Representation of the People Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsWednesday 4th November 2026
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47–II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
Before I respond to the amendments, I must correct a date I gave in the debate on the previous group. I said that the tabling date for amendments for the next set of Committee groups was 9 November, but it is 17 November. My apologies for that. The amendments in those groups will be tabled then.
I want to say at the start that the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote is able do so, and that they should supported and encouraged in that. The provisions we are making are designed to ensure that vulnerable people who are eligible to vote are enabled, but it is quite right that all young people must be prepared for this change to the electoral franchise. The Government are 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 to help prepare them to exercise their democratic rights. I will go into a bit more detail on schools provision in a moment.
I thought it might be helpful to say to noble Lords that we have carried out extensive research, both quantitative and qualitative, speaking to those aged 14 to 17. A total of 32 focus groups were conducted over two stages, followed by a nationally representative survey of more than 3,500 respondents, utilising online and offline data collection. The key headlines from that research were really interesting: most young people 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 feel that their voice would matter more if they had the vote at 16. Those were the key headlines, but it was a big piece of research.
The other thing that slightly surprises me is that the debates on Monday and today have taken a direction that I was not expecting. It is a shame that significant doubts have been cast on teachers’ impartiality, and we now appear to have doubts being cast on the BBC and on those responsible for looked-after children.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Only two weeks ago, the Government intervened in the problem of the lack of impartiality among teachers on the Israel-Gaza-Palestine conflict. At the time, I congratulated the Government on taking a stance on the difficulties of that issue. The Government were clear that we have to be very careful. I cast no aspersions in general. The Government noted the particular issue of the rise of antisemitism and the politicisation of that war in schools, and they rightly intervened. I congratulated the Government then, and I congratulate them now. I did not think the Government were casting aspersions on all teachers; they were not, and neither were the rest of us.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
These issues have to be tackled when and as they arise. The point I was making is that making general points relating to that is not helpful.
I will now address the amendments. I understand and share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for young people to receive impartial information, as expressed in Amendments 18 and 19. I assure 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 registration arrangements that apply to relevant young people and to help those young people register. This is about factual and practical electoral registration information and making sure that 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 therefore assure the noble Lord that we fully recognise the importance of political impartiality, but I do not consider that an additional statutory requirement of this kind is needed.
I turn to Amendment 23 from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on bringing such sartorial elegance to the Chamber this afternoon. It brings some panache to our debate at the end of the week.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I apologise; it is rather eccentric. The Parliament Choir is performing this evening, and the dress rehearsal starts at 4 pm—I have said that I will be late.
I add that there is strong scientific evidence that collective singing in schools improves social cohesion and concentration. I am not sure that the last Government accepted that scientific evidence—they did not act on it. But if we are talking about scientific evidence in schools, singing matters as well.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord well for his rehearsal and look forward to coming to one of the concerts in due course.
Noble Lords may recall that a similar amendment to this one was debated in Committee in the other place. Our position remains that a statutory reporting requirement is not the right way to approach this issue. The amendment would require the report to cover three areas: raising awareness, civic education and electoral registration. I will address each in turn.
First, on raising awareness, I agree with noble Lords that young people need to be aware of their new democratic rights. The Government are already working alongside the Electoral Commission, local and devolved government, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to make sure that 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. It would also not be right for the Government to report on behalf of other organisations involved 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.
Secondly, 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 the devolved Governments 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. I will say more on that when I respond to my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment. Given these different roles and responsibilities, I do not believe that a statutory report from the UK Government is the right mechanism for assessing progress in this area.
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 are 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. I hope I have reassured your Lordships that the Government share the underlying objectives behind this amendment and are already taking forward work to support young people as the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year-olds.
I come to Amendments 24, 280 and 287 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I point out to noble Lords that these amendments would prevent voting rights 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. Indeed, he quoted my response to him at the time, which I still hold to—that we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities. That principle applies to 16 and 17 year-olds as it does to all other voters. I am sorry to repeat back to him what he has already quoted, but that is the case.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish responding, then I will happily give way? Our focus is on delivering this manifesto commitment—on which this Government were elected—which recognises that 16 and 17 year-olds have views that 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 have already asked them to do so. The question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to vote.
The point of this process of engagement is to introduce the concept of critical thinking. Indeed, 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.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I was not talking about cognitive ability. That was what the Minister mentioned at Second Reading, and I was trying to say that I was not talking about that. I was talking about the maturity of young people to withstand peer pressure and to make a reasoned decision. As we have heard today, electing a Government is a very important and responsible decision. We had the evidence from Professor Laurence Steinberg that it is at 18 that young people are able to make their own judgments, withstand things such as TikTok and peer pressure at school and make a reasoned political judgment independently. It is maturity I am talking about, not cognitive ability.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have heard what the noble Lord has said. In my view, requiring such an assessment before these changes can be implemented would introduce a completely unnecessary additional step and could delay the delivery of a very important manifesto commitment on which, as I have said, we have done a good deal of research with young people.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made some points around safeguarding and political canvassing. We have taken steps within the Bill, as he will know, to say that attainers—14 and 15 year-olds—will not be canvassed by EROs, but I understand that the point he is making is around political canvassing. I am sure that political parties will be developing their own safeguarding response to the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
We are not talking about cognitive development or about taking tests. We are talking about what steps the Government are taking to protect people from peer pressure. So far, the answer is none, which is not very satisfactory.
Secondly, in respect of what happens on the doorstep, the Government cannot rely on political parties. My whole point is that there will be individuals who claim to be canvassers and will knock on doors and get entry into doors and into conversation with 16 year-olds under the pretext of being political campaigners. They will identify such people from the electoral roll. One cannot expect political parties to vet every single canvasser. It is up to the Government, if they are going to introduce eligibility for 16 year-olds to vote and to receive canvassers, to take steps to protect them.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are all sorts of people who knock on our doors. I understand what the noble Lord is saying and I will take those points away, but I seriously think that the point of the education process is to teach young people to have that critical thinking capacity to make their own decisions about things. I am more than confident that our young people at 16 and 17 have the faculties to do that.
I will now talk a little more about the education process, which is important in this.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
When the Minister says that she is more than confident, is she refuting the evidence of Professor Steinberg?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I hope I will have an opportunity to speak to Professor Steinberg at some point, but I think we need to move on and talk about what we are going to do in terms of education.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for tabling Amendment 43 and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her 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. A fundamental point in all this is that we know that engaging young people at a much earlier age encourages that lifelong engagement with the democratic process.
This is a priority for the Government. We are 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 3 and 4 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 and young people understand and participate in democracy. This is currently being piloted, and a formal launch is planned for March 2027, which I hope answers my noble friend Lady Royall’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 friend’s concern about young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and politically underrepresented groups, including girls and young women. The 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 will comment on some of the points made about political impartiality in schools. Schools are already subject to clear legal duties 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. 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 to the noble Baroness, Lady 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 do not believe that further legislation is needed.
Finally, on Amendment 44, the Government recognise the importance of safeguarding young people, and the Bill provides strong protections where those are needed—for example, on data protection. In addition, 16 and 17-year-olds, and those who will turn 16 before polling day, should have the same opportunity as any other voter to hear from candidates and political parties 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. I hope this responds further to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. As part of this work, we have the opportunity to consider the specific issue raised in this amendment, regarding the safeguarding of young people in campaigning. We therefore do not consider this amendment is likely to be necessary.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
I am grateful for that last point. I must admit that, as a council leader previously, when the point about campaigning was raised with me, it sent shivers down my spine because we know how important safeguarding is. It might be worth a conversation at the all-party group, so it is put out through all the different parties and they are aware of it. I am sure many of them may not have considered it, and it is worth sharing that information.
I have another point I would like to put across the Minister’s desk. The Minister says they have had a lot of research done. Is it possible to share it with the Committee?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
To save my noble friend the Minister having to bob up and down, I have a couple of questions, which she could perhaps write to me about afterwards. One is about the teacher training and resources that will support the kind of citizenship education we have been talking about. The other is about evaluation, particularly from the perspective of disadvantaged groups and those who lack political confidence and face the greatest barriers to political participation, such as girls and young women.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, makes a good point about the political parties panel, and I will take that back. I have some brief information about research, but I will write to her on that, if that is okay.
On the comments made by my noble friend Lady Lister, we are looking at this transitional support on how we make sure we have adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues such as political impartiality and misinformation, and I am happy to update her once that work has gone a bit further.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, and I of course entirely support the comments from the Front Bench, that we understand that votes at 16 is a manifesto commitment. But what this last hour and 20 minutes has shown is how much the consequences of that manifesto commitment are going to mean for the safeguarding of children, the impacts on education and for people who have not really had to participate in economic society before. These are unintended consequences and we are going to have to iron them out, not just for the 16 year-olds but for those attainers from 14.
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 that they are prepared to leave it to chance: we are not going to cast aspersions, but we are going to address these issues—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If the noble Lord would kindly give way for a moment, I did not say we are leaving it to chance. I said that we welcome the Speaker’s Conference recommendation to establish codes of conduct on this subject, and we 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.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I thank the Minister, and I accept those words entirely, but earlier on in the wind-up, when referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the suggestion was made that we were casting aspersions on teachers and social workers, and that the Government would address those as they came along. I just do not think that is right. The Bill should be explicit about neutrality, particularly for schools and for looked-after children’s environments, so there is no risk. We must remove the temptation for those in positions of authority over some of the most vulnerable people without supportive natural parents to do it. If it is not a problem because there is no prejudice, then there is no problem in introducing it into the Bill.
I was very taken with the other comments about—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord again—I do not like to do this—but I made it clear that schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality, and I gave the details of that.
Lord Fuller (Con)
That is covered in group 6, which we will return to later.
I was taken with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about schools. This has really been a debate not so much about schools but about young people more generally. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the practical preparation, and the watchword of this part of the Bill, the protection of minors.
This may be something we return to on Report, and we need to catch up time, so I will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 18. But we really need to think about some of these practical consequences before we get to Report, and I hope the Minister will meet with me and others in furtherance of that objective.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for tabling these amendments and giving us the opportunity to have this important discussion on the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens. I also thank my noble friends Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Coffey for their thoughtful contributions.
It is right that the right to vote in our parliamentary elections and choose our Government is restricted to British citizens, although there are some exceptions for those with close historical links to our country. I have already spoken about our concerns in relation to the consequences of devolved arrangements in Scotland and Wales. The exceptions that I mentioned and that noble Lords have discussed during the debate are long-standing provisions that were implemented to reflect the special status of Irish and Commonwealth citizens in particular. I suppose I should declare an interest here, as both my parents were Irish. I do not remember them ever voting in Irish elections, but they always voted with pride here.
