preserve of the privileged and the dangers of ignorance amongst the most disadvantaged represents a threat to the principles of that which should underpin a democracy.

Teachers want to deliver this vital education, but they are let down by a lack of institutional support. That is why we must embed statutory guarantees into this bill, amendment 23, which I have signed, places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on progress in strengthening civic education in schools and tracking youth registration rates. I also support, of course, amendment 43 by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. But my Lords schools are the most trusted institutions for learning about democracy. I hope that the government will accept the principle of these amendments as they are essential to making the aims of the Bill in relation to extending the franchise work meaningfully and in a safe way.
15:46
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I think, as several noble Lords have illustrated in noble Lords have illustrated in their speeches and their amendments in this group, it is important that we get the information and we get the information and educational framework right, and in fact, that would be the case even if this bill didn't contain a change in the voting age. But all the more so given the change that it does contain. And I hope we will hear some positive noises from the government in due course on that important topic. And I'll just briefly reflect that. As we all know, the decision, whether we agree with it or not.

But the decision that this bill legislates for to reduce the voting age to 16 was a manifesto commitment from the party that won a clear majority under our voting system, which I know some some noble Lords near me are particularly keen on that voting system. But, you know, the Labour Party won a overwhelming majority with a very clear manifesto commitment, and I'm not sure how good a use of time it is, given all the other many important matters of scrutiny that we need to get through at Committee stage to be continually relitigating that basic point of principle, which clearly was a manifesto commitment, has been debated extensively already, and there are many other issues that we really need to get time to get stuck into.

And having said that, I will follow my own

**** Possible New Speaker ****

advice and therefore bring my remarks to a close. Well done. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I'll start where he left off. My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who's contributed to this Lords who's contributed to this debate. The amendments in this group raise many important questions about the responsibilities that accompany the government's proposal to lower the government's proposal to lower the voting age to 16. It is a manifesto commitment. We accepted that. But what we're saying is there are responsibilities that go alongside and things that the the government need to actually be aware of and address, because there is no doubt those people out there will be asking it.

So we should all agree that young people ought to understand how our democracy works, how to register to vote, and how to
15:48
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
exercise their democratic rights. But we must consider whether the government have put sufficient government have put sufficient thought into the education and safeguards necessary. If the change safeguards necessary. If the change to the franchise is to go ahead. My noble friend Lord Fuller's amendments 18 and 19, would sensibly require political neutral, neutral and balanced voter neutral and balanced voter registration to be provided to young people. These amendments seek to prevent local authorities run by any particular party, from influencing election material, one way or the other. Councils are fundamentally political organisations. We must not forget, my noble friend Lord Fuller has accurately identified that looked after children are socially vulnerable and also at risk of being influenced by the authority that looks after them, and we should be aware of it.

It's a fundamental point. Information provided by public authorities must be impartial, especially when it concerns young people who may be engaging with the electoral system for the very first time. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what safeguards will ensure that registration information provided by local authorities and the relevant bodies in Northern Ireland is politically neutral, and how will compliance be assessed and monitored? I welcome my noble friend Lord Farmer's amendments 24, 280 and 287. Concerning the decision making abilities of 16 and 17 year olds, and I congratulate Baroness Mare for actually putting the case for consideration of the safeguards around that as well.

 These amendments ask the government to assess the evidence before implementing a significant constitutional change. It is not saying that change isn't going to happen. It's consider it beforehand. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what assessment the government have undertaken of the decision making abilities of 16 and 17 year olds, and will the Minister commit to publishing that evidence before the new voting age comes into effect? These amendments concerning citizen education and political literacy are also relevant. The noble Lady, Lord Lister of Birch, said. Amendment 43 both propose a programme of education and citizenship in secondary schools.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire also raises that the Secretary of State should report on the progress in the changes to citizenship education. Thus, there's clearly a shared recognition across this Lordships House that extending the franchise cannot be considered in isolation from the education that young people receive. Everyone in agreement on that one. However, I must respectfully disagree with Lady Bennett's amendments, albeit it was unmoved. Whilst I welcome the underlying suggestion that children should be educated about their duty to vote, we should not single out groups of children and educate them based on a supposed groupings. Different children must not be educated differently about the vote they share.

As we saw in the fruitful debate on ballot secrecy, we must be careful that political education does not become political persuasion. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, tell us what guidance will be provided to schools and teachers to ensure that such education remains balanced, and what additional resources will be made available to deliver it? My noble friend Lady Berridge, is unfortunately able to be in her place today. And although my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has made reference to her amendment, actually, I thought she raised a very valid point. And if you bear with me, I think most of us in this chamber have canvassed and knocked on doors.

And when we see a young person, we generally say, can we speak to mum and dad or your carer? We will now have to assess what age that young person is and maybe engage a conversation with them. It's something that we really need to consider as a consequence of this proposal. So going forward, canvassers will be engaging with young voters. And my noble friend raises the issue about whether they'll need to be necessary safeguarding guidance for political campaigners. Engaging with children is something we should think about. It's particularly an important issue if political parties and campaigners are to engage more directly with younger people, younger voters appropriate safeguards must be in place.

Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain what guidance will govern contact between political campaigners and the children, and whether the government intend to consult safeguarding professionals before the relevant provisions commence? My Lords, as I said in earlier debates, electoral reform should strengthen public confidence in our democratic system, not introduce uncertainty about the protections on which it depends. The government has chosen to lower the voting age as a manifesto commitment. It's therefore incumbent upon them to demonstrate that young people will receive impartial information, sufficient education and appropriate safeguarding. They should be properly prepared and protected when exercising that right.

I hope the Minister will address these questions in detail and provide reassurance that the practical consequences of this change have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been fully and properly considered. Here again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here again. My Lords, before I respond to the amendments, can I just correct a date I gave under the previous a date I gave under the previous group of amendments? I said that the tabling date for amendments for the tabling date for amendments for the next the next set of committee discussions was on the 9th of November. It's not. It's on the November. It's not. It's on the 17th of November. So my apologies for that. And the amendments for that for that section will be tabled then. I wanted to just say at the start of this this this section, that the government, of course, is committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able to do so and supported and encouraged in that.

 And the provisions that we're making are designed to ensure that vulnerable people who are eligible to vote are enabled. But of course, it's quite right that all young people must be prepared for this change to the electoral franchise. The government's already working with the Electoral Commission, devolved governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to raise awareness of the franchise change among young people and to help prepare them to exercise their democratic rights. I'll go into a bit more detail about schools provision in a moment, but I did want to. Also, I thought it might be helpful to say to noble Lords that we've carried out extensive research, both quantitative and qualitative, to speak to those aged 14 to 17.

A total of 32 focus groups were conducted over two stages, followed by a nationally representative survey of over 3500 respondents, utilizing both online and offline data collection. The key headlines from that research, which I thought were really interesting. Most young people do have a form of valid voter ID. Most regard voter ID as necessary. The education system is seen by young people as a good way to learn about these topics, and the majority do feel that their voice would matter more if they had votes at 16. So that was the the the key headlines. But it was a big piece of research.

So I the other thing that slightly surprised me about this is that the debates have taken a direction both on Monday and today that I wasn't really expecting. You know, I think it's a shame that we've had significant doubts cast on teachers impartiality. We now appear to have doubts being cast on those responsible for looked after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children and the BBC and. Only two weeks ago, the government intervened about the government intervened about the problems of a lack of partiality amongst teachers in relation to the amongst teachers in relation to the Israel Gaza Palestine commitment, and I congratulated the government at the time for making a stance at the time for making a stance about the difficulties of that issue, and the clarity was we have issue, and the clarity was we have to be very careful from the government. So I cast no aspersions in general. But just as the government noted on a particular issue in relation to the rise of anti-Semitism and the politicisation of that war in schools, the government rightly intervened.

And I congratulated you then and now, and I didn't then think that you were casting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

aspersions on all teachers. You weren't, and neither were the rest of us. Well, I think these these issues

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think these these issues have to be tackled when and as they arise, I think, to make general arise, I think, to make general points relating to that. It is not helpful. So that was the point I helpful. So that was the point I was actually making. I, I would like to start addressing the particular amendments. Now I particular amendments. Now I understand and share the noble Lord Fuller's intention that young people should receive impartial information as expressed in amendments 18 and 19. I would like to reassure him that clauses 15 and 16 are deliberately narrow in scope.

They require local authorities in Great Britain and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, where the system is different, to raise awareness of the arrangements for registration that apply to relevant young people and to help those young people register. This is about factual, practical electoral registration information, making sure young people who are or have been in the care system understand how they can register and where necessary, helping them to do so. I can therefore reassure the noble Lord we fully recognise the importance of political impartiality, but I do not consider that an additional statutory requirement of this kind is needed.

Turning now to amendment 23 from the noble Lord Wallace and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness Prashar. And can I congratulate the noble Lord Wallace for bringing such sartorial elegance to the chamber this afternoon? It's a panache bringing to our debate at the end of this week's session.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise. Parliament is performing this evening and the dress rehearsal starts at 4:00, so I have said that starts at 4:00, so I have said that I will be late. May I also add that there is strong scientific evidence there is strong scientific evidence that collective singing in schools improves social cohesion and improves social cohesion and concentration. I'm not sure that the last government accepted that scientific evidence. They didn't scientific evidence. They didn't act on it, but we're talking about scientific evidence in schools singing matters as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish the noble Lord very well for his rehearsal, and I look forward to coming to one of the concerts in. In due course, noble Lords may recall that a similar Lords may recall that a similar amendment to this was debated during Committee stage in the other place, and our position remains that a statutory reporting that a statutory reporting requirement is not the right way to approach this. The amendment would require the report to cover three
16:00
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
require the report to cover three areas raising awareness, civic education and electoral registration. So I will address each in turn. First of all, I'm raising awareness. I agree with noble Lords that young people need to be aware of their new democratic rights. The government is already working alongside the Electoral Commission, local and devolved

**** Possible New Speaker ****

governments, the electoral sector and The civil society organizations to make sure our young people are to make sure our young people are aware of the changes. Raising awareness will be a collective effort involving organisations with different roles and responsibilities. A report from the government would not provide a complete picture of that work, and it would also not be right for government to report on behalf of other organisations in this work, particularly the Electoral Commission, whose independence from government is so vital and which already publishes its own research and analysis on some of the areas covered by this amendment.