The arrangement we have with the Republic of Ireland precedes the EEC and the EU. It stems from the establishment of the Irish Free State in the 1920s and the administrative agreement on the common travel area. The two countries have broad, reciprocal voting rights. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised today about Commonwealth citizens’ eligibility to vote—especially what was said earlier, which is difficult for anyone to justify. However, these matters are complex, and we should be careful about rushing into changes without wider consideration of broader government policy on citizenship and integration.
No changes to election laws should be rushed, and we will be discussing the consequences of doing so throughout this Bill. I thank noble Lords for raising this issue and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we always welcome probing amendments; they generate interesting discussions in this House. However, it may not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that the Government will not support these amendments.
Amendments similar to these were tabled in the other place during earlier Bill stages, and the Government’s views on the topic have been made very clear. The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our very close historical ties with Commonwealth countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to recognising the contribution from those countries. From the selfless sacrifice of Commonwealth forces who fought side by side with British troops in the two world wars, to the Windrush generation who made Britain their home and contributed to our society, community, culture and public services, the ties which bind Commonwealth citizens to the UK are inextricable. Those rights must be respected. Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights are not and have never been based on a quid pro quo. To be clear, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen who is only visiting the country and has no home here would not be eligible to vote. The Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights.
On reciprocity, each Commonwealth country determines its own electoral franchise. Reciprocity is not a condition of the UK’s long-standing arrangements. As I have already set out in relation to the noble Lord’s Amendments 5, 7 and 31, the Government are also committed to maintaining and defending the devolution settlements.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Does the Minister think that Commonwealth voters aged 16 should also be voting in the elections?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The same voting rights will apply across the franchise.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; as she said, I am not entirely surprised by it. I thank those who have spoken in this short debate. It has been worth having, and I do not think that the issue will go away.
I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mackinlay for not mentioning that he was the only noble Lord to raise this issue on Second Reading. He has followed it for some time and, as his intervention showed, he knows a lot about it. He mentioned Australia, which has an extremely restrictive policy generally. It restricts voting and candidacy to citizens, and it prevents dual nationality entirely as a condition for being a member of the legislature. Australia may be at one end of the spectrum; we are definitely at the other. The international norm is that only citizens vote and only citizens are candidates: I find it hard to see how one can defend any other position. Of course, citizens of many other countries in the Commonwealth and outside the Commonwealth have made huge contributions to this country, but that is not how we determine voting rights.
I have one last comment, for the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I entirely understand, and in some ways sympathise with, his asking, “Why should somebody who has lived here for a long time not get to vote in local elections?” That point is worth discussing, but national elections, referenda and questions are not the same as local questions and issues. It is something worth thinking about, but if one went down that road it should be for everyone, or at least for logically defined categories, not a hangover from the Commonwealth.
I will stop there. I thank noble Lords for a good discussion. We will reflect on what we will do on Report. It will probably be worth having further discussion and reflection on this. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling Amendment 32, moved by my noble friend Lady Lister, which seeks to allow sitting Members of this House to vote in UK parliamentary elections.
I remember I had a fascinating conversation with my MP, Kevin Bonavia. He was talking about voting, and I said, “I’m sorry Kevin, I’m not going to vote for you”. He was a bit horrified and stepped back. He had not realised that I could not vote because I am in here. Of course, if I had been able to vote, I would have voted for him.
I recognise that 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 is important to recognise the particular role that we, as Members of this House, have in Parliament. We can participate in debates, introduce and scrutinise legislation, and ask Parliamentary Questions. As such, unlike other voters, we have the opportunity to represent 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—I think the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said it goes back to 1699—on sitting Peers voting in UK parliamentary elections, and the Government do not believe there is a case for changing these arrangements. Of course, this does not 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 explains the Government’s position on that amendment.
Amendment 37 appears to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months on the impact of extending 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 electorate forecasts and does not anticipate that the changes will require a different approach to electoral reviews.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked me a question about local government reorganisation. Most of the proposals that were put forward for LGR did not involve boundary changes. Those that do will of course be subject to review by the Local Government Boundary Commission.
I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has raised these issues before about the variability of ward sizes, and I am happy to continue that conversation with her. But I am sure she knows that this is really a matter for the Local Government Boundary Commission, so we do not see a clear need for a separate review by the Secretary of State. I thank my—
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately, it is not the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission to make those decisions. That is the point I hope to make. The determination is made by the council. If there is no guidance to councils—as there is not—on seeking to create wards of a similar size across the country, the existing disparity will continue and get worse.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am very happy to carry on that conversation with the noble Baroness. I feel that, in the end, we are going to come up against local determination versus national determination, but we can have that conversation.
On the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, let me be clear that the Government recognise the enormous contribution made by people from other countries who choose to make the United Kingdom their home. However, the Government do not believe that lawful residence alone should confer voting rights. Citizenship restrictions, rather than residence alone, are the norm for participation in elections in most democracies. The Government have 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, Lord Fuller, for his engagement, via Amendment 45, with the Bill’s provision for improving voter registration. Although I would never wholly dismiss his points and he has been very calm today, he needs to calm down a bit sometimes. His points on Monday suggested that democracy was in imminent danger of collapsing because the EROs and the computers that assist them could not recognise an apostrophe, and today he is worried about the duplicating Mr Smiths. Our EROs already deal with all these issues. 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 for local councils, although not for UK parliamentary elections. The Government have no plans to change this. I do not think that 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. The noble Lord referred to President Zelensky and his wife having different surnames. Actually, our Prime Minister and his wife have different surnames. EROs are very used to dealing with these situations.
I turn to Amendments 46, 53, 54 and 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. The Government agree that direct registration must operate accurately and with appropriate safeguards. Clause 17 already secures those outcomes. New Section 12A requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both of voting age and entitled to be registered before a person is directly registered. New Section 12B also requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both of voting age and entitled to be registered before the notice is sent. This requires the officer to assess the available information and reach a view on whether those conditions are met.
As well as making the point in the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the phrase “appears to the officer”. This is established language in electoral registration law. Section 10ZC of the Representation of the People Act 1983 uses the same formulation for registration following an application. This clause preserves that test with respect to direct registration. Schedule 2 to the Bill will preserve 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 12B(3) 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. Therefore, the amendments would add no further protection to the safeguards already contained in the Bill.
On Amendments 56 and 57, Amendment 56 raises an important consideration that is 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 to 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, they will be sent another notice. The Government believe this to be an appropriate length of time and it is consistent with the period 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 these points.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Could the Minister further consider her comments on the point I raised? The Minister referred quite rightly to legislation that is now in effect that is some 40 or 50 years old. In those days, the vast majority of people did not have a passport, a driving licence with a picture on it or virtually any other form of proof of identity. Therefore “appearing to be” was a judgment that one made in those days. We have introduced voter ID and all the associated requirements with it. Given that this legislation intends to modernise and bring up to date our election law, could I please ask that the Minister give that further consideration?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I am always happy to give things further consideration. Under new Section 12B, the registration officer has to be certain that a person appears to be of voting age and entitled to be registered before they send the notice. Voter ID is another reassurance once they get to the polling station. I will reflect on his comments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on this rather eclectic group of amendments, and I do so on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett —who I sense has got the bit between his teeth on this, so I think we have probably not heard the last of it.
I must admit I was not convinced by the arguments against the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out, we have rather changed since 1699. We are a very different House than we were then. It did strike me that the argument used by my noble friend could just as well be used to say that the Members of the other House would not have the vote—they have got all that influence.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. The point is that MPs stand down when the election is called, so they are technically not MPs when they go to vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that correction. However, I suspect my noble friend Lord Blunkett will not be convinced and will be back with much stronger arguments than I have at present.
I accept the arguments that have been put on my own amendments. It is a shame that we cannot follow Scotland and Wales. It may be that, in time, the evidence from there will show that citizenship is still taken seriously even if the franchise is extended in that way, but I will not go into that now. I shall not try to cover all the points that were made in what was an eclectic debate, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require extra steps to be taken to publish impartial, age-appropriate election information on social media suitable for young people who may be subject to restrictions on social media access. The Government agree that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds must go hand in hand with ensuring that young people have access to reliable information and the knowledge they need to participate confidently in elections.
We are also clear that that the social media ban must not inadvertently cut young people off from valuable information that is essential for their democratic participation. While the Government’s proposed social media restrictions will apply to young people under 16, they will still have access to many websites, including news sites, and to political information from a wide range of trusted sources, including schools, colleges and the Electoral Commission.
We have committed to working with regulators, industry, civil society and subject matter experts to ensure this information is accessible and easy to find for young people affected by the ban. We are also working across government to strengthen democratic education and media literacy, helping young people to develop the knowledge and skills they need to engage confidently with our democracy. For those reasons, I do not believe that an additional statutory duty to publish election information on social media is necessary.
Turning to Amendments 35, 36 and 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on political impartiality in schools and educational settings, I of course recognise the importance of ensuring young people receive politically balanced information and can make informed decisions about their vote. However, we do not consider these amendments to be necessary. As I mentioned in response to amendments in group 3, schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality. They must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that, where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention, opposing views are presented in a balanced way.
Existing Department for Education guidance makes it clear that these duties apply not only to classroom teaching but to public displays and school communications. This picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. There are also specific safeguards during election periods to prevent schools being used to promote a particular party or candidate. In relation to hustings, on one occasion when I was a parliamentary candidate, I was invited to attend hustings which were then cancelled because other candidates were not available to attend. I can verify that schools take this very seriously.
At the same time, schools have an important role in helping young people understand democracy and the electoral process. Schools can harness the interest generated around election periods to raise political awareness through activities such as mock elections. Of course, it is true to say that teachers have been educating voters since 1969, when votes at 18 were introduced, and before that teachers in colleges and universities. For many years, primary schools have organised mock elections of the kind I just referred to; I have participated in those myself. The Government therefore consider that the existing framework already provides an appropriate, judgment-based approach which protects political impartiality without unnecessarily restricting or proscribing legitimate educational activities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for tabling Amendment 39 and so raising the important question of how we ensure that young people who have registered to vote have access to information to inform their voting decision and learn how elections operate. We agree that extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds must go hand in hand with ensuring access to reliable information.
Earlier this year, we announced our intention to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s, alongside a package of other measures to improve their safety and well-being online. I understand the references made by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to the Online Safety Act and making sure that these two things are working together. The Government must act where they see real evidence of harm. These changes seek to reset the rules so that children are protected from the platforms and online features that create the most harm. We are also clear that the social media ban must not inadvertently cut young people off from that valuable information which is essential for their democratic participation.
The Electoral Commission already provides a wide range of information, including resources specifically designed for young people. As I set out earlier, we are working across government to strengthen democratic education and media literacy. We also accept the issues around citizenship education and democracy—the very issue that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to. It is important that young people understand, for example, that we value democracy, but they need to know the difference between that and a dictatorship, and some even worse methods of government.
For these reasons, we do not believe that an additional statutory duty is necessary. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have put provisions in step for political education.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister sits down, I want to query two things. First, the social media ban will apparently not prohibit young people accessing trusted news sources. Trusted by whom? Who makes that call? That was partly my point. I would have thought that you could trust the Home Office to bring out an interactive game without getting it so badly wrong. That might be something to consider.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is absolutely right: we have to look at this. When discussions came out about drilling for oil in the North Sea, searches on that were age-gated, and anybody under 16 could not get through. You had to prove who you were, prove your age and so on. That was quite a big discussion. Will the Minister at least take back to the Government the possibility of thinking this through a bit more, rather than just saying that it is all going to be all right? I do not agree with the ban on social media for under-16s. I had to listen to practically everybody in this House lecture me about how you cannot let under-16s anywhere near this stuff, how everything will lead to suicide, mayhem, bedlam and all the rest of it, and how we have to stop them getting access to it. Suddenly, it is okay if it is news—and that is news to me. We therefore need a bit more detail.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I want a bit more clarity. I understand that schools are obliged to be politically neutral. In this country we have tens of thousands, if not millions, of teachers—I do not know the number. If we are to have 16 and 17 year-olds voting and want politically neutral education on the political landscape for them, it will be a lot easier, and we will have much more consistency, if there are clear guidelines that can be reviewed and seen by others. Is that the intention?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, social media is not the only source of high-quality news content, nor always the most reliable, as we all know only too well. It is important that young people continue to have access to a wide range of trusted sources on political information. There will also be a defined list of exemptions including, for example, educational services. The noble Baroness is right to flag up the point that we are in a new area here. We need to continue to think about how we make sure there is access to the information needed to make the decisions that these young people will be making, while also protecting them from some of the terrible online harms we have seen.
The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to impartiality in schools. Existing guidance expressly allows schools to use election periods to raise political awareness and all those issues. I am not sure whether I am quite addressing his question. The existing guidance makes sure that, if there are mock elections, hustings or visits from candidates or party representatives, schools have to maintain a political balance. Schools already do this, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the provisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, are important to ensure that we encourage as many eligible young people as possible to participate in our democracy.
I will come on to the monitoring and evaluation in a moment, but will respond first to the noble Lord’s points about the impact assessment. All impact assessments produced by the Government are produced by departments in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s investment guidance in the Green Book. We follow the rules set out in it. However, there have been a number of detailed questions raised about this impact assessment, so what would be most helpful at this stage of our debate is for me to write to noble Lords in response.
On local authority costs, as the noble Baroness will know only too well, and has probably lobbied on, as I have, where there are new burdens on local government then government has to respond by providing funding for those new burdens.
On the monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, our approach will comply with our published evaluation strategy, which is what we were referring to 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. That evaluation will include an assessment of the impacts of the reforms on electors, local authorities and others responsible for delivering elections; a process evaluation that will seek to examine how the reforms are implemented; and, as I referred to earlier, an economic evaluation to assess whether the benefits of the policies outweigh their costs.
These are difficult areas to address. Anyone who has tried to do it will know that net present social value is quite a difficult concept to evaluate in financial terms or to monetise, which is where some of the difficulty occurs. The appraisal of policies in the impact assessment relies heavily on qualitative evidence and non-monetised impacts, which do not get reflected in net present social value calculations. It is important that we get a clear picture and continue to look at the economic evaluation, which we will do.
The areas highlighted by the noble Lord will be covered by this monitoring work. I commit to write to Members on the specific financial questions they have raised this afternoon.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her open response. One thing she referred to earlier that time did not allow me to comment on in my opening remarks was the fund; it is not referred to in the impact assessment, but she referred to it earlier. On that basis, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Representation of the People Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsWednesday 4th November 2026
(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47–II(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2026)
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I must declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire.
I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson for their amendments and for the amendments from other noble Lords. These raise important questions about the safeguards necessary to maintain public confidence in our electoral system. I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Hayward: the objective of this should be to increase public confidence in the electoral system.
My noble friend Lady Coffey’s Amendments 10 and 11 concern the exemptions applying to younger electors in relation to the duties of election and electoral registration officers. These amendments highlight a wider question about consistency in the Government’s approach to lowering the voting age and the need to ensure accuracy of the register. As my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley observed at Second Reading, the Government must explain where we draw the line between the rights and responsibilities of 16 and 17 year-olds. If young people are to be entrusted with electing their representatives, it is reasonable to examine how that decision interacts with existing duties and protections in electoral law.
As the Minister made clear in debate on Monday, EROs are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the register. Should not the same tools be available to an ERO, irrespective of age? Can the Minister explain the rationale behind retaining these exemptions? Have electoral administrators been consulted about the practical implications? As I said at Second Reading, electoral law is already overly complex and conflicting. We should be seeking opportunities to simplify its administration, rather than further increasing inconsistencies.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Amendment 125 seeks to pilot schemes for more flexible voting, including early voting, mobile polling stations and alternative voting locations. Such pilots have already been undertaken locally. Amendment 128 raises the question of piloting electronic voting machines. Our established paper-based system has considerable advantage, in being straightforward and transparent. Electronic systems always raise the issue of cyber security, as we have seen in the Health Bill with the single patient record. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the security risks associated with electronic voting machines, and how the accuracy of an electronic count will be independently demonstrated and verified?
One topic we have debated a lot this morning is in my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 124: whether counting should begin on the day of the election. Having stood as a candidate on many occasions, I have great sympathy with this and would like to know sooner rather than later. However, as a previous leader of a council, I also have to agree with the comments of many other noble Lords in this Chamber about the difficulties and complexities of doing a count. As a number of noble Lords raised, local council elections are frequently much more complex than a national election, with multi-member wards and an increasing diversity of candidates making the process longer and more complex, along with the potential for multiple elections on the same day. At the same time, many councils are finding it increasingly difficult to get sufficient staff—a matter that has been raised elsewhere in debate on this Bill. Ultimately, I believe that we need to trust the ERO to make the appropriate decision.
My noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 129 and Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, concern undue influence such as religious or spiritual pressure on voters. The secrecy of the ballot is fundamental. Every elector must be able to vote freely without intimidation, coercion or improper influence. I appreciate the comments of many noble Lords on this; so far, there seems to be consensus that it is an important topic and that these amendments need addressing.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister raised concerns about family voting and the particular vulnerability of younger electors to the pressure they might face at home. These concerns deserve careful consideration as the Government propose to extend the franchise. Does the Minister consider existing law sufficient to protect voters from coercion, both in polling stations and where postal voting is used? It is not just the law but the implementation thereof that is important. Will there be further guidance given to polling staff?
This also relates to Amendment 123, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on improving polling cards. Ensuring eligible voters understand the secrecy of their ballot and the voting process is crucial.
We should remember that those responsible for administering elections must make these provisions work in practice. The robustness of our electoral arrangements is fundamental to electoral integrity. I hope the Minister will address the concerns raised in this group and explain how the Government intend to preserve the security and transparency of the ballot, while avoiding unnecessary complexity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this extended debate, which was broken in the middle of the group. I will make a couple of general points before I respond to individual amendments.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, for using his crutch to stand up. If he wishes to remain seated when making his contributions, I am sure the Committee would be very happy with that.
I agree with the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, made about the interesting situation that we saw unveiling in the United States overnight. It would have been nice to have been able to stay up and listen to those results—I did not, but was very tempted. That points to some interesting issues as we discuss this group, which contains matters that go right to the very heart of our democracy. There were comments made early this morning—for example, by James Talarico —about attempts at enormous financial and other influence on the elections process. We will come on to some of those later in discussing our own Bill. It was a pleasure to see the power of the democratic process overcoming something of that. We need to make sure, as we go through our own discussions, that we retain that faith in democracy and continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, said, to give the people of this country the confidence that it is the democratic process that takes precedence, even where there are attempts to have financial and other interference. That is very important to all of us in this House.
Noble Lords will have to excuse my sniffles; this is my second cold in two weeks. I am going to have to speak to my friend the Health Minister to suggest that having two colds in two weeks should be banned.
I add my tribute to the EROs and election staff. We have a very safe and secure system in this country, and that is down to a lot of work from our returning officers and election staff, so I am very grateful to them for all the work they do.
I will now address the individual amendments. I turn first to Amendments 10 and 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and her Schedule 1 stand part notice. These amendments would remove measures from Schedule 1 that safeguard those under 16. This would result in electoral registration officers being required to conduct activities such as house-to-house inquiries and making telephone calls to under-16s. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—that election administrators are included in these discussions.
These age-based measures are important for implementing the franchise change effectively. In extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year olds, it is vital that they are given the same opportunities as any other voter to be accurately registered. The Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement will bring significant benefits, but it must be accompanied by additional measures to protect these young people who are not yet entitled to vote. This is the approach taken throughout the Bill, which includes measures in Clauses 7 to 13 to safeguard young people’s data, mirroring the approach taken in Scotland and Wales. We should take the safeguarding of those under the age of 16 seriously, and these amendments would remove safeguards that we consider vital. I emphasise to noble Lords that it is not those of voting age who are being treated differently but those below voting age. For those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for raising the important issue, through Amendment 123, of how electoral information is communicated to voters. We agree that the information provided to electors should be clear and accessible, and I take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, about polling cards. We already recognise that there is scope to improve election documentation, including poll cards, and we intend to consider how their design and clarity can be enhanced as part of wider research into how people learn about the electoral process. However, we do not believe a statutory requirement to report to Parliament within 12 months is necessary to take this work forward. Frankly, we just need to get on with it, and I am very happy to report back to the House when we have concluded our work.
I turn to Amendment 124, from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Frost. As someone who was elected many times over 27 years, I recognise the importance of election results being declared promptly, and I have much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about this. We all want to hear our results as quickly as possible. Noble Lords have highlighted very graphically how local elections take place—so I do not need to give any further examples—and, as such, they require greater operational flexibility than parliamentary elections. Decisions about when to begin verification and counting are therefore best made by returning officers, taking account of those local circumstances. This amendment would replace that operational judgment with a rigid statutory requirement, subject only to narrow exceptions for emergencies and safety risks. We do not believe that that restriction is necessary or proportionate.