Second, on civic education, I have no hesitation in agreeing with noble Lords on the vital importance of preparing young people to exercise their democratic rights. This is an area where we will continue to work with devolved governments and other and other partners. The Department for education leads on education policy in England. While education is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All partners will need to work together to support young people's democratic engagement, and I'll cover more on that when I respond to Baroness Lister's amendment. Given these different roles and responsibilities, I don't believe a statutory report from the UK government is the right mechanism for assessing progress in this area.

And finally, on electoral registration, substantial information is already publicly available. The Register to Vote Performance Dashboard provides aggregate data on applications to register to vote, including breakdowns by age. The Electoral Commission has also conducted studies of electoral registration trends, and the government is separately planning to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of votes at 16 measures, which will assess evidence related to the awareness, education and registration of young people. We do not believe that a further statutory report is necessary, so I hope I've reassured, reassured Lord, your Lordships, that the government shares the underlying objectives behind this amendment and is already taking forward work to support young people as the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year olds.

My Lord, coming now to amendments 24, 280 and 287. In the name of the noble Lord, farmer and noble Baroness Mayer. I would point out to noble Lords that these amendments would prevent voting rights from being extended to 16 and 17 year olds until the assessment has been published. The noble Lord raised similar concerns about the maturity and decision making capabilities of 16 and 17 year olds during the bill's Second Reading in this House, and indeed, the noble Lord quoted my response to him at the time, which I still hold to, that we don't give people the vote based on intellectual cognitive abilities, and that principle applies to 16 and 17 year olds, as it does to all other voters.

I'm sorry to repeat what he's already quoted back at me, but that is the case. Can I just finish this, this responding and then I'm happily give way. Our focus is on delivering this manifesto commitment on which this government was elected, which recognises that 16 and 17 year olds have views which deserve to be represented, and that young people should have a say in decisions that affect them. I simply cannot agree that young people at 16 and 17 do not have the cognitive reasoning to make decisions that impact on their lives. Indeed, as I set out on Monday, we've already asked them to do so.

The question is not what else you can or can't do at 16, but is the 16 the right age to vote? And the point of this process of engagement is to introduce the concepts of critical thinking. Indeed, young people, these young people of this age now have grown up having to develop their own ability to filter a whole plethora of social media in a way that my generation certainly did not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Minister for giving way. I wasn't talking about way. I wasn't talking about cognitive ability. That was the whole point that she mentioned. In the Second Reading, and I was the Second Reading, and I was trying to say that that was not what I was talking about. I was what I was talking about. I was talking about the maturity of young people to withstand peer pressure people to withstand peer pressure and, you know, to, to have the maturity to make a reasoned decision, which we've heard today. You're electing a government. It's a very important, responsible decision to make.

And so, I mean it. We had the evidence from Professor Laurence Steinberg that actually it's at 18 that they are able to make their own judgments, miss withstand things like TikTok and peer pressure at school and, and make a reasoned political judgment independently. And so it's maturity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm talking about not cognitive ability. And it's protection.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And it's protection. I've heard what the noble Lord said. I would say requiring such an assessment before these changes can assessment before these changes can be implemented would introduce a completely unnecessary additional step, in my view, and could delay step, in my view, and could delay the delivery of what is a very important manifesto commitment and one which, as I've said, we have done a deal of research with young people. I would also respond to the noble Lord Lee, who made some points around safeguarding on political canvassing. We have taken steps, as he will know within the Bill, to say that Attainders 14 and 15 year olds won't be canvassed by the eras, but I understand the point he's making is around political canvassing.

I'm sure that political parties will be developing their own safeguarding response to the provisions in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill, and. Can I intervene on that? First, to say that we're not talking about cognitive development, and we're cognitive development, and we're not talking about taking tests of people. We're talking about what steps have the government taking to protect people from peer pressure. And so far, the answer is none, and And so far, the answer is none, and that is not very satisfactory. And secondly, in respect of what happens on the doorstep, the happens on the doorstep, the government can't rely on political parties, because my whole point is that there will be individuals who will claim to be canvassers, who will go knock on doors and get entry into doors, and in conversation with 16 year olds under the pretext of being political campaigners.

And they will identify such people from the electoral roll. And one cannot expect political parties to know to vet every single canvassers. It's up to the government if they're going to introduce 16 year old eligibility to vote and receive canvassers, to take steps to protect them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are all sorts of people who knock on our doors. You know, I think I understand what the noble think I understand what the noble Lord is saying. I will take those points away. But I seriously think the the point of the education process is to teach young people to have that critical thinking capacity, to make their own decisions about things. And I am more than confident that our young more than confident that our young people at 16 and 17 have the the faculties to to be able to do that. I would I'm going on now to talk a little bit more about the education process, and I think that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

important in this. When the noble Lady, the Minister says she's more than confident, is she refuting the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evidence of Professor Steinberg? Well, hopefully I'll have an opportunity to speak to Professor opportunity to speak to Professor Steinberg at some point. But I think we we need to move on with talking about what we are going to talking about what we are going to do in terms of education. I thank my noble friend, Baroness Lister my noble friend, Baroness Lister for tabling amendment 43 and the noble Baroness Bennett, who's not in the place today for amendment 44. I recognise the motivations of these amendments, and I share the ambition to ensure that young people are supported to exercise their democratic rights and build lifelong engagement with our democracy.

And one of the fundamental points about all this is that we we know that engaging young people at a much earlier age does encourage that lifelong engagement with the democratic process. This is a priority for the government. We're already working to strengthen democratic education and engagement, including in response to the Independent Curriculum and Assessment Review. Citizenship is already a statutory national curriculum subject at key stages three and four in maintained schools covering parliamentary democracy, electoral systems and how citizens can influence decisions. The government's wider curriculum reforms will strengthen this further, including through clearer teaching of democracy, media literacy and active citizenship.

We are considering what transitional support may be needed before those reforms take effect, including practical, non-partisan voter information, adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues such as political impartiality and misinformation. Alongside this, the Electoral Commission is undertaking important work to support young people's democratic education. It is developing a democratic education framework in partnership with organisations across the education and youth sectors, providing practical resources to help educators, educators and young people to understand and participate in democracy. This is currently being piloted and a formal launch is planned in March 2027, which I hope answers my noble friend Baroness Royal's question.

 The Commission also runs Welcome to Your Vote Week, an annual campaign which provides schools, colleges and youth organisations with opportunities to help people understand elections and build confidence in participating further. My Department has established the Democratic Engagement Fund to support politically neutral projects that help people understand, engage with and participate in democracy. I recognise my noble friends concern about young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and politically under-represented groups, including girls and young women, and this fund provides an opportunity to support projects that help break down barriers to democratic participation and ensure that more young people have the opportunity to make their voices heard.

I would just comment on some of the points that have been made about political impartiality in schools, that schools are already subject to clear legal duties on on political impartiality. They must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take reasonably practical steps to ensure that where political issues are brought to pupils attention, opposing views are presented in a balanced way, and the existing political impartiality in schools guidance makes it clear that these duties apply to public displays, including banners and posters, as well as school communications. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission, devolved governments and civil society organisations to consider what additional measures can support schools, colleges and youth groups to deliver practical voter and civic education.

I hope I have given my noble friend reassurance on these points and Baroness Bennett on the role of the Electoral Commission. I entirely recognise the importance of education and engagement in making votes at 16 a success, but I don't believe that further legislation is needed. Finally, turning to amendment 44, the government recognises the importance of safeguarding young people, and the bill provides strong protections where those are needed, for example, on data protection, 16 and 17 year olds and those who turn 16 before polling day should have the same opportunity as any other voter to hear from candidates and political parties, and to form an opinion before casting their vote.

We completely agree with the importance of appropriate conduct during campaigning. We welcome the speaker's conference recommendation to establish a code of conduct for campaigning and have committed to work with the speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties to support the development of a code which is fit for purpose, which I hope responds a bit further to the noble Lord Lee's concerns. As part of this work, we have the opportunity to consider the specific issue raised in this amendment regarding safeguarding of young people in campaigning, and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore do not consider. This amendment is likely to be necessary. The Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister. Sits down. I'm grateful for that last point. I must admit, as a last point. I must admit, as a previous council leader, when that point was raised with me about campaign, it sent shivers down my campaign, it sent shivers down my spine because we know how important safeguarding is. I do think it might be worth perhaps a conversation at that all party group, so that it's put out through all the different parties so that they are aware of it, because I'm sure many of them may not have considered it either, and it's worth sharing that information.

The other point I would like to put across your desk, really, you say you've done or you've got an awful lot of research and you've had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

research done. Is it possible to share that with the house? Yeah, yeah. To save them. My noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To save them. My noble friend Bobby having to bob up and down a couple of questions which perhaps you could write to me afterwards you could write to me afterwards about. One was about teacher training and resources that will support the kind of teacher citizenship education we've been talking about. And the other was evaluation, particularly from the evaluation, particularly from the perspective of disadvantaged groups and those who lack confidence, greatest barriers to political participation, like girls and young women. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the noble Baroness O'Neill's points, I think that she makes a good point about the political good point about the political parties panel, and I will I will take that back on the research. I, take that back on the research. I, I I've got some brief information about the research, but I'll I'll write to her on that, if that's OK, on my noble friend Baroness Lister's comments. We are looking Lister's comments. We are looking at this transitional support about how we how we make sure we've got adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues like political impartiality and misinformation.