In speaking to Amendment 124, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, raised some issues around different elections using different systems. I say to him that I recognise that there was a referendum in 2011 on different voting systems. The Prime Minister has decided the best way to take this issue forward is to initiate a national commission on electoral reform, which is the right way to start a national conversation on this issue.
I turn to Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 already provides powers to pilot changes to when, where and how voting takes place at local government elections—powers the Government used to pilot flexible voting in the May 2026 polls and will use again in a further round of pilots in May 2027. We understand the amendment seeks to go further by enabling flexible voting to be piloted at elections beyond those currently provided for under Section 10, potentially including UK parliamentary elections. We do not believe it would be appropriate to extend the piloting power to parliamentary elections at this stage. Our priority is to continue testing these approaches at local elections and build that evidence base before considering any wider changes. I share both noble Lords’ enthusiasm for more modern and flexible voting arrangements as a matter of principle, but it is important that we test these thoroughly and build the evidence base before we go any further.
On this theme, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his Amendment 128. However, the use of electronic voting machines creates the potential for hacking, computer error and interference. Although elections are not always no-fail events for candidates—we do fail from time to time, as I have on occasion—they must be no-fail events in terms of process, and the integrity of the ballot must come first. That is why we have no plans to introduce electronic voting in the UK, and therefore it does not make sense to run pilots. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough.
I will address the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as he is in the Chamber.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right: any assessment of pilots must take cost into account.
I turn to Amendments 129 and 136, tabled respectively by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Walney. It has been good to have the opportunity to consider this important and sensitive issue. Our electoral law must protect voters from coercion and undue pressure, while ensuring that faith leaders and communities remain free to express their religious and moral views and participate fully in our democratic life. I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to ensure that the provisions relating to spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure continue to strike that very careful balance and remain clear and workable for faith communities, campaigners and voters alike. Examples of what constitutes “undue pressure” have been provided in the Explanatory Notes to the Elections Act 2022. I hope I can offer some reassurance that the Government continuously keep electoral law under review to ensure that it remains effective, proportionate and responsive to evidence about how it operates in practice. However, setting out a requirement for a review in statute is unnecessary.
On Amendment 136, from the noble Lord, Lord Walney, as I am sure he will be aware, spiritual injury and undue spiritual pressure are already capable of falling within the “undue influence” offence in Section 114A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We do not consider a separate polling station offence to be necessary. Undue influence is already unlawful wherever it occurs, and the focus should remain on the coercive behaviour itself, rather than creating a separate offence based on proximity to a polling station.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Peers who spoke to this wide-ranging group. I am slightly disappointed by what the Minister said to my amendment. I just hope that, as soon as somebody becomes 16, there is a way for electoral registration officers to follow up on the integrity of the register to check it is valid. A whole range of things have been considered. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 10.
“Part 3Canvass conducted in England before the coming into force of section 3Introduction
20 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to an annual canvass conducted under section 9D of RPA 1983 in the implementation period by an English registration officer.(2) The “implementation period” means the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending with the coming into force of section 3 of this Act.(3) In this Part of this Schedule—“English registration officer” means a registration officer appointed under section 8(2) of RPA 1983;“pre-commencement canvass” means a canvass described in sub-paragraph (1);“the RPR (E&W) 2001” means the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 2001/341).Modification of the purpose of a pre-commencement canvass
21 (1) In relation to a pre-commencement canvass conducted by an English registration officer, section 9D of RPA 1983 (duty to conduct canvass in Great Britain) has effect as follows.(2) Subsection (2) has effect as if it provided that the purpose of the canvass included ascertaining the names, addresses and dates of birth of persons aged under 16 who will, as a result of section 4(4A) of RPA 1983 (inserted by section 3 of this Act), be entitled (on the coming into force of section 3 of this Act) to be registered in a register maintained by that officer.(3) But the power to make house to house inquiries under subsection (5) of section 9D does not include power to make inquiries for the purpose of the matter described in sub-paragraph (2).Youth detention accommodation: no duty to canvass
22 In relation to a pre-commencement canvass conducted by an English registration officer, nothing in section 9D of RPA 1983—(a) applies in relation to the registration of persons in respect of residence in youth detention accommodation as defined in section 248(1) of the Sentencing Code;(b) requires the officer to ascertain the names, addresses and dates of birth of persons resident in such accommodation.Design of canvass communications and form
23 The Electoral Commission must design a version of the communications and form described in regulation 32ZBG(1)(a) of the RPR (E&W) 2001 (canvass communications and forms: Electoral Commission duties) for use in England in relation to a pre-commencement canvass.24 For that purpose, regulation 32ZBG has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (1) there were inserted after sub-paragraph (a)—“(aa) send the communications and form to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed;”;(b) paragraph (2) were omitted;(c) for paragraph (4)(d)(iii) there were substituted—“(iii) to provide the registration officer with the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the communication relates;”;(d) for paragraph (5)(f) there were substituted— “(f) require the recipient to provide the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the form is given.”;(e) after paragraph (5) there were inserted—“(6) The canvass communication B referred to in paragraph (1)(a)(iii) must require—(a) the occupier, or(b) if there is no occupier, or it is not reasonably practicable for the occupier to provide the required information, the person in charge of the premises,to provide the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address to which the communication relates.”Other modifications of RPR (E&W) 2001
25 The RPR (E&W) 2001 have effect in relation to a pre-commencement canvass with the modifications set out in paragraphs 26 to 29.26 Regulation 32ZBA (annual canvass) has effect as if in paragraph (6), after “an address” there were inserted “, or that a person aged 14 or 15 may reside at an address,”.27 Regulation 32ZBD (canvass where changes to register are likely to be required) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), for “to (9)” there were substituted “to (9ZA)”;(b) after paragraph (9) there were inserted—“(9ZA) A registration officer may not visit an address in order to speak to a person aged under 16.”;(c) in paragraph (10)—(i) in the definition of “canvass form” and “paper communication”, after “designed” there were inserted “for use in relation to a pre-commencement canvass”;(ii) after the definition of “paper communication” there were inserted—““pre-commencement canvass” has the meaning given by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 2026.”28 Regulation 32ZBE (canvass where changes to register are unlikely to be required) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), at the end there were inserted“; and(c) provide to the registration officer the full name, date of birth and nationality of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at the address.”;(b) after paragraph (7) there were inserted—“(7A) If, after complying with the requirements of paragraphs (3) to (6), a registration officer—(a) has reason to believe that a person aged 14 or 15 may reside at the address, and(b) is not aware of that person’s full name, date of birth or nationality,the officer must conduct the annual canvass in accordance with regulation 32ZBD in respect of the address.”;(c) in paragraph (8), after “designed” there were inserted “for use in relation to a pre-commencement canvass”;(d) after paragraph (8) there were inserted—“(9) In this regulation, “pre-commencement canvass” has the meaning given by paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 2026.”29 Regulation 32ZBF (canvass in respect of particular types of property) has effect as if—(a) in paragraph (4), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(b) after paragraph (5) there were inserted— “(5ZA) The registration officer must attempt to make contact with the responsible person and must request the full name, nationality and date of birth of each person aged 14 or 15 who is residing at that property.”;(c) in paragraph (6)—(i) for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(ii) after “appropriate” there were inserted “(subject to paragraph (6A))”;(d) after paragraph (6) there were inserted—“(6A) A registration officer may not visit the property in order to speak to a person aged under 16.”;(e) in paragraph (7), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”;(f) in paragraph (8), for “paragraph (5) or” there were substituted “paragraphs (5) and (5ZA) or paragraph”.Retention of information
30 (1) Where an English registration officer obtains personal information relating to a person aged 14 or 15 when conducting a pre-commencement canvass, the officer may retain that information until the end of the specified day.(2) The “specified day” is the earliest of—(a) the last day of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which section 3 of this Act is commenced,(b) the day on which the registration officer receives from the person an application made under section 10ZC of RPA 1983 for registration in a register maintained by the officer, and(c) the day on which the registration officer gives the person an invitation to apply for registration under section 9E(1) of RPA 1983.(3) Nothing in this paragraph affects the ability of the registration officer to otherwise lawfully retain the information described in sub-paragraph (1) after the specified day.(4) In this paragraph,“personal information” means a person’s name, address, email address, telephone number, date of birth or nationality.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable a registration officer carrying out a canvass in England before Clause 3 of the Bill (entitlement to be registered before reaching voting age) comes into force to obtain information about 14 and 15 year olds and to retain that information for use when inviting those persons to register once clause 3 is in force.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I will be part of the agreement across the Committee on this one. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hayward for introducing these amendments and agree with all of them as a point of principle—to be slightly different from the noble Lord, Lord Pack.
We need this debate on the complexity of electoral law and administrative bureaucracy. I echo the Minister in recognising and thanking electoral returning officers for their job. It is not an easy job, as various noble Lords have made clear, to deal with all the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, said that just two Acts added up to over 1,100 pages. They are long, complex, inconsistent and, on occasion, in conflict. Electoral returning officers have to deal regularly with new regulations, guidance and changes. It is a surprise that anybody actually wants the job.
In addition to dealing with that, there is the sheer difficulty of running the operation. You may be dealing with 200-plus polling stations. You have to make sure that you get all your polling booths to them. You have to send out thousands of postal votes and rely on the postal system, which itself always has the potential for error. You have to make decisions on the spot in order to overcome all these various things. The Bill then prescribes, as my noble friend Lord Hayward has said, exactly how someone is supposed to do the job and who in the council is supposed to do the job and, as my noble friend raised, includes that specific point about requiring all staff to be made available. What happens if all staff are not willing to be made available? What sanction can the chief executive have? Will it be part of their work contract? What about needing them potentially to be made available to another neighbouring authority that needs more people? The system works. The EROs get the job done. It is a difficult job and, as I said in my previous speech, we should trust them.
I will go through some of these amendments, beginning with Amendment 13 to Clause 7(4)—reiterated in Amendment 16 to Clause 14—which defines “absent voters records”, “overseas elector lists”, “overseas elector’s declaration”, “registration officer” and “voter register”. Subsection (5) then clarifies the roles of a deputy electoral registration officer and a person assisting the electoral registration officer. My noble friend has already raised concerns over how other Whitehall departments determine this. I can go on through all the various clauses—and that is before I get on to the clauses that my noble friend has opposed in order to prompt this debate.
It is clear that our electoral system, local government and layers of administrative bureaucracy are complex. We are fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy and to work in a system that has evolved, relatively organically, over time. Some legal complexity is perhaps expected, but we are concerned that, rather than seeking to improve the situation, some provisions in the Bill risk unnecessarily increasing the bureaucracy and practical complexity. I will not go through it all, but it is very clear from across the Committee that the Bill is overly complex, adds complexity and does not do what it should do, which is to make life simpler and more certain.
I hope that the Minister will take on board some of the recommendations made by noble Lords on how and where electoral law and administration could be made a little less complex without weakening the system’s strength, especially at the local level. In fact, by increasing consistency and simplifying where appropriate, it would strengthen the system. Perhaps the Minister can give an indication of what further government amendments we can expect.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for this debate; it has been a very interesting subject to discuss. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I am sure he will have equally lobbied his own side on these issues before the Bill came to the House. This is the first election law I have dealt with, but I am sure that he will have been urging his own side to consider these issues in all the legislation that has gone through in the previous 14 years.
This Bill came forward to serve three specific purposes: to introduce voting for 16 and 17 year-olds, which is a manifesto commitment from my party; to take steps towards automatic voter registration, so as to tackle the under-registration of some 7 million to 8 million people; and, lastly, to tackle overseas political finance. During the course of the Bill, some of those issues have been the subject of much public debate, and we have had the Rycroft review of political finance, which has added to the Bill. There will be further amendments which will, I think, be laid on 9 November. In response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, he will have sight of amendments before we get to a further day of Committee on this Bill.
The consolidation of electoral law is a key issue. I have heard loud and clear, both at Second Reading and in the engagement meetings I held with noble Lords, the importance of doing this. In the process of the Bill, it is not possible to tackle the whole consolidation of all election law—I am sure it is even more than the number of pages that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, outlined. However, it is important we take that on board and look at what the process is going to be for what is certainly a job that needs to be done. I am going to take that back to the department and, at a later stage of the Bill, I will come back to it, because I understand what noble Lords are saying.
I took very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, about read-only access to registers, which he made during the previous session, and I pushed for more information on this. There are complexities around the localised nature of the register. In effect, we have 300 separate electoral registers, which is probably the point that the noble Lord was making around data protection. I will do some more work on this and I am happy to discuss it with him further in due course.
I recognise the broader concerns the noble Lord has around the complexity of electoral law and the administrative burdens which are placed on those responsible for delivering our elections. However, removing from the Bill important provisions which contain essential legal definitions, which his amendments would introduce, is not the right way to address either of those concerns. The legal definitions clarify the scope of the provisions so that it is clear who is captured by them—namely registration officers and those assisting registration officers—and confirm that the measures do not attach to absent voting lists which relate only to devolved elections. These clauses are not unnecessary additions. They contain substantive measures designed to improve the operation of our electoral system, as well as definitional information to aid the proper interpretation and application of the law.
The noble Lord asked specific questions about the measures on electoral registration officers and returning officers. Electoral registration officers and returning officers carry personal legal responsibility for functions fundamental to the effective operation of our democracy. Discharging those responsibilities requires access to staff, premises, systems and other resources from across the local authority, often within tightly prescribed statutory timetables and during periods of considerable operational pressure. Requiring ultimate responsibility to rest with an appropriately senior officer will help ensure that the officeholder has sufficient organisation-wide authority and accountability to secure the necessary support and provide effective oversight. This is a proportionate safeguard to ensure that returning officers have the authority and access to resources they need to run elections effectively. It provides a clear minimum standard, while leaving local authorities flexibility over whom they appoint within that framework.
The Committee will have the opportunity to debate all the measures in the Bill as it progresses. The Government will continue to make their case for each of them, but I assure the noble Lord I am listening carefully to all views expressed in the Committee.
I thank the noble Lord for his clause stand part notice on Clause 44. I will explain briefly the importance of this clause to the Bill. At present, political parties cannot withdraw their support for a candidate once the nomination papers have been submitted, even when serious issues arise. Clause 44 enables parties to act where concerns arise during the nomination period. The scope of the provisions is very carefully limited. Support may be withdrawn only up to 48 hours before nominations close, ensuring the candidate still has time to stand independently or for another party, and the party can nominate a replacement. This clause forms part of a suite of new safeguards designed to protect the integrity of elections and prevent and deter personation or false nominations. Removing it would weaken the Bill.
I have listened carefully to the debates, particularly on the consolidation of election law, and I am very happy to continue those discussions.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments in general, and I want to continue the conversation. I seek clarification on her last comments about the particular clause. Are her comments fully supported by both the Electoral Commission and the AEA on behalf of returning officers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My understanding is that that the EC and the Association of Electoral Administrators were consulted on provisions in the Bill, but I will go back and check and answer the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I have heard some interesting comments from the Minister and, as I indicated just now, I appreciate her offer to have further conversations in relation to the specific matters. I think we all knew that, on the question of consolidation, sadly, we are going to have to live with Encyclopaedia Britannica, whether it is on AI or any other system, for the future. It is grotesquely challenging for everybody who is involved. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(2 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 September be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 28 October.
Representation of the People Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsMonday 2nd November 2026
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47–I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (2 Nov 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Representation of the People Bill opens up participation and strengthens the integrity of our democracy, ensuring that all eligible citizens can exercise their right to vote. It introduces one of the biggest changes to the franchise in half a century, with the enfranchisement of 16 and 17 year-olds, and moves us towards more automated voter registration. It reinforces trust by closing down opportunities for those who would seek to undermine our democracy, with stronger political finance rules and better protections against harassment and intimidation.
It has been a great pleasure to listen to the debate this afternoon. It has been the House at its best: 19 or 20 speakers—I am not sure I wrote them all down—debating the first part of the Bill, and we have heard differing views from across the House and some very detailed scrutiny of some of the provisions in the Bill, which I welcome. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, that I know the Bill has had some additions during its passage, but it was always the intention that we would take account of the Rycroft review and introduce some of its recommendations as the Bill progressed. Philip Rycroft did an outstanding job on reviewing some of the key issues, particularly around political finance.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank the Minister for that clarification, but how does she make those observations stack up with the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, at the end of Second Reading and the comparison with the amount of time given in Committee for this Bill compared with the Elections Bill in 2022?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Rooker is raising the issue of scrutiny on every Bill. It is interesting that he put that process in place but has changed his mind. Scrutiny on all Bills is welcome. This is my sixth piece of legislation. I have welcomed the scrutiny that this House has brought to all those Bills. With this Bill, we knew there would be further additions during its passage. That is the point I was trying to make.
I turn first to Amendments 1 and 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Udny-Lister, and Amendment 2 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Fox of Buckley. Our intended extension of the franchise will create consistency across the United Kingdom and ensure that young people have a voice at a local and a national level. But consistency is not the only or the most important reason for extending the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds. As I said at Second Reading—it has been repeated during this debate—the important question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer to that question is yes. We were elected on a commitment to make precisely this change.
We have heard many examples of things that you cannot do at 16—tongue piercing, gambling, purchasing knives, having tattoos or credit cards—and some points about criminal sentencing, which I hear with interest.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
Can the Minister answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister? Why is it right for a 16 year-old to be a voter in an election but not a parliamentary candidate or a Member of Parliament?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am coming on to that point, if the noble Lord will bear with me. I want to pick up some other points first.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke about votes at 18. We were the first in the world to do that. It would be unthinkable to go back on that. The first election that I voted in, in 1975, was the vote to go into the European Union. I have not changed my mind about that. I have changed it about some other things, but certainly not about that. When we talk about purchasing knives at 18, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned things that might intimidate. I was not intimidated by the little stubby bit of pencil that I was given to cast that vote.
We believe that 16 is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future and will set them up, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, for a lifelong engagement in democracy. I absolutely agree about the points on education and will come on to those in a moment.
I want to address the important points made in the debate on how we ended up at 16. We have looked extensively at how voting works around the world. We have looked at a number of places, including Austria and Malta, which have successfully lowered the voting age to 16. The step has been taken already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections and more widely in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Evidence from these places shows that those who vote at a younger age are more likely to continue voting as they get older.
By the age of 16, young people have already made important decisions about their own lives—whether to continue with their education, undertake training, pursue an apprenticeship or seek employment or volunteering opportunities. Even by the age of 14, they have decided what subjects they want to continue to study. Why is it the case that they should be considered old enough to make those decisions that affect the rest of their lives but cannot vote? We should not fear expanding the franchise to younger people. In 1969, the UK was the first country in the world to lower the voting age to 18. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds now is the next natural step in the evolution of our democracy. Young people are the future of our country. It is only right that they have a say over it.
I very much supported the points made about a serious programme of education. We will come to that in future groups, but I want to make some points now about education and what steps are being taken to support young people’s education. We want to break down barriers and drive participation. We know that engagement and education are a crucial part of implementing that policy. It is vital that young people understand and value the democratic process and feel that it is relevant to them. We are committed to ensuring that democracy education reinforces the importance and value of participating in our democracy and inspires greater democratic engagement. We want engagement to start at 16 and continue into adulthood by equipping and empowering pupils with the knowledge and understanding that they need. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments and civil society on what additional measures can support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical voter and civic education. It is vital that we also start that process with our youngest students. This is all aligned with the Government’s youth strategy of engagement of young people.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, about candidates standing in elections, there are very specific reasons why we have taken the decision not to include candidates at 16 and 17. The Government believe that the ages of 16 and 17 are a particularly important time to continue personal development and education. That is why rules in England require that those who choose to leave school at 16 must pursue an apprenticeship or work no more than 20 hours a week while in part-time education or training until the age of 18. The requirements of local government officeholders are a significant commitment. Having different age requirements for local and national office would be unnecessarily complicated. As such, the Government will not be changing the minimum candidacy age for any elected offices. I heard the points about the Labour Party NEC and constituency offices. I am sure that was a recognition of this, but there is definitely a very active engagement of young people in my party, as I am sure there is across all political parties.
The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, has also tabled Amendments 4, 283 and 301, which seek to require a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16, with a majority vote in favour before the change can be implemented. However, as my noble friend Lord Murphy set out with his characteristic clarity, the Government were elected on a clear mandate that included a commitment to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds in all UK elections. That is an important point about not having a referendum on this: we already have a mandate to introduce it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, that we do not carry out cognitive tests on any citizens before they exercise their franchise, no matter what their age. This point about cognitive ability is a difficult one for him to make. The Government have been very clear on this matter. We genuinely believe that young people are the future of our country, and it is only right that they have a say in the decisions that shape their lives.