I'm happy to update her once that that works. Gone a bit further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's been an interesting debate and of course, I support entirely my comments on the frontbench that my comments on the frontbench that we understand. The vote at 16 is a manifesto commitment. But what this manifesto commitment. But what this last hour and an hour and 20 minutes has shown is how much of the consequences of that manifesto commitment are going to mean for the safeguarding of children, the impact on education, people who haven't really had to participate in economic society before, these are unintended consequences, and we're going to have to iron them out, not just for the 16 year olds, but those retainers from 14.

You see, for all the warm words about strengthening democracy and improving transparency, which are littered throughout the impact statement, when it comes to amendments that would give effect to those noble causes. What I think I heard the Minister say was they're prepared to leave it to chance. We're not going to cast aspersions, but we're going to address these issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Give way. For a moment. I didn't say we're leaving it to chance. I said, we welcome the speaker's conference recommendation to conference recommendation to establish codes of conduct on this subject, and we've committed to work with the speaker, the Electoral Commission and political Electoral Commission and political parties to support the development of a code which is fit for purpose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And thank you. And I accept those words entirely. But earlier on in the wind, when referring to on in the wind, when referring to Baroness Fox of Buckley, the suggestion was made that, well, are we casting aspersions onto teachers and social workers? And we were going to sort of address those as they came along. I just don't think that's right. I think the bill should be explicit about neutrality, particularly for schools and for social and looked after children's environments. So there is no risk because we must remove the temptation for those in positions of authority on some of the most vulnerable people without supportive, natural parents to do it.

And if it isn't a problem because there is no prejudice, well, there's no problem in introducing it into the bill. I was very taken with the other comments about.
16:17
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
I don't like to do this, but I did make it clear that schools are already subject to clear legal already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality. And I gave the details of that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Group six, which we will return to later. Thank you very much. I was talking with Baroness Fox's point about schools, but of course, point about schools, but of course, this has really been a debate, not so much about schools, but about young people more generally. But I'd like to associate myself with I'd like to associate myself with the comments of Lord Wallace about, you know, the practical preparation. And of course, this is the And of course, this is the watchword of this part of the bill and protection of the minors. Look, this may be something we return to this may be something we return to at report and and we need to catch up time.

So I will beg to leave up time. So I will beg to leave with beg leave to withdraw my amendments 18 and 19. But we really do have to think some of these do have to think some of these practical consequences before we get to report. And I hope the Minister will meet with myself and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister will meet with myself and others in furtherance of that objective. Your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. Amendment 19. Not sorry. We now need clause 19. Not sorry. We now need clause 15. So the question is clause 15 stand part of the Bill. As many as stand part of the Bill. As many as that opinion will say content consent, contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 16. contents have it in clause 16. Amendment 19. Lord Fuller not moved. Then we come to clause 16. The Then we come to clause 16. The question is clause 16 stand part of the bill.

As many as that opinion will say content contrary, not will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 16. Amendment 20. Lord Young

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 16. Amendment 20. Lord Young of Acton, not moved. Not me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not me. Yes, but we have to take action. We don't just leave it lying in the air or so it is not moved. Thank you. Amendment 21. Baroness Hoey not moved. Amendment 22. Baroness O'Neill of Bexley not moved. 23. Lord Wallace of Saltaire not moved. Amendment 24. Lord Farmer not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Amendment 25, Lord Frost. My Lords, I rise to speak. To my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To my. Amendments 25 to 29 288289.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments 25 to 29 288289. And 2992. 300 on the marshals. List before I move to the. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List before I move to the. The explanation of the thinking behind these amendments, let me just give a brief explanation of how they work. From a technical point of view, these amendments form two alternative packages rather than the single scheme, and I'll explain why. Amendments 25 to 26 would end voting and registration rights based solely on Commonwealth citizens across the UK, while preserving British, Irish and retained EU citizens rights amendments 27 to 29 offer a reciprocal alternative. It would be one where Commonwealth citizens retained eligibility, but only where their country gave British citizens similar exercisable rights.

At corresponding elections. Ministers would have to designate those countries, obviously through regulations approved by both houses, publish the assessment and review periodically. The amendments are designed to focus on the Commonwealth issue, which is why they keep the existing non-national elections rights for the EU cohort and for Ireland. And I'll come to those those points, though I do think they merit debate at some point. Both packages also cover parliamentary devolved and local elections. They cover Baroness the noble Lady, Baroness Bennett would be pleased to hear, though she's not in her place. They cover City of London ward elections and relevant referendums and other acts of democracy.

They're drafted to be consistent with the amendments I put forward earlier in our discussions on devolution, though of course there's much room for debate about, as it were, how far down the the hierarchy of elections. These provisions really need to
16:22
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
extend just to complete the technical introduction amendments technical introduction amendments 288289 bring would bring the relevant administrative and designation machinery into designation machinery into operations into operation with the first draft regulations required within 12 months. And then finally two nine 9 to 300 would require the substantive nationality rules to substantive nationality rules to start on the same day throughout the UK, at least six months after the regulations. But unless there were polls and petitions already underway. Well, as I put forward these two alternative routes, because these are probing amendments and they're designed to provoke discussion about the nature of the franchise in this, this country.

And I think that's very much worth discussing. The only point I'll make at this stage on the distinction between them is that the reciprocal arrangements require much more process. There's much more complexity. They require a system under which the government has to review whether reciprocal arrangements exist, whether they've changed to report on them, and then, of course, to kind of feed that through into the electoral register. Such a system has to exist. If a reciprocal arrangement is to work and it is more complicated and more likely, I guess, to be got wrong. But it is a possibility.

Let me move on to the thinking behind them. And once again, my Lords, we come back to a who question who gets to vote in the arrangements that we are describing. And I find that when I'm discussing this issue, most people make an assumption that the franchise in a country is limited to citizens of that country. And I find that people are often extremely surprised when you tell them that's not the case in the United Kingdom, that we do extend the franchise quite considerably. And I find they often literally cannot believe it when they're told about the arrangements to Commonwealth voting, which seems to me illustrates to me that there is a an issue here that needs addressing.

Now, the technical provision is that, quote, qualifying Commonwealth citizens are allowed to be on the electoral register now, qualifying the word qualifying really isn't very qualifying at all for such qualifying. Commonwealth citizens do not need to be permanent residents. Any permission to enter or stay in the UK will do, whether it's time limited, conditional student worker, family member, whatever. Indeed, the Electoral Commission spells it out and I quote any type of permission to enter or stay is acceptable, whether indefinite, time, limited or conditional end quote. So you can have a situation where a student here on a short visa can help elect a government that will have a life long beyond perhaps, that individual's time in the country.

Indeed, the Electoral Commission's definition of qualifying is so wide that it's not obvious to me. It might not capture tourists or casual visitors. After all, we give six month visas for those things, and it's quite possible to register and vote over that period. Whether it will be possible through the arrangements to pick up and distinguish permanent residents from people who are here for a short period isn't entirely obvious to me. However, what this means is that our franchise is in principle open to 2.7 billion people around the world, the entire population of the Commonwealth and any Commonwealth citizen who reaches Britain on any of the bases I've just described is able to vote here.

And that is extraordinary breadth of the entitlement that exists in our law, and I think deserves to be discussed now, my Lords, my amendments are designed to provide for exactly that. That discussion. As I've said, they maintain the provision under which Irish citizens will be able to continue to vote. And that's a, I guess, a logical consequence of the Northern Ireland settlement, which recognises the right of people to identify as British, Irish or both. And it is not really the moment to start opening that particular question, I suspect. Moreover, it's reciprocal and British citizens do get to vote and do register and vote in elections in Ireland.

As I noted, my amendments also retain the existing rights of EU citizens with settled status to vote in local and some other elections. I think that's that is in some ways questionable. Probably will need to be debated and dealt with at some point, but. But not now. I come on to the Commonwealth entitlement. It's quite different. And I do think it's very hard to defend in its current form. For one thing, it's a complete anomaly internationally. No EU country allows non-citizens to vote in its national elections, with the exception of Ireland. The reciprocal arrangement with US and Portugal in the arguably somewhat similar case of Brazilians.

No EU country. You have also. You can't vote unless you're a citizen in national elections in Norway, in Switzerland, in Canada, Australia, with a small exception. And the United States. What we do is very unusual. The only real exception is New Zealand, which allows all permanent residents to vote all not just a subset, a subset of them that at least is logical. And what we do in our franchise is extend the right to vote to a group of countries and their citizens mostly, but not entirely on the basis that Britain governed them half a century ago.

And I suggest this really doesn't make logical sense in the world as we now have it. Now. Those arrangements would be easier and a little more defensible, I think, if they were reciprocal. The problem is the arrangements are not particularly reciprocal at the moment. Only a small number of Caribbean countries and a couple of relatively small African countries allow British citizens to vote, and even then they generally have to be pretty permanent residents. Indians can vote in Britain, but no British citizen can vote in India.

It's the same for Pakistan. It's the same
16:37
16:40
16:47
16:49
16:52
16:56
None Portrait AMDT: 32 Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-

17:00
17:05
17:11
17:13
17:16
17:17
17:21
17:23
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
council wards around the country as to the electorate in those wards, and hence the knock on effect both on councillor workload, the ability of voters to get a good service from their councillor and that fundamental democratic principle of trying to give everybody an equal vote. And therefore, I think there is a knock on in terms of, for example, the work of the of the ongoing local government boundary reviews, which needs to be tied into giving 16 and 17 year olds the vote. And so I hope we will be able to hear from the noble Lady, the Minister, what thought has been given as to how that process will be properly integrated with the potential knock ons from this bill.

 Turning to some of the other amendments in this group, I would simply observe that I think amendment 32 from Lord Blunkett would be an excellent amendment to a Bill that was introducing democratic elections to this place, and I hope that we have a chance to debate that bill in such in in the near future. Turning to Lord Fuller's point with with amendment 45, I would simply observe that there are some data sets in which EU citizens and Commonwealth citizens absolutely are present, which may. It may turn out, depending on how the automatic voter registration pilots continue to play out may turn out to be absolutely usable.

So I wouldn't quite describe that group of people as being completely unmoored from the data that is available, and to perhaps slightly preempt amendment 5055 from Baroness O'Neill and Lord Jamieson, because I think there is a useful point here to highlight. I can understand why that amendment seeks to particularly prioritise providing information in writing, and I think it certainly was the case in the past that saying that you have to be written to was a sort of gold standard form of communication that rightly was often prioritised. As you know, if there is something that's legally important, it has to be in writing.

I do think, though, it is reasonable to say that we have moved on quite a long way from that. And I say that for two reasons. One is, sadly, the decline in the reliability of of postal delivery services, whether it's the Royal Mail or sometimes using alternative delivery mechanisms in that, you know, saying that you're sending a letter to somebody doesn't have the same guarantee that it used to. But also, conversely, people receive information in a wide variety of other ways now. And I would just take the example of HMRC every time I log into HMRC website, you know, to do my tax return or to check check things.

HMRC is really keen to encourage me to switch to having in future legally required notices about what tax return I might have to make to be sent to me electronically. Many people choose to do that. I happen to find having those notices sent to me the old fashioned way so I can scribble on them and so on. Actually more convenient, so I. I haven't yet opted in, although I'm sure at some point all of the incessant notifications will wear me down, but I think that illustrates why it is important to have a range of options available for providing information and, as it were, embedding in legislation that it has to be in writing is not necessarily the best course, and I would simply observe that it is a regular feature of secondary legislation at the moment, and something for which I think the government should be given credit, that that we regularly see.

S I come to this place which require in some way legal notification to be given and the government, to its credit, actually puts in quite modern wording that provides some flexibility to use modern forms of communications where they are appropriate. But then just finally, on the question of the rights to vote, which have also come up in this group, I think in a in a in a way, the split of those amendments between this group and the previous group illustrates the point that I was making earlier, that there is an issue there that may be worth looking at, but it should be looked at in in the round, in the whole.

 Because I think there is a risk that can come through if we are always only singling out particular groups of people, as these are the ones that we're worried might get registered when they shouldn't do, or these are the groups of people that we think maybe shouldn't have the vote, that that can give the impression of being unduly fearful of or uncomfortable with those groups of people if we're not also at the same time looking at the full rounded picture, which I think is much the better way to proceed.
17:28
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a variety of issues, and I thank the noble Lords issues, and I thank the noble Lords for their contributions. The noble for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett's amendment 32, would allow city members of this House to vote in general elections. House to vote in general elections. My Lords, are. Disenfranchisement can be traced back centuries in common law as well as to a motion passed by the other place in 1699 which stated that no peer of this kingdom hath any right to give his vote in in the election for any member to serve in Parliament.

My Lords, as members of your Lordships House, we have a voice in Parliament. It is right that we do not also have our voices heard through electric elected representatives in the other place, amendment 37. In the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, requires the government to conduct a review as to whether extending voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds should affect local council electoral boundaries, and the number of councillors. As we've said consistently throughout this, the through the first day and into today's committee, we must ensure that these changes and any subsequent changes that can be expected.

A well thought through with all the facts presented before Parliament. This brings me to a broader point that it's been a long standing policy under governments of all political stripes to use the registered electorate as the basis for constituencies, rather than population data, but with automatic voter registration, the government has said it will be introduced in a range of different locations and settings with different characteristics. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say whether this will cut across boundaries? This could also mean asymmetric electoral rolls distorting the operation of boundary reviews. Will the review of local government reorganisation, currently ongoing for some areas, take into account the implications of this bill?

Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Lord. Lord bird seeks to extend the franchise to convicted criminals serving a custodial sentence not exceeding 12 months. Whilst I appreciate the work he has done in this area, we must remember that those who are imprisoned have been convicted of serious crimes and therefore lose their civic rights for the duration of their time in prison. In December 2018, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers upheld the previous government's ban on convicted prisoners in jail from from from voting. This judgment extends across the UK and the EC consideration is now closed.

Turning to amendments 41 and 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Basset. We do not support the proposal to expand the right to vote in general elections and local elections in England to foreign citizens. As I said earlier, citizenship matters and must count for something. Furthermore, we do have concerns about what similar reforms in Scotland and Wales have meant in relation to foreign interference and political donations. This brings amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, which would retain individual voter registration for EU and Commonwealth citizens. My Lords, automatic voter registration would risk relying on outdated entries on other databases, which could mean that EU and Commonwealth citizens who are residents but who are not eligible to vote, could be registered.

Such instances would not be minor mishaps, but would undermine the rules of our electoral system. It could also lead to unsolicited poll cards being sent to those households. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, say what assessment has been made of these specific risks? Amendment 277 In my name, and my noble friend Lord Jamieson, would require the government to publish an independent review of the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters being incorrectly automatically added to the electoral roll. The government may have done their homework already, but if so, we'd like to see it.

Individual voter registration was implemented to stop fraudulent electoral registration. Ensure a more accurate register with fewer errors, and remove the outdated concept that only a head of household could decide who should be on the electoral roll. That's why we believe individual voter registration should be retained as a whole. Finally, the remaining amendments in my name and my noble friend Lord Jamieson, seek to strengthen the provisions in this bill as currently drafted, probing what checks and processes will be in place to ensure someone is definitely of voting age before registering them. Amendment 55 also probes how individuals will be notified that they are registered and amendments 56 and 57 probe how electoral registration records are kept and handled.

Once the officer responsible is no longer imposed. These are important issues concerning people's data, as well as the accurate maintenance of electoral registration registers. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, can provide some clarity and reassurance on these points, and I look forward to her response.
17:35
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling amendment 32. Moved by my noble friend Baroness Lister, which seeks to allow sitting members of this to allow sitting members of this House to vote in UK parliamentary elections. I remember the fascinating conversation with my MP, fascinating conversation with my MP, Kevin Bonneville, when he said to me he was. He was talking about voting and I said, I'm sorry, Kevin. I'm not going to vote for you. And and he was a bit horrified, stepped back. He hadn't realised that I couldn't vote because I'm in here.

Of course, if I had been able to vote, I would have voted for him. I recognise the noble Lord has raised this issue before, and that he wishes to address the difference between the voting rights of sitting members of this House and those of other electors. However, it's important to recognise the particular role that we as members of this House have in Parliament. We can participate in debates, scrutinise and introduce legislation and ask parliamentary questions. And as such, unlike other voters, we have the opportunity to send our views directly in Parliament rather than relying on an elected member of the other place to do so.

This is the basis for the long standing restriction on sitting peers. I think the Baroness Noble, Baroness O'Neill said. It goes back to 1699 for on on sitting peers not voting in UK parliamentary elections, and the government doesn't believe there is a case for changing these arrangements. Of course, this doesn't mean that members of this House are excluded from voting altogether. We can vote in local and devolved elections where we do not have the same direct role. I hope that that explains the government's position on that amendment. In relation to amendment 37, it appears to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months on the impact of extending the voting rights to 16 and 17 year olds on the number and boundaries of council electoral areas.

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is already considering how to incorporate newly enfranchised electors into its electoral forecasts, and doesn't anticipate that the changes will require a different approach to electoral reviews. The noble Baroness O'Neill asked me a question about local government reorganisation. I would respond to her most of the proposals that were put forward for LGR didn't involve boundary changes. Those that do will, of course, be subject to review by the Local Government Boundary Commission. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has raised these issues before about the variability variability of ward sizes.

I'm happy to continue that conversation with her, but she knows, I'm sure, that this is really a matter for the Local Government Boundary Commission. So we don't see a clear need for a separate review by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary of State. I thank my. Very quickly. Unfortunately,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very quickly. Unfortunately, it's not the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission to Government Boundary Commission to make those decisions, and that is the point I'm trying. I hope to the point I'm trying. I hope to make. The determination is made by the Council and if there is no the Council and if there is no guidance, as there isn't to councils as to seeking to create wards of a similar size across the country, then the the disparity that currently exists and will get worse will continue. That's right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very happy to carry on that conversation with her. I do feel we're going to come up against in the end here I think about local the end here I think about local determination versus national determination, but we can have that determination, but we can have that conversation on the amendments from my noble friend, Baroness Lister and Baroness Bennett. Let me be clear. The government recognises the enormous contribution made by people from other countries who choose to make the United Kingdom choose to make the United Kingdom their home, but the government doesn't believe that lawful residents alone should confer voting rights, citizenship restrictions, rather than resident residents alone are the norm for participation in elections in most democracies.

The government has no current plans to extend voting rights to further nationalities, or to introduce a residency based franchise. There are, of course, different choices within the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales have chosen to extend their devolved franchises more widely. We respect their right to take that approach within their devolved competence, just as it is right for this Parliament to determine the franchise for elections for which it is responsible. I thank the noble Lord for his engagement with the bill's provision for improving voter registration via amendment 45. And while I would never wholly dismiss the noble Lords points made, I do think he's been very calm today, but I do think he needs to calm down a bit.