As for partisan advantage, I have heard from the other side both that we are doing this as a gerrymandering exercise and that it will let in votes from smaller parties such as Reform and the Green Party. They cannot have it both ways. We are either gerrymandering or we are opening out the franchise to a wider group of parties. We are doing it because it is the right thing to do to introduce votes at 16 and 17, so a referendum is not necessary. It would be unusual to require a referendum before implementing a clear manifesto commitment on which the Government were elected and for which they have a mandate.
I will say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, whom I think was talking about some comments that a Labour Member had made about a Brexit referendum, that if every statement in the other place by a Labour Member became government policy, we would have an awful lot more work to do than we have already.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for clarifying the position, but I do not think she has really addressed the question of two groups of children living side by side, where one of the children will have the vote and the other will not. If she cannot address that now, perhaps she could write to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, afterwards, because there is concern about the impact that will have on the children who cannot vote.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand the point my noble friend makes, and I will be very happy to write to her or meet her to discuss that further. On the government amendments—
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I know the Minister has a lot to answer tonight, but will she say anything about Amendment 21, which was mentioned by a number of Peers?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am not doing the government amendments because they are the last bit; I am doing them because this is where they come in the order of things. I will come on to other amendments.
Following the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, newly eligible young people will need to register to vote. Government Amendment 12 and consequential Amendments 275, 295 and 296, tabled in my name, will enable electoral registration officers to obtain information about 14 and 15 year-olds during the 2027 canvas. Registration officers will be able to use that information to invite those young people to register to vote, either as attainers or as electors, once the new franchise is brought into effect. This will help to get young people on the register and reduce the risk for our hard-pressed EROs of a large spike in registrations immediately before the first poll is conducted under the expanded franchise.
I turn now to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. The Government agree that extending the franchise must go hand in hand with ensuring that young people have access to reliable information and the knowledge they need to participate confidently in elections. However, we do not consider that this amendment is necessary. The Government’s proposed social media ban will apply to children under the age of 16, although they will still be able to access the online world for purposes including news and learning. Meanwhile, 16 and 17 year-olds will continue to be able to access social media, although additional default protections will apply to help ensure they can do so safely. The Online Safety Act already includes safeguards for content of democratic importance, recognised news publisher content and journalistic content on the largest user-to-user services. Ofcom is now implementing that regime and there is a strong case for allowing it to run its course before introducing a further statutory review requirement through the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish this section and then I will give way? However, regulation is only one part of the answer. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working with the Department for Education to strengthen media literacy in the new school curriculum, from primary up to age 16, from September 2028, including how pupils identify misinformation and disinformation. This is complemented by wider government activity, including the cross-government media literacy action plan, the You Won’t Know Until You Ask campaign and the Kids Online Safety hub, which help families build resilience to misinformation and disinformation and access trusted online safety information.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. That sounded very positive, but can I just clarify whether the Minister was giving the Committee an assurance that, when those protections are in place, children under the age of 16 will be able to access content of democratic importance, news publisher content and journalistic content and that the content will not be restricted by the forthcoming regulations restricting social media access for under 16 year-olds?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Yes, I think that is certainly the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has tabled Amendments 21, 278, 284 and 286. These amendments seek to require an equality impact assessment comparing the effects of the franchise change in Northern Ireland with Great Britain and to delay the commencement of Part 1 of the Bill until a formal report on the Government’s response to that assessment is laid before both Houses. The Government are committed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds across the entire United Kingdom on an equal basis. The Bill ensures that people across the United Kingdom are empowered to participate in our democracy. Imposing additional statutory requirements on extending the franchise would create an unnecessary delay to delivering this commitment for young people across the UK.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Windsor Framework in relation to this amendment. The Windsor Framework was overwhelmingly approved by Parliament. It respects Northern Ireland’s place in the union and gives democratically elected Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to scrutinise—
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Can I just finish? Then, if the noble Baroness still wants to come in, I will happily give way. It gives Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly the ability to scrutinise the rules that apply and the Government are committed to it. The Government are committed to equality across the country and lowering the voting age to 16 applies identically across all reserved elections, without distinction. The assessment comparing electors in Northern Ireland with those in Great Britain is unnecessary and would delay implementation of the measure.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for the detail with which she has responded, although obviously I do not agree with her. Can I just correct something that has been said by many noble Lords? The Windsor Framework was never voted on as the Windsor Framework either in the House of Commons or in the House of Lords. The only way that we have had votes has been on statutory instruments. The very first one was some months after 2021, when the protocol was brought in, and then the Windsor Framework. There has been no vote ever in this place or the other place on the Windsor Framework and the principle of it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will leave that comment where the noble Baroness left it.
Amendments 22, 279 and 285, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Brady of Altrincham, would require a report explaining why the voting age should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which is 18. A similar amendment to this was tabled in the other place, and I can only reiterate today what my ministerial colleague said in those debates. The Government are working to build and maintain a democracy fit for 2026 and beyond. The central question before us is not whether the voting age aligns with every other age threshold contained in statute. Rather, it is whether 16 and 17 year-olds should have a voice in the democratic decisions that affect their lives and their future. The Government’s view is clear: young people have a direct stake in the future of this country and extending the franchise will enable them to participate in shaping policies and institutions that will have a lasting impact on their lives and can help establish the habits of democratic engagement that will build the foundations for lifelong participation in our democratic system. I hope that reassures noble Lords that the Government have carefully considered this matter, and we remain committed to delivering this important reform.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
I thank the Minister for her comments, but I plea that she takes on board the education point that a number of people in the Committee have raised. However, I accept that this is a manifesto commitment, and therefore I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for his probing amendments, including those supported by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This has been a much quicker debate, but worthy no less, and I thank all those who have contributed to it.
These amendments seek to standardise voting eligibility across the UK, with the exception of the City of London ward elections, as has already been said. The SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales have already given the right to vote in devolved and local elections to all foreign residents. Those decisions were not minor technical differences between the UK’s constituent parts, and they are deserving of debate at national level.
This issue also relates to automatic voter registration. While Wales has conducted four automatic registration pilots, it did not have to verify the nationality of an elector as a result of the changes at a devolved level. I am sure we will debate the security of automatic voter registration in greater detail in due course.
In addition, we are concerned about the consequences for UK political donation rules as a result of the changes made by the two devolved Administrations giving voting rights to every foreign resident. This has given foreign citizens the right to make unlimited donations to politicians and political parties across the UK, opening the door to foreign finance as well as direct electoral influence. For example, a foreign student resident in a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any political entity.
At Second Reading, the Minister, said that this Bill will
“reduce the risk of foreign money entering our politics … The threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding is an ever-growing danger—one that we cannot afford to delay tackling”.—[Official Report, 14/9/26; col. 971-72.]
Will the Minister therefore commit to closing this loophole without delay? If not, why is there an inconsistency when it comes to foreign interference?
This debate has touched on fundamental questions. The balance of devolution matters, but so does citizenship. It is not meaningless, as so many of those residents who have proudly chosen to become citizens can attest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, would also apply the electoral franchise currently used for local elections in England and Northern Ireland to all elections in Scotland and Wales. In practice, this would mean that some foreign citizens would no longer be able to vote in local elections in Scotland and Wales, or elections to the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru. For completeness, I also note that the noble Lord has tabled multiple amendments, some of which would remove Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights as well, although these would not.
The idea that because people move around the United Kingdom they will, somehow or other, be fogged by the fact that there are differences in its different countries seems very odd. I happen to think that the history of electoral arrangements in Northern Ireland—and in Ireland in general—have not been very happy, but the fact of the matter is that it is for Northern Ireland to decide how it is to be governed, as far as its own devolved position goes.
That is also true for Scotland. I dislike the Scottish nationalists; I think they are the worst Government in the United Kingdom. They have done terrible damage to Scottish education and to Scotland generally, but in the end it is the Scots who have to decide how their own Government are elected. The idea that we should take back to the United Kingdom Government the decision about how we do that seems to undermine the whole concept of devolution. I believe in devolution because the closer that people are to the decision-makers, the more they are likely to feel engaged and that they are their Government.
I hope very much that this House will not go backwards by suggesting that we should force other people to choose their Governments in the way that we like. It is right that everybody shall vote the same way for the central United Kingdom Government, but it seems, frankly, very old-fashioned and out of date to suggest that we should go back on what we do now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow and almost entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben, although I do not accept his label of the current Welsh system as odd. I am otherwise in 100% agreement. It is also a great pleasure to admire the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that this group of amendments would be a check on devolved power. It would be a check on the representatives chosen by the people in their own nations. I say to those who wish to defend and maintain the union that they should realise that denying and removing rights is no way to maintain it. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Frost, would accept that devolution is about difference: different choices in different nations. We have different languages that are protected and relied on in those nations. We have different rules about the management and treatment of land—we will park the Crown Estate in Wales on the side for the moment. We have different kinds of politics and those nations have made very different political choices. I do not think there is any evidence that a change in franchise has made a significant impact on the political choices that those nations have made.
However, I will mostly address a particular element of this group that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, did not address in his introduction, but perhaps he might in the wrap-up. There is an exception. We are talking about every election being under the same franchise, except for the City of London’s ward elections. I point noble Lords to my Amendment 269, which we will undoubtedly get to much later. It would abolish the business vote for the City of London Corporation elections. My amendment would end the nation’s last rotten borough. It would finally introduce the principle of one person, one vote in 2026.
Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government committed to reforming a private rented sector that has too often left renters facing insecurity and unfairness. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 delivers that commitment, and the regulations before the Committee are an important step in implementing it.
This phase of reform includes the private rented sector database, which will begin to be rolled out regionally from 15 December 2026. The service will be publicly known as the Register Your Rental Property Service, but I will refer to it as “the database” for the purposes of this debate. The database will record information about private landlords and privately let properties in England. It will help landlords to understand their obligations, give tenants better information before entering into a tenancy and support local authorities in enforcement. The regulations before us are essential to enable the rollout of the database; they set out the registration framework for the database.
Primary legislation establishes the purpose of what the database is intended to do. These regulations provide the practical framework needed for registration: who can make entries, what information must be provided and how the database can be kept accurate over time and up to date. A landlord entry will contain information about the landlord, including their name and contact information. Where the landlord is not an individual, it will include information about the organisation and its management. Joint landlords will each need their own landlord entry, while sharing the dwelling entry for the property.
A dwelling entry will contain information about the rental property, including its address, ownership, property type, rent level and relevant management details. Once occupied, it will also include tenancy and health and safety information, including uploaded certificates and information relating to gas, electrical and energy performance.
The regulations also allow entries to be made or updated by others in specified circumstances. This primarily concerns letting agents, as well as, for example, those acting under a power of attorney, a deceased landlord’s estate or a mortgage company in repossession cases. Landlords may delegate the supply of certain information to an agent or property manager, reducing administrative burden. They will, however, remain legally responsible for registration, payment, renewal and compliance.