Sometimes I don't think it points. On Monday suggested that democracy was in imminent danger of collapsing because the O's and the computers that assist them couldn't recognise an apostrophe. And today he's he's worried about the duplicating Mr. Smith's. Of course, our era's already deal with all of these issues, and it's under long standing rules to be registered to vote in a general election, you must be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen. In England, qualifying EU citizens are also able to register to vote for certain elections, such as local councils, although not for UK parliamentary elections.

The government has no plans to change this, and I don't 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. In fact, the noble Lord referred to President Zelensky and his wife having different surnames. I think actually our own Prime Minister and his wife have different surnames. So the O's are very used to dealing with these situations. I turn now to amendments 46, 53, 54 and 55, tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness O'Neill and Lord Jameson. The government agrees that direct registration must operate accurately and with appropriate safeguards, and clause 17 already secures those outcomes.

New section 12 A requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both a voting age and entitled to be registered before a person is directly registered. New section 12 B also requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both a voting age and to be registered before the notice is sent. This requires the officer to assess the available information and reach a view on whether these conditions are met. I think as well as making the point in the amendment, the noble Lord Heywood raised. The issue about the phrase appears to the officer, and I would say this is established language in electoral registration law.

Section ten z c of the representation of the People Act 1983, uses the same formulation for registration following an application, and this clause preserves that test with respect to direct registration. Schedule two to the bill will preserve the that test while distinguishing the existing application based process from the new process without an application. As now, registration officers will remain under a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that everyone entitled to be registered is registered and no others. Finally, new section 12 B, subsection three already expressly requires a notice to be given in writing to a person before they are directly registered.

The power concerning how it may be given relates only to the method of delivery, for example by post, by hand or electronically. The amendments, therefore, had no further protection to safeguards already contained within the Bill in relation to amendments 56 and 57. 56 raises an important consideration and one already envisaged by the Bill. If an electoral registration officer leaves their role, their successor in the job would hold the records until the end of the retention period. This helps ensure that people who have opted out of direct registration during the response period do not receive further notices, even if their electoral registration officer changes.

I can also clarify that retention of direct registration notice records for five years will ensure that those people who have responded to a notice and subsequently claimed an exemption will then not receive another notice. During that time, however, they will be liable to be invited to register by an electoral registration officer if they remain unregistered after five years and still appear to be eligible, then they will be sent another notice. The government believes this to be an appropriate length of time, and it is consistent with the period of time the Electoral Commission holds copies of a register, which in turn aligns with the maximum length of a Parliament.

I hope this provides sufficient reassurance on those points in relation to amendment 277 regarding direct registration, I recognise the intention behind the amendment and the importance of maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the electoral Register. The government is equally committed to ensuring that only those who are entitled to be registered are added to the register. However, I don't believe the amendment is necessary. The government is already undertaking extensive work to identify the most appropriate data sets to support these reforms. This includes assessing the quality and reliability of different sources to ensure they provide sufficient assurance of an individual's entitlement to register.

Any permanent changes to the registration process will be based on robust evidence and user research. Before any wider implementation, we plan to undertake pilots using the powers in clauses 20 to 25, and as part of these pilots, we will test the effectiveness and reliability of different data sets and the new approaches to registration. I hope that picks up some of the points made previously by the noble Lord Fuller as well. Importantly, the Electoral Commission is already required to carry out an independent evaluation of those pilots. The government will publish the Commission's findings, including its assessment of whether the pilots have achieved their stated objectives.

The specific detail of the pilots will be set out in secondary legislation and scrutinised in the usual way. Furthermore, electoral registration officers will continue to apply their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. So I hope this provides the reassurance that appropriate safeguards, testing and independent scrutiny are already built into the approach we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taking. Could I just ask you to further consider her comments in relation to the point I raised, in that she referred, quite rightly, to referred, quite rightly, to legislation that is now in effect, some 40, 50 years old. In those some 40, 50 years old. In those days, the vast majority of people didn't have passports. You didn't didn't have passports. You didn't have a driving licence with a picture on it, and they didn't have virtually any other form of identity, and therefore appearing to be was a judgment that one made in those days. We've introduced voter ID and all the associated requirements with that.

And given that this legislation is intending to be modernising, bringing up to date our election law, could I please ask that the Minister does

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give that further consideration? I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I'm always happy to give comments. I'm always happy to give things further consideration. I think it's the point being that the think it's the point being that the in section 12 B, the registration officer has to be. Be certain that officer has to be. Be certain that the person appears to be a voting age and entitled to be registered before they send the notice. So the before they send the notice. So the voter ID is another reassurance once they get to the polling

**** Possible New Speaker ****

station. But I think. But I will reflect on his comments. I think noble Lords who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this rather eclectic group of amendments. rather eclectic group of amendments. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who I sense has got the bit between his teeth on this. So I bit between his teeth on this. So I suspect, I think you've probably not heard the last of it. I must admit I was not convinced by the
17:47
17:49
17:49
None Portrait Amendment:34 Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-

their birthday, statistically, 1917 16 year olds would like to vote on their birthday and be able to go down to the polling station. And I'm thinking of them. Look, this cohort won't have voted before. There's a serious need for neutral information about the mechanics of the election and the government. You know, for those for whom the government wants to vote for the first time. Now, my amendment 34, which I think goes with the rub of the bill, proposes that the Electoral Commission particularly gives a special statutory duty to design media that appeals to the inexperienced cohort about how the elections work, how you prove your identity, not to invalidate the ballot paper by marking it with your initials.

As a mistake I once made as a youngster, and so forth. Now times have changed and I spoke to the the noble Baroness, Baroness Benjamin earlier. And, you know, times have changed since we were young. When we were brought up on playschool Blue, Peter Bagpuss Crackerjack and Kate Adie and Alastair Burnet reading the news. Because nowadays news is consumed in snippets, on socials, on phones, on tablets, at home, on the go. And youngsters aren't interested in what the BBC says anymore. Still less the noble Baroness, Baroness Fox. So it's important that the information that is produced by the Electoral Commission isn't just produced in an age relevant manner, but it's distributed appropriately too.

And that means online. And that brings me to the children Well-Being Social Act 2026 in the amended Online Safety Act that give the Secretary of State powers to restrict access to social media to those under 16. And we understand the reasons. But sometimes legislation requires a trade off to prevent a greater harm, and the act gives powers to segment that ban by age and material. So I'm not proposing something revolutionary that effectively effectively nullifies Parliament's decision, but I want to use the powers in the act to carve out an exception for those people under 16 who are, importantly registered to vote, allowing them access to election related materials on social media in advance of an election to include those who will vote on their 16th birthday, but otherwise would have been excluded up to and including the day before.

My Lords, how can these children be expected to form a view of whom to support at the ballot box, if they can't see in advance the full gamut of election materials through social channels, including that practical information from the Electoral Commission about how the mechanics of the vote actually work. So my amendment probing amendment, seeks to bring into focus the obvious dichotomy that says, on one hand, you know, youngsters are mature enough to play their part in choosing the governance of our nation, but on the other, they are so immature they need to be shielded from the messages on which that election depends.

This is the consequence of the muddle this government has created around blurring the boundary between childhood and adulthood. My amendment says that a social media ban that keeps youngsters away from the. The candidates, and more particularly from the Electoral Commission's information, would be the greater harm by undermining the democratic foundations of our nation. Technically. Section 214 A of the Online Safety Act 2023, added by section 70 of the Well-Being and Schools Act, would be amended. If you're registered to vote, you'd be able to join the social media revolution. The government says it wants to improve young people's engagement in democracy.

I can't think of a stronger recruiting sergeant for democratic involvement, involvement and by incentivising youngsters who are preparing to vote by giving them access to the socials. And that's why in Group three on Monday, I suggested the age of voter registration should be set at 15, not 14, partly because if you did register at 15, it would be an appropriate age at which those who had registered could access social media. I'm sure we will return to this at report, but there's another second order consequence of my proposal here, because we currently have no definitive method to authenticate somebody under 16 to prove their age.

For the purposes of the Online Safety Act, Ofcom is getting in a right muddle by trying to think of four different ways by which youngsters could prove their age. Well, if they're registered to vote, they'd be on the database. That would be enough. And so I think there are some other areas in which it would enable ISPs, internet service providers to fulfill an identity and age check, and at a stroke, it would lift a weight from parents who are subject to intolerable peer pressure from their friends and their children to have a social account. When we know that if you're too young, it's just not in their best interests.

So this amendment number 39 would strengthen the hand of parents and the current system of age verification. So now it moves me on to my amendments 35 to 37, which cover the schools angle, which was covered in Group three earlier today. Now, at Second Reading, I warned that this bill brings party politics into schools. Now, I'm not talking about the pedagogy of politics, but of political partisanship. This bill puts teachers in a difficult position. It drives wedges between pupils and invites parents to complain. Their own political prejudices haven't been adequately reinforced. It's our job to set the statutory ground rules for how electoral politics is treated in our schools.

I heard the Minister earlier, but we need to show teachers, pupils and parents we will not permit a wild west that disrupts the classroom schools and increases tension. We need to strengthen their hand to resist providing a conduit for party activists. So my amendments do not suggest that schools should not discuss the election at all. Oh no. After all, the young people will have not not have voted before, and teachers will have a role in explaining the process. But that doesn't mean that schools should be a dumping ground for all manner of party leaflets. Otherwise schools will become a magnet.

And for these activists who will conclude they can reach hundreds of voters at once, which is a sight easier than knocking on hundreds of doors. But my amendment isn't just about the party activists. I'm also interested in protecting children from undue influence by a teacher's personal political predispositions. So my amendment 35, which is the duty to be impartial, is intended to strengthen the teachers ability to insulate themselves from outside influence and ensure learners aged 14 to 18 can make neutral, informed decisions about their vote. My amendment 36 prohibits the display of election materials in educational establishments alongside outside the structured classroom environment, which indeed must be scrupulously impartial and 38 relates to hustings and seeks to ensure that hustings held in schools are politically balanced and that all candidates to hustings are given reasonable notice and the opportunity to attend, although whether they actually turn up will be up to them.

Look, this is an important group. The other place failed to consider the practicality and second order consequences of extending the franchise to those who are so young, they're still at school. We must stop turning schools into political backgrounds, sowing division, reinforcing sectarianism, which happens in some in some areas, campaigning in Urdu and placing schools as teachers and schools in an invidious position. But just as importantly, my. This group will treat those who are mature enough to look to vote in the. So will who are mature enough to vote to look at the socials, provided they have exercised the privilege that is to be registered to vote in the first place, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 16. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the. These amendments 34, 35, 36, 38, 39 in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Fuller, I the noble Lord. Lord Fuller, I think, do us a favour in the sense think, do us a favour in the sense that they do force us to consider second order consequences of a very big constitutional change. And I think that regardless of one's
17:58
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
views on votes for 16 or 17 year olds, it's a hugely important shift in the franchise. And we should take seriously what that means for take seriously what that means for society and for how we operate in terms of politics. And I think, terms of politics. And I think, therefore, I found the just even thinking through these issues very, thinking through these issues very, very important. I, I. Wanted to raise something that's not quite reflected in it, but it's kind of come from it, which I've been wondering about in terms of a kind of nervousness about electoral or party politics coming into the classroom, which is will there be a different atmosphere amongst teachers who are actively engaged in politics?

And we want them to be that's what you you want citizens to be like when instead of just educating pupils, they might want to kind of. And not even just kind of winning their hearts and minds to ideas, they might want to win their votes. And it's a kind of slightly awkward situation. And I just wondered if the Minister had had any thoughts on this. I mean, I've got quite a number of friends who are Labour Party teachers, Labour Party members of the blue variety, but nonetheless Labour Party and they go out canvassing. But it's a kind of separate activity.

But they will actually be teaching people who will be newly enfranchised. And won't it be tempting? And you might think, well, they they'd know where the boundaries were. But I think this is what we have to consider and whether we need to make it clear that that should never occur. And whereas one might think, oh, well, you know, Labour Party, can you imagine a situation where you've got teachers who are members of the Green Party of the Zionism is racism variety going down that route of the Green Party, if they see and and start relating to pupils, as would be voters, how uncomfortable that would be for Jewish pupils, the dangers of the sectarianism that have just been mentioned entering into the classroom.

So I think it's right that we think about this. I also think that idea about age appropriate election materials is important, both actually from a safeguarding point of view, every teacher always has to think, is this appropriate for this age group? You don't just teach people who were, for example, 13 the same as you would somebody who's 17. So how will that affect? I mean, my concern was slightly different than the one the noble Lord said, which is I don't want politics to be dumbed down either. So how do you kind of do it so that you're not then saying, oh, this is specifically designed for you young voters, and then it ends up kind of gutting any kind of depth from it.

But these are things I want us to consider. I also think that it's very, very important, this point about access to social media to enable young people who at this stage are registered to vote, they've got the vote that they can actually make better informed voting decisions, and we have to allow them to be free to research those for themselves. There is a real danger from the Group three discussion that we see that in order to make their political decisions, we're going to enable them via education. And that, of course, limits their freedom. Now, I thought that what I would do is just use an example of a government backed, specially designed educational material that was designed to encourage and teach young people how to make the right choices, which always makes me anxious.

But it became quite an infamous example because it was a Home Office funded game, pathways for teenagers, an educational, interactive game for 11 to 18 year olds, and teachers were urged by the government to use it in their classrooms. In terms of making the right choices, players were given control because they were asked to be a person, a character called Charlie in brackets. They them. I kid you not to negotiate scenarios involving online political content. Charlie was then rated, depending on the choices that Charlie made and the rating was in relation to extremism or radicalisation.

And guess what activities scored badly discussing or researching migration online was a negative. Engaging with posts about, quote, the need to take back control of your country or quote the erosion of British values. If Charlie chose those choices, then they were the bad choices. And right at the end, if you made too many bad choices, you end up being sent to prevent. This has been widely and even internationally ridiculed. This project and the Home Office, you know, imagine it's gone very quiet. It was ridiculed as manipulative propaganda. Ironically, it created a baddie, Amelia, a purple haired, goth style cartoon character, a teenage girl in a mini Union Jack from Bridlington.

He tried to lure Charlie. They them on an anti small boats demo. Now Amelia has become an international superstar, a meme all over the world. And, you know, I'm sure that that's not what the government was hoping would happen. But it does show you something about unintended consequences. And the reason I'm using that example is just to simply say, I think teenage voters who have been enfranchised by this government would be should be trusted and would indeed be safer and better off and better informed if they were free to research themselves and make their own choices, rather than being treated as though they're in an interactive game that had to come out at the right answer.

 And I think that that one of the things I wanted to stress to the Minister as we go forward with the bill is the Minister saw that raising these kind of probing amendments was somehow an attempt to undermining the manifesto promise or to destroy the bill, or all sorts of negative things. I genuinely think, as we just talked about, the role of the House, of this House, that what these amendments and similar are trying to do is to push the government to think through if this bill is fit for purpose and needs to have, on the face of the bill, some clear red lines, some clear guidance on these very important matters.

And if the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds is of such historic importance as this government maintains, then we should give it a lot of attention and not just box. Tick it through.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To say a few words in support of my noble friend Lord Fuller's my noble friend Lord Fuller's amendments, 35 to 37. And they are to require to require non partisan to require to require non partisan teaching, non party political posters or balanced hustings with posters or balanced hustings with all the candidates invited and with proper notice. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proper notice. I Think they are very important amendments. It may be argued by the Minister that they are already covered in the law, and under the 1996 act, sections 406 and 407. And yes, the law does require schools to prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take steps to ensure the presentation of views. And there are also teachers standards which require teachers not to use their standing or
18:06
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
position to influence teacher and pupils who may be vulnerable or not pupils who may be vulnerable or not due to age. And of course, we have the duties under the Human Rights the duties under the Human Rights Act and also under the Equality Act. And then the promotion of British values. So all these are there. And values. So all these are there. And before we are, we may hear, I don't know what the noble Lady, the Baroness, will respond to these amendments, but why I think they're important is that we're now looking at an entirely new category of people of 16 and 17.

The law, as it stands, was framed for the general teaching of youngsters at school, most of whom who wouldn't be going to the polls during their school years, maybe some at the very end of their school years, but mostly not. And therefore it is a pretty abstract notion, the idea of what teachers are doing. But now we're going to be teaching youngsters, children who will be going to the polls, who are impressionable and for whom it's not an abstract matter at all. And as other noble Lords have said, there is there really is a danger of maybe not intentional influence, but not intentional influence by the kind of material displayed by the kind of teaching, including, as the noble Lady Baroness Fox mentioned, how can somebody who is very committed member of a party, any party, avoid somehow influencing youngsters?

And I think that it is necessary to have some sort of thinking by the government to. How do you put in special provisions for people at school who will actually be voting, as opposed to the cohorts we have aimed the law at to date, mostly, who will not be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

elections. And I think Lord Fuller touched on what is perhaps the most on what is perhaps the most interesting element of this group, which is something that doesn't directly affect this bill at all, directly affect this bill at all, but is the potential knock on on more widely the Online Safety Act? Because if we get to a place where we have 16 and 17 year olds registered, the existence of that
18:09
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
electoral register, as Lord Fuller rightly mentioned in passing, may become a potentially a very important building block in future age verification processes, unlike under the Online Safety Act. So I suspect in some ways the the biggest importance of these amendments are the issues these amendments raise is actually not for this bill, but for other areas, other areas that exercise us at other times. And I think the general I think there is a general point here which has come out through these amendments and in several, several earlier groups as well, which is that we will have two fundamentally different processes under this bill.

We will have the right to vote from 16 under the Online Safety Act. The key age threshold is 18, and I won't relitigate the previous debates, particularly in light of my comments earlier, but just observe to myself the fact that those two ages are different is not a reason to be particularly hostile to that, because we have many variations in all sorts of other areas, as was was expressed in in previous debates. But we should recognize those two numbers are different, and quite how those two systems will therefore properly interact with each other. I think it is fair to say it will be helpful to have more clarity from the government as to what its plan is to ensure that the different age threshold under the Online Safety Act doesn't provide for inadvertent, unwanted consequences that damage the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds.

In terms of the particular methods that Lord Fuller has chosen in his amendments, I don't quite agree with with the details of all of them, but I think there is one important point that is worth drawing out under, which comes up under Lord Fuller's Amendment 35, depending on how one views how lawyers might argue over the word outcome, I think it is reasonable for schools to teach children about the values of democracy. And I think if you look at, for example, the the sorts of decisions made about the national curriculum under previous conservative governments, there is a very clear direction there that we are, as it were, as a nation, not neutral between democracy and dictatorship, and therefore things like an outcome where we want people to participate in an election, I think, is something that is reasonable for schools to communicate, and it has to absolutely be done in a way that is fair, and it has to be done in a way that recognises there are people who may wish to spoil their ballots, or that people who may wish to not vote as a matter of principle.