Entries will need to be kept up to date. Recorded information will be treated as out of date where the details no longer reflect the landlord, property, tenancy or relevant compliance position, and generally must be updated within 28 days. The database operator will be able to correct errors and remove entries that do not meet the requirements for inclusion. Further operational detail, including on verification of entries by local authorities, will be addressed through guidance.
The regulations require a fee to be paid to make or renew a dwelling entry. The fee is not set in this instrument but delegates the setting of the fee to the database operator, who is required to set it by reference to the relevant costs as specified in the Act. We have separately announced the fee as £65 per property per year, on a pro rata basis during initial rollout, to ensure that those registering first do not unfairly have to pay more.
Subject to parliamentary approval, these regulations put into motion the regional rollout that will begin on 15 December 2026. Landlords in each region will then have three months to register, in turn, with all relevant entries required to be made by 14 November 2027.
This is the first of two statutory instruments needed to implement this database. The second, to be commenced as soon as possible following completion of the initial rollout, will cover the public-facing side of the database, the addition of specified breaches and offences committed by landlords, and further data sharing. This will concern what information is made visible to the public and wider data-sharing arrangements. Those matters are therefore not in scope of this legislation.
To conclude, these regulations provide the operational framework needed to begin rolling out the PRS database and to make the registration duties in the Act take practical effect. They are the next necessary step towards a more transparent and enforceable system, supporting compliance while giving tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move that the Committee do now consider the Private Rented Sector Database Regulations 2026.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I suppose we should be used by now to a Government who say one thing and do another, expecting everybody else to play by one set of rules while they do something else. This week, in a move that surprised nobody, we learned that the annual costs of the football regulator were to be twice what the impact assessment suggested, and that there was a £45 million set-up charge to boot. In the same vein, here we are with this licensing database for rental properties. I declare an interest: I am the director of a firm that lets rental properties and I own a rental property in Norwich, in my own name, as appears on the register.
Nothing in what I want to say diminishes from the positive outcome that regulators and tenants should have confidence in landlords and their properties to weed out the rogues. But, when we debated the Renters’ Rights Bill, we took the impact assessment at face value and assumed that it would reflect reality. It was said that, once it was enacted, landlords would pay a modest fee of about £30 every three years to register their properties under the regulations. As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, these regulations contemplate a £65 charge per property every year. That is a material change. Why is there this 900% increase from inception to reality and why was there not more candour at the outset? Could it be that it was not thought through?
We know that the Government are trying to purge the accidental landlord from the system by regulating him out of existence. This of course reduces choice, reduces supply and drives up rents. We are seeing the near extinction of student accommodation, meaning that students are herded into ever more expensive, specialised service accommodation at ruinous cost. Elsewhere, those with the weakest covenant strength have been put to the back of the queue, and everyone is paying more for less, along with the 190,000 fewer homes that the OBR has assumed will be built in this Parliament.
So we are moving to a system where only the largest professional landlords have the scale, expertise and finance to operate rental properties in the market. We know that Grainger, the institutional landlord, has well in excess of 10,000 properties for rent. Lloyds Bank is chasing a number, alongside some pension funds. While not all landlords operate at that scale, a number of large national agents—Chestertons, Hamptons and Foxtons—sit alongside regional and smaller players that manage many hundreds of thousands of properties on behalf of the smaller-fry landlord.
They were promised a bulk upload system to streamline populating the national database, but that is not how it is turned out. Each property must be added one at a time, and paid for with a separate credit card transaction to boot. Although the Government assumed that it would take about 10 minutes per property, the professionals have still not completed an entry in less than 20 minutes. For the largest landlords or the most popular agents, it will take 200 working days—a whole working year, Monday to Friday, without a break, not a moment—just to register their hold. That is before each landlord has confirmed his agent’s draft entry and the rigmarole is repeated. That 28-day extension deadline is a nonsense that invites people to write their own offence, because they just cannot get it done for want of a system that was promised to do bulk uploads. We have seen the Government cobble together a system used by software remnants from other departments, having totally forgotten the specification, as well as the principles of software design, data and security.
There is to be no concept of a validated Government Gateway login to securely authenticate an entry to a real personal business registering a property. The way in which the agent may communicate with the landlord one at a time is by web permalink relating to an individual property, presumably emailed between the parties—a link that never changes from one year to the next. That process breaks every cyber security rule. It is the sort of behaviour by shady operators that we debated on Monday in the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill. That legislation is meant to prevent this sort of practice. This invites cyber criminals to hijack a critical system related to our fundamental national property rights. Can the Minister say which of the cyber experts at DCMS, or any of the other 17 cyber regulators, has certified this obvious non-compliance in an age of AI warfare? Only this Government could press legislation regarding everybody else to follow secure and encrypted data protocols while introducing a system, within a month, that does the opposite. I am surprised there has not been a legal challenge—perhaps there should be.
If that was not bad enough, there is a further aggravation. Some local authorities have decided to introduce selective licensing. Landlords face the prospect of entering the same data twice into two wholly incompatible and separate systems in a further insult to efficiency. I ask the Minister: on inception, why can the appropriate housing standards officers in local authorities not be trusted to access the national database to further their duties? The national scheme should be the death knell for the small schemes. As she knows, some in this sector have considered mining the data from their existing IT systems, formatting it appropriately and sending the printouts to the department in pursuance of their duties. The only person I am going to feel sorry for is the postman carrying those hundreds of thousands of forms into Marsham Street—at least once a year, with repeat visits for gas safety, electrical installation and other regulatory certificates on top of every single tenant change. The Minister might like to reflect on whether she has enough staff in the department to process all these letters, while pretending that a system that is insecure and incomplete, and that creates an extra huge administrative burden and reuses credentials over inherently insecure communication protocols, is good enough.
Put simply, the Government are foisting an unready system with four weeks to go that is simply not ready, documented or to specification. Why are the Government pressing ahead when all the dashboard lights are flashing red? Only a delay at this stage will do to maintain that long-term confidence in, and the integrity of, the database, which has worthy long-term objectives. I invite the Minister to withdraw this regulation and represent it on a later occasion when she can demonstrate that the system is compliant and meets the obligations and promises set out in the Bill. Otherwise, it will be dead on arrival.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI. It follows the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and establishes the detailed requirements for the Government’s new private rented sector database, as the Minister said. They also introduce fees for registering and renewing property entries with the amount to be determined by the database operator, although it has already been suggested that this will be £65.
On this side of the Committee, we fully support the principle that tenants should be able to tackle rogue landlords and have access to safe and decent accommodation, which is why the previous Conservative Government brought forward our own proposals for a private rented sector ombudsman. However, we were very clear, during the passage of the Bill, that this database needs to be user-friendly and light-touch; it needs to enable electronic data entry and minimise unnecessary bureaucracy. The Minister herself gave us assurances that this would be the case. This comes down to our fundamental request: we need a database that works. The noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken have expressed a great deal of concern that the database does not work. These concerns were echoed in the submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which has drawn the SI to the special attention of the House.
I welcome the fact that the department has committed to continuing to work with the sector to make continuous improvement. The question remains: can it get it working in the first place? Can the Minister tell us why the Government have not halted implementation of the system until it can be fully piloted, so that the recommendations can be implemented and the sector and tenants can have confidence that it works?
This SI comes at the time of a housing crisis. Are the Government aware that they are already driving landlords away? The latest Rightmove survey shows that there are 2% fewer properties for rent nationally—with a particular issue in London, where there are 9% fewer rental properties and where rents have risen by 3.2%. This is before today’s announcement of higher taxes on landlords. Even the OBR is forecasting long-term increases in rents.
It appears that the database is not fit for purpose. While it may work for a few individual landlords, insufficient consideration has been given to the practical requirements of large-scale, professionally managed rental businesses or the role of agents. As my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Howard of Rising said, large landlords will be required to register properties individually, entering up to 70 separate data points for each home. That may work for a landlord with one or two properties who knows what they are doing, but it does not work for a landlord managing, say, 3,000 properties. As my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested, we could be talking about 200 days of work just to register those properties; that is an extraordinary figure for a system that is supposed to simplify and modernise the regulation of the private renter sector.
Private landlords already face extensive regulatory obligations, including gas and electrical safety requirements, energy performance standards and, where applicable, property licensing. These regulations require much of the same information to be provided again through a central government database. Why are landlords being asked to enter information that the Government already hold on existing databases?
During the passage of the Bill, the issue of simplifying and consolidating was raised frequently by many noble Lords. The Government claimed that the system for bulk uploads will not offer time savings and that integration will better meet the needs of stakeholders as described. The purpose of digital government should be to reduce duplication, not institutionalise it. Can the Minister explain what appropriate integration with existing property management systems will look like? Can she assure the Committee that this will be fully implemented and trialled before the database is rolled out?
I am also concerned about the severely limited role that letting agents will be permitted to play in the registration process. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned, landlords rely on professional letting agents to manage both their properties and their regulatory obligations, and to ensure that they comply. Under the proposed system, landlords themselves must initiate and complete the registration process, with agents permitted to provide only certain information on their behalf. This is particularly difficult to understand, given that the Government’s impact assessment assumed that letting agents would register properties on behalf of the landlords. For agents managing thousands of properties, this will mean repeatedly returning to individual landlords to initiate registrations, obtain access and secure further information. Can the Minister explain why professional letting agents cannot be authorised to manage the entire registration process on behalf of their clients, as they do with many other regulatory requirements?
As my noble friend Lord Fuller mentioned, this whole plethora of passwords being shared between different people, properties and so forth raises significant cyber security issues. What happens, when a person at a large landlord or agent leaves, to the hundreds or thousands of passwords and databases that they have to share? Are they shared across businesses?
Can the Minister also assure the Committee that not every individual property under landlords and agents will require its own registration and password, as proposed? This is an obvious burden and a financial one too, and it is on top of the £65 registration fee that, as has already been mentioned, is not a one-off but an annual fee. These costs of additional bureaucracy, time and so forth will simply be passed on to tenants. Can the Minister tell the Committee to which metrics the fee will be pegged? What safeguards exist to prevent this becoming an unsustainable cost? The proposed system lacks the necessary integration to automate changes.
We also raised concerns regarding potentially significant fines. As has already been described, this is a bureaucratic nightmare. The risk of unintended, innocent, data-entry errors is significant, yet the landlord faces a potential £7,000 fine for each one of those errors. That is unreasonable. We need to get the database system working. As others have said, the whole aim of the Bill is to remove rogue landlords; it should not make the life and processes of genuine, good landlords so difficult that rogue landlords can hide in the background. This seems especially punitive considering that the Prime Minister has now introduced a system whereby parking fines can be appealed on the basis of an honest mistake.