But promoting democracy is a reasonable part, I think, of our education system. So although there are some details that I would, would, would, would disagree with, I think the basic point about how is the Online Safety Act world and the world to be created by this bill going to interact is one which will be very helpful to hear more from the government on.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Sorry, my noble friend Lord Fuller for his amendments, which I do think raised some which I do think raised some important questions about young people's access to electoral information and the need to ensure information and the need to ensure political balance in our schools. And I know that we've had a number of, I think, very useful of, I think, very useful contributions. This has been one of the shorter debates, but I think there's some important points that
18:12
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
have been raised now, as I recollect our discussions so far on this bill, most, if not all, noble Lords have been in almost universal agreement about education, civic education, and as the noble Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who is not in his place today, has said, he spent 17 years teaching British Constitution. And in fact, my first exposure to democracy was learning British Constitution, which I'm pleased I have passed. I also think my noble friend Lord Gascoyne made a very important point on the first day. You know he best encapsulate the point. Votes at 16 cannot be seen as an end in itself, but rather be accompanied by an understanding of what citizenship is and what playing a part in our free, liberal, democratic society means and entails.

And therefore, I think it is very important, and we are spending quite a lot of time on it, that we actually consider those two things in parallel. Now, this group again addresses the complete inconsistency in the government's approach to 16. As my noble friend Lord Markham told us at Second Reading, if we consider a 16 year old old enough to choose a government, then accepts that they're old enough to hear all the arguments, and Lord Pac did raise that. We have a distinct difference with the online safety and 18 and votes for 16, and we need to somehow reconcile that and recognise that.

We need to make sure that those who are going to vote have the information they need. Now, my noble friends have made 34 would require political neutral, age appropriate election information to be published on social media, and that recognises the reality that young people has been said several times today. Obtain their information online, on social media and not through those more traditional channels of newspapers or TV. And if the government intends to extend the franchise, they must ensure the newly enfranchised voters can access that information necessary to exercise that right. So will the noble Baroness, the Minister, explain how the government intends to ensure that young people can receive accurate and politically balanced electoral information?

 Amendment 39 raises a related question of access to information on social media and other related online platforms. There is a clear tension, as I've already discussed on that matter. Of course, protecting children online is important and we have campaigned for the social media ban for under 16 seconds. Yet for 16 and 17 year olds who are entitled to vote, they do need access to this broad range of political views in a manner that is accessible to them. I turn to my noble friend's amendments 35 and 36, concerning political education and campaign materials in schools. Schools have an important role in preparing young people to understand our democratic institutions.

There is a difficult line to tread in teaching pupils about politics and seeking to influence their political choices, and I agree with the noble Lord Pac that I would like to influence people, that democracy matters and that that is something that I would say is acceptable. But there are clearly other areas where we do need political neutrality. And the noble Baroness Fox raised what in some ways is quite an alarming issue that was in schools. And we do need to ensure that that type of thing does not influence 16 and 17 year olds. Political education should expose young people to competing arguments, but most importantly, encourage independent critical thinking and allow them to reach their own conclusions.

Of course, education does not exist in a bubble, but political education should never become an opportunity for partisan campaigning in or the polarisation of a classroom, whether from peers or from teachers. Can the noble Baroness tell us what safeguards will ensure that electoral education remains politically balanced, and what guidance will be provided to teachers about the use of party political materials? And I do think they need guidance. We can't have a situation where every teacher is individually trying to work out what is the right balance. So the noble Baroness Fox mentioned red lines. I'd certainly say guidance and clarity and consistency.

Amendment 38 addresses the conduct of election hustings in schools. Such events can provide a valuable opportunity for young people to hear directly from candidates and question them about their policies, but they must be organised fairly, giving one party privileged access to young voters would undermine the very purpose of political education. Will the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that schools organising election hustings should provide reasonable notice and a fair opportunity for all candidates to participate? And how will these principles be reflected in government guidance? My Lords, the amendments in this group raise crucial questions about how young people prepare are prepared to participate in our democracy.

The government are determined to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. They must ensure those young
18:32
None Portrait Amendment:40 Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-

people have meaningful access to accurate information, a balanced political education and the the impact assessment and the way it looks at the costs in general. I it looks at the costs in general. I chosen one particular example, but I will come back in more detail about 1 or 2 other elements of the about 1 or 2 other elements of the impact assessment. Overall, before I do so, I would just make a broad observation that I'm interested in the inclusion of these two clauses, 15 and 16, which put an obligation to educate in relation to 16 and 17 year olds.

But when we pass legislation in relation to obligations that are imposed on teachers or doctors or large numbers of other groups, there aren't similar clauses in legislation. And I don't know whether this is going to be a new development that each time we pass a bill, we're going to finish up introducing a clause which says all there must be an education of farmers, or there must be an education of seagulls or whatever it may happen to be. So I actually call into question whether there is whether these two clauses should actually be in the bill.

The other observation I'd make is in relation to impact assessments in general, they started several decades ago, and the original intention of impact assessments, as I understood it and I have looked back, was to look at the burdens that were imposed on particular groups. And that was all it was intended to do. And I say that as somebody who was, for a period, the chief executive of the Beer and Pub Association and had to deal with the changes associated with the Licensing Act, the impact assessments nowadays seem to be not only a question of an assessment of costs and burdens, but also, and I say this in particular in relation to this impact assessment, a justification of every decision that's been taken.

 It is quite striking. You read paragraphs that explain why the government's taken a decision in relation to whatever it may happen to be. Now, that certainly was never the aim of the impact assessment. Now, I come on to my major concern and I plead in aid, firstly, the impact assessment that went with the Football Football Regulation Bill, which only a few weeks ago was identified as having the impact assessment was out by over 100% in 12 months. I've gone through this impact assessment and I find myself in exactly the same quandary. I do not understand how many of the figures have been arrived at, and therefore, I would ask the Minister, firstly, is it the same people who drew up the impact assessment for the Football Regulation Bill who have drawn up this this impact assessment, or have they operated to the same broad rules?

Now, there are explanations of the principles that they followed within it, and I have read every single line of the impact assessment. But if they're following the same rules that resulted in another impact assessment being over 100% out in 12 months. I think the Treasury is going to have quite a surprise when it gets to discover what the actual costs of this bill are. Now, the particular chart assessment of costs that I want to refer to in in specifically is on page 59, and it relates to the burden, the costs associated with the introduction of 16 votes at 16 and 17 year olds.

Now, we heard from Lord Fuller the other day on Monday about the information that he'd received about the costs for local authorities in terms of the actual registration of new voters, the other side of the costs, and we've heard about it persistently today, is the obligation to educate Baroness Royall, Baroness Lister, Lord Pac, Lord Rennard, any number of noble Lords have said that there needs to be greater levels of Lord Wallace. Sorry, I wouldn't want to exclude him from from that list have said that there need to be much greater levels of education for this group and there does not, just to ensure that they're registered, but also because we have to ensure that they are fully aware, as has been identified on any number of occasions, of the issues on which they are being asked.

Ultimately to vote. Now, I'm going to quote from 1 or 2 parts of the impact assessment, and I hope I get this right here in order. But in relation to staffing costs. Page 52, paragraph 118, it says, and I quote, extra staff may be needed to deal with the additional demand in some local authorities. Now, which local authorities are not going to have the extra demand. And I'm talking here both about registration and education. Then you go on to page 58, paragraph 160 wider staffing costs associated with votes at 16 policy have been excluded in line with the treatment of the M, h, c, l g department.

 Staffing costs in this year. Impact assessment. Then we come on to. Paragraph 170, where it says, it concludes it identifies a particular issue, and then it says, therefore this cost is not monetised. Now I don't have the IT capacity to actually go through the whole document to find out how many times it says this cost is not monetised, but I don't have to look very much further than paragraph 170. All I have to go to is one paragraph 174, where the phrase is used. Again, this cost. These contributions are not considered significant in cost terms and have therefore not been monetised.

Now what are these costs in 174 that have been not monetised? And I quote there is an additional resource implication arising from the collaborative development of policy with staff from other governmental departments, principally the DfE, which doesn't come as a surprise given the debates we've had, contributing meaning meaningfully to its design. There is also a potential impact on education staff, education staff in every single local authority across the country and therefore, how on earth does one come back to may have implications for some local authorities? Now, there are many other examples that I could quote, but I then come.

In conclusion, my Lords, to the paragraph where it. Which is paragraph 166 in the Impact Assessment, page 59. The Electoral Commission had been asked to submit their assessment of their costs, and there's no question about it. They have very substantial costs. And in the central scenario, these are given as £39.8 million. Now you might think, well, the Electoral Commission has got certain work, but all these local authorities, all these government departments, all these registration officers, now what figure if the Electoral Commission has got 39.8? Sorry, I missed out the point. Eight 39.8 million extra costs.

What of all the other government departments and local authorities got? The figure is given as a mere £45 million in round two. Sorry, £48 million. So it's almost the same as it is for the Electoral Commission. It. I was going to use a word that I'd normally hear more on a rugby pitch than I would in the chamber here, but all I'll say is, my Lords, this impact assessment in so many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ways is not credible. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 16. Insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't spent as much time as my noble friend Lord Haywood, going line by line through the impact assessment, but I have spent some time with text searches to try and
18:42
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
time with text searches to try and find the paragraphs that relate to the issues that have concerned me most. As we've debated the bill thus far, which is for the Attainders and the 16 and the 16 to 18 year olds. And because so much of it says non monetised, I've made my own inquiries, I've made my own inquiries of one of the more senior electoral registration officers in the country, who also happens to be a police area returning officer, apparent as well. And we've heard in this the debate hence hitherto how many assumptions are made, insofar as you know what the powers may be by extending the franchise and also things from auto enrolment.

And my Lords, there is going to be so much more hand work. There are going to be so many more duplicate entries created automatically. There's going to be the need to deduplicate the duplicates that have been created through the best of reasons, but that's just where the legislation is. And there are so many moving parts. And I want to dwell, and I didn't realize that the noble Lord was going to mention the figure of £45 million. But I want to dwell, I'm sorry, £48 million. But I do want to dwell on the provisions for registering the Attainders alone.

Those people who. This bill proposes, aged between 14 and 16, who will come onto the register but don't have a National Insurance card. They don't have a gas bill because their parents do that bit. They don't have a driving licence. They may not have a passport. They effectively don't really exist to the state. I asked my returning officer, for all these kids who don't have a national insurance number, how are you going to register them on the roll? And he says, well, the only way we can do it is through hand work. So hand work manually.

And how long might this take? Well, then there's the process. So they may need to go and you may need to go and identify them. You've got to write to them. There's a letter come back. You can't automatically validate them, you see. And they've got to send other documentary evidence. There's a lot of backwards and forwards. Sometimes it may lead to an attestation in the court because the seems to thing works well. If you're like members of your Lordships house. We're in work, we've got a national insurance number, we pay our taxes. We've probably got a driving licence, we've probably got a passport.

All these all these things are available to us, which aren't to the testers. And, and I've worked out for the 1.4 million people for two hours a pop. And that's being generous because there's a number of different things that need to go backwards and forwards on paper. It's going to take 2000 extra staff in local government offices up and down this country for that provision alone, making the important assumption that they come in sort of evenly rather than all in a rush, which we know sort of happens. If I was just to take as a some £45,000 a year for the salary, the on costs, because National Insurance is so much more expensive nowadays, and the training and the computer licensing and all those other things for the registration of 14 to 15 year olds alone is a £90 million cost for that element.

That's twice the total impact assessment for all the other things put together. And then we have all the automatic registration, all the assumptions. And, you know, how is the electoral registration officer going to be able to make these value judgments? If you have people who don't really aren't really documented. So that's that's what so there's a big wedge of money there. There's so much still unknown to be determined by secondary legislation. I'll give

**** Possible New Speaker ****

way. I didn't make reference to the question of automatic registration, question of automatic registration, but since the noble, my noble friend has encouraged me to do so friend has encouraged me to do so on page 101, improving registration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on page 101, improving registration that. You'd characterize that as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You'd characterize that as the down payment, but there we are now look, so, so much has to be done by secondary legislation. Look, I'm not going to trespass too greatly on a future group, but when it comes to identification and bank cards, there are all sorts of unintended consequences, which I repeat, I won't go into now, but they're going to have to be huge changes in systems for bank cards if they are to be fit for purpose. Baroness Pinnock, who isn't in her place, earlier posited that the automatic registration and the duplicates may lead to more frequent boundary reviews.

One thing's absolutely for sure the way in which the legislation is today, we're going to need duplicate and parallel IT systems, which will have to be reconciled, and that's going to be expensive. So and this is just and my focus has been on the 1.4 million retainers, but there's a further 1.4 million 16 to 18 year olds, many of whom won't also have the documentary evidence. So I know that democracy has a cost. We live in a free society that costs money, but what we haven't worked out are the costs in this impact assessment.

The figure that the noble Lord has referred to is just a down payment. It's a drop in the ocean. My my chances are it's probably four times greater than probably four times greater than that. And we should be told.
18:48
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's an enthusiastic heckle >> It's an enthusiastic heckle there. The impact. >> Assessment weighing in at 130 pages. I think it's fair to say it's very on brand for election law. And given our comments earlier about how voluminous election law is, I was struck, though, in is, I was struck, though, in looking through it, how little there is about police time and police resources, because we are already in a situation as the noble Lady, the Minister will know well from other questions and debates. Previously, in a situation where councillors, MPs, members of political parties are often quite frustrated when they raise issues with the police, perhaps about fears of personal safety due to harassment and how often those police resources are not really available to properly follow up on such concerns.

And in the parts of the bill that we'll be coming to on future days, rather than this evening, to do with political finance, some of the issues we're looking at there to do with, for example, crypto, crypto transfers will require quite sophisticated and advanced investigatory techniques. It won't simply be a matter of whether the local police team have got resources to take issues raised with them to do with election law seriously. I'm sure there will actually be quite a lot of pressure on on many specialized parts of the police service and the National Crime Agency and so on.

 And it is striking to me that the impact assessment seems to me to be, I say, just about completely silent in case I have missed something in my reading of it, but I didn't actually spot any reference at all to the potential costs to the police and to associated law enforcement apparatus of the range of offences, for example, that this bill either will create or will toughen up or will put a greater focus on as a result of other parts of the bill. So I hope the noble Lady, the Minister, can tell us a little bit about what assessments have been made of, what the potential costs are to the law enforcement apparatus, and what reassurance we can have is that whatever form this bill takes when it is passed, and then hopefully also commenced by the government, that there will be the necessary resources available to actually enforce it.
18:51
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Heywood, for tabling this amendment and indeed for everything else he's done on this bill, else he's done on this bill, because he has worked many, many hours. It seeks to address the numerous unqualified costs arising from the provisions of this bill, which is surely not escaped anyone's notice, some of which have been raised in this chamber today, as well as those that were raised on Monday. And I'm really concerned that the government is proposing substantial changes to our electoral system without providing a sufficiently comprehensive account of what those changes will mean.

It's particularly concerning, given the scale of reforms proposed and the additional responsibilities they will place upon electoral administrators and local authorities. Can I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, how she expects this House or those in the other place, to properly assess value for money, when one of the principal costs of implementing a major reform has not even been qualified, we are potentially losing as substantial expenditure on new IT infrastructure, data sharing arrangements, staff training and ongoing administration costs. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, commit to evaluating the total costs of rolling out automatic voter registration?

First, we've yet to receive a number. Moreover, this bill seeks to place a greater burden upon local authorities. Electoral registration officers already operate within a complex legislative framework. This bill will introduce further obligations, potentially requiring new systems and additional verification procedures. Has it failed to escape the government's notice that this will be at great expenditure? We all know local authorities are already under considerable financial pressure. It is therefore essential that the government explains whether these additional costs will be fully funded by central government, or are councils simply meant to observe them from existing budgets. I welcome a clear answer from the noble Baroness, the Minister.

The government have proceeded with substantial changes to electoral and political finance law, without the degree of prior consultation that such measures deserve. Indeed, significant provisions have been introduced or altered during the passage of this Bill following the original impact assessment. As my noble friend Lord Heywood has actually identified already, that makes a comprehensive assessment of the cumulative financial impact all the more important. I therefore ask the Minister two very straightforward questions. Will the government publish a full estimate of the costs of implementing automatic voter registration, including that of the IT infrastructure? Will authorities be fully compensated for the additional burdens imposed by this legislation?

My noble friend Lord Heywood's amendment asked the government to be transparent, accountable and to use public money responsibly. These are not and should not be controversial principles. I hope the Minister can provide this House with substantive answers, rather than simply referring us back to an impact assessment, which leaves significant questions unanswered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, turning to Lord Heywood's amendments, the Heywood's amendments, the provisions he refers to are important to ensure we encourage as many eligible young people as possible to participate in our democracy. I'll come on to the monitoring and evaluation in a moment, but to respond to his points about the impact assessment, points about the impact assessment, this impact assessment, as all all impact assessments produced by governments are produced by departments in line with His Majesty's Treasury investment guidance in the Green Book. So we follow the rules that are set out in that Green Book.

However, a
18:55
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
number of detailed questions have been raised about this impact assessment. I think the most helpful thing I can do at this helpful thing I can do at this stage of our debate is to write to noble Lords and response to the very particular questions they've very particular questions they've asked me about this impact assessment in relation to, I would just say, in relation to local just say, in relation to local authority costs, as the noble Baroness will know only too well and has probably lobbied on, as I and has probably lobbied on, as I have, where there are new burdens on local government, then government has to respond to that by providing funding for those new burdens in relation to the monitoring and evaluation of the Bill.

Our approach will comply with our published evaluation strategy, and that's what we were referring to in relation to the in the impact assessment, we will publish evaluation findings in a timely manner, consistent with our policy for the publication of research and government social research guidelines, and that impact evaluation will assess the impacts of the reforms on electors and on local authorities and others responsible for delivering delivering elections, a process evaluation that will seek to examine how the reforms are implemented. And excuse me, as I referred to earlier, earlier this afternoon, an economic evaluation that will assess whether the benefits of the policies actually outweigh their costs.

These are difficult areas to address because anyone that's tried to do it will know that at present, social value is quite a difficult concept to evaluate in financial terms and monetising it, which is where some of the difficulty occurs. But the appraisal of policies and the impact assessment does rely heavily on qualitative evidence and non-monetary impacts, which don't get reflected in that net present social value calculation. But it's important we continue to look at that economic, the, you know, a clear picture of that economic evaluation, which we will do. So the areas highlighted by the noble Lord will be covered by this work in terms of monitoring.

But as I say, I commit to write to members on the specific financial questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they've raised this afternoon. Thanking the Minister for a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thanking the Minister for a very open response. Can I just touch on one thing which she referred to earlier on this afternoon, which earlier on this afternoon, which time didn't allow me to comment on during my opening remarks? And that was the fund, which is not referred was the fund, which is not referred to in the impact assessment, which she referred to earlier. But on that basis, I seek leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that basis, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 41 to 43. Baroness Lister not moved. Amendment 44. Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle not moved. Amendment 44 a Baroness Berridge not moved. 44 B Lord Bird not moved in clause 17. Amendment 45 Lord Fuller not moved. 46 Baroness O'Neill not moved. 47. Lord Udny-Lister not moved. 48. Baroness O'Neill not moved. Amendments 49 to 50 Lord Rennard not moved. Amendment 51 Lord Jackson not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move the house be resumed. The question has been resumed as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question has been resumed as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. Other content have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Other content have it. My Lords, I beg to move the house. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page