As my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising raised, the current system provides an alternative for landlords, as they can create their own database, print out the necessary forms and send them on to the department. Many large landlords may find that simpler, because they are able to maintain their own database and assure themselves that it is up to date; they are able to update it electronically and provide their own reports, which they just fire off the printer. They send thousands of forms to Marsham Street, as my noble friend Lord Fuller said. That cannot be the right way of doing things.
In many parts of the country, there is a desperate shortage of private rental housing. Yet, whether an individual landlord or a large-scale corporate landlord, the Government continue to make being a landlord more difficult, thus reducing the incentive to become a private landlord. This is already having an impact on the market: not only are we seeing landlords exiting, but I am told by the development industry that the private build-to-rent sector has stalled. Ultimately, it will be tenants who will bear the consequences at a time when we urgently need more homes to rent.
It makes little sense to introduce a database that is not fit for purpose, driving up administrative costs, which will discourage the very investment that is needed to increase supply. I ask the Minister: why does the database not allow the bulk input of information? Why can apartment blocks not be registered where there is a single landlord? Why is there not API integration from day one? Why is the database not linked to other government databases? Why does the fee structure not reflect the different types of landlord? Why can agents not input information on behalf of their clients? Why is there not a longer transition period? Most importantly, has the database been piloted? If so, what were the lessons from those pilots? If not, when will it be piloted?
We support effective regulation, but regulation must also be proportionate, practical and properly implemented. The objective should not be to drive responsible landlords and investment out of the sector. When introducing a database, it must be practical, must work and must have been trialled. I hope that the Minister will consider these points.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all of the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on this statutory instrument this afternoon.
First, I want to tackle an issue that has been raised many times: the testing of the database. In fact, we have been engaging with landlords, including organisational landlords, in user research and testing since 2023 on a database; as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said, that was because his Government had considered doing this before. We have been formally testing since May this year. In testing with organisational landlords, almost 90% reported the service as easy or very easy to use, and 80% rated the registration guidance clear or very clear. We have taken note of all the comments that have been made as we have gone through this testing process. We have made improvements to the database according to those comments and, of course, we continue our dialogue with the sector. We have not just jumped into this in the past two weeks, as has been suggested by some contributors.
It is very important that we have transparency for both tenants and councils; the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to this. We need to keep the database accurate and up to date, which is why we have asked for annual updates: some databases fail where you update them only if you have a change. This is an annual prompt to change it. Noble Lords will be very familiar with their registration of interests, which we have to update; we get a prompt to update that regularly. That is the point of having an annual update.
I will go through some of the issues that noble Lords have raised, some of which were raised by more than one Peer. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that our department remains willing to discuss this with anybody who wants to how the database may operate, so, to pick up his question directly, we are of course willing to do that.
A number of noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Fuller, Lord Howard and Lord Jamieson—raised the fee and asked why it is higher than the initial £20 estimate that we gave. The £65 fee is needed to fund a national database that is fair, sustainable and capable of supporting effective enforcement. All landlords will be required to pay the annual £65 fee for each property they register on the database. The fee is charged per property, so landlords will need to pay the fee each time they register a different property.
The fee has been set at a level that balances fairness and sustainability for landlords with the cost of operating the database and tackling non-compliance in the private sector; that last point is equally important. The fees will support activity to identify and act on non-compliance with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 reforms. That includes funding to help councils have the staff and skills they need to identify and tackle non-compliance and to drive landlords who persist in breaking the law out of the sector. When we talked to the many landlords to whom we spoke during the course of the then Renters’ Rights Bill, they were just as concerned as the rest of us about driving out those rogue landlords, because they do not do the sector any good at all and undercut some of the really decent and good landlords that we have.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Perhaps the Minister might allow me to intervene briefly. I do not speak for Grainger, but I have spoken to a large number of institutional landlords, and they have no objection to providing information one property at a time. They understand the point the Minister is making. It is just that they want to bulk upload them all at once so that they can upload a large number in one go and, just as importantly, pay for them in one transaction. That is the point these institutional people are making. We are talking at cross purposes. We understand what the Minister is saying; it is just that the software is not delivering on that simple outcome.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am happy to take back that feedback. The point about paying in one go is fair. It was my understanding that that could happen, but I will take that back and respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, in writing, if that is okay.
The noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, raised the security of the database. That is important. We are all concerned about cyber security. The database has been developed with security and privacy at its core, using established government and cyber security standards. The department is assessing the database against the National Cyber Security Centre’s cyber assessment framework, and the database will also be subject to penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before and during operation. We are working with the department’s data protection officer on the necessary data protection work, including an impact assessment, data-sharing arrangements and privacy arrangements for landlords, local councils and agent users. The database will also use monitoring tools to help identify potential vulnerabilities and support ongoing security assurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talked about the potential duplication with selective licensing. The database will not duplicate or replace selective licences, because the two systems have entirely different purposes. The national database will provide consistent information about private landlords and rental properties across England, supporting transparency, compliance and local authority enforcement.
Selective licensing remains a targeted local tool used by councils to address specific local issues through more intensive proactive enforcement—for example, anti-social behaviour and those types of issues. We recognise the important role that licensing can continue to play where it is used appropriately, and we will continue to review how licensing and the national service interact as implementation progresses. Organisational landlords will use the GOV.UK One Login service to log in and authenticate. This is a service widely used across government and is built in accordance with government technology standards.
The noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Howard and Lord Jamieson, all asked why letting agents cannot register on behalf of landlords. One of the key goals of the database is to improve landlord awareness and capability, and requiring landlords to initiate registration directly supports that by ensuring that they engage with their legal responsibilities from the outset. Letting and property agents will still be able to support landlords by providing certain information once the landlord has started the registration process. Where an agent agrees, the landlord will be able to delegate the provision of specific tenancy health and safety information to them.
Responsibility for ensuring that the registration requirements are met will remain with the landlord throughout. Letting and property agents will not have a mandatory role in registration and will not be separately registered through this database. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his response on the regulation of property agents and I will feed that back to my right honourable colleague in the other House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, asked about what data will be published. This instrument does not decide what information will be published; the public-facing database will be brought forward through secondary legislation once the initial rollout period is complete. At that point, tenants will be able to access necessary and proportionate information about landlords and rental properties, including some of the issues that the noble Baroness referred to about landlord enforcement actions that have been taken. We will carefully balance the benefits of transparency with landlords’ privacy rights, safety concerns and data protection requirements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, also asked how to identify landlords who do not register. When the public-facing database is available, tenants and others will be able to tell the database that their rental property is not registered, as they will be able to check. That can be passed on to the local housing authority.
To conclude, this instrument is the practical next step in delivering the PRS database. It sets the registration framework that landlords, local authorities and the database operator will need as regional rollout begins. By doing so, these regulations will support landlord compliance, strengthen local authority enforcement and give tenants better information about the homes they rent. I beg to move.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
May I follow up on a couple of points that the Minister made? She talked about testing the database, and I appreciate the comments she made about how it was the Conservatives who started looking at a database. My point is to try to understand what testing has been done.
I know that a number of noble Lords on this side, and presumably the Minister herself, will have received a lot of emails from large landlords, various groupings of landlords and so forth, raising these sorts of issues. Clearly, they are not happy if they have been part of the testing system. Has this been testing where an individual person is trying to import a single property? I think that we largely acknowledge that the system could work reasonably well for that. It was different for multiple properties or for where a landlord was not very familiar with all the regulations and so forth and was reliant on their agents. It would be very interesting if the Minister could give a bit more information about whether this involved bulk-inputting of property.
The Minister slightly glossed over the key point here by saying, “You could cut and paste”. I know that we have all filled in forms by cutting and pasting, but that still means having to go individually into each form to cut and paste—and believe me, from past experience, that is where you get more errors.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
I am afraid that this is quite an important issue, and a number of issues have been raised. We are going to get a lot of data problems here.
My point about an apartment block, again, is that most of those apartments may not be the same or identical, and they have to be registered individually, but there needs to be an ability to provide bulk information and then have separate individual registrations. We do not disagree with that. Otherwise, as I have said before, the risk is that there will be hundreds of repeated entries. Could the Minister clarify that real question: why is this not being tested in the real world—not offline testing—where agents would have bulk entries and so forth?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There has been a lot of testing going on since 2023. If the noble Lord is happy with this, I will get some more information about how the testing has worked, what has been tested and so on. However, the figures were fairly outstanding —we had an 80% rating of “clear” or “very clear” on the registration guidance; and 90% reported that the service was “very easy” or “easy” to use—but I can give more detail about how this was tested, if that would help. I will get the noble Lord some more information on that.
It is not in the Government’s or landlords’ interest and certainly not in the tenant’s interest—at the heart of this is enabling tenants to have access to more transparent information—for this database not to work. So we have made sure that it works before its implementation in December, and we will continue to work with the sector to improve it as we go along.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
It may have had 90% acceptability among the people who used it, but my key point was: who?
National Empty Homes Strategy
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for opening this debate in his usual powerful way. I echo the tribute that other noble Lords have paid to his fantastic work on homelessness and rough sleeping over many decades. The noble Lord has an enormous record of supporting those who have to sleep on our streets or who are facing homelessness, as the powerful testimony from my noble friend Lord Griffiths demonstrated.
I also welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. I remember meetings with him when he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and it is great to see him back. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for all her work with the Watford homeless charity—she does marvellous work—and the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his constant contributions to housing.
Today’s debate has shown our shared determination to tackle homelessness and make better use of existing housing stock. There is never any argument about that among any of the political parties. Everyone should have a safe, secure and affordable home, and we should make the best possible use of the homes we already have. But there is still work to do. Our Government inherited a profound homelessness challenge. Rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths highlighted, one of the issues causing this is that there are people fleeing domestic abuse. There are many issues, and this Government have had to introduce a raft of legislation to start tackling the causes and finding solutions to the homelessness problem.
The situation is unacceptable, and we need urgent intervention. That is why we have invested more than £4 billion for homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years, including funding for our national plan to end homelessness and the rough sleeping programme, which is certainly not in abeyance, I would say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. We are investing £950 million through the local authority housing fund and offering the biggest boost to social housing in a generation through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.
Preventing homelessness fundamentally depends on having enough suitable homes. That means building new homes and, of course, making the best possible use of those we already have. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, is right about right to buy, and our recent Social Housing Bill is starting to action the loss of social homes. We have not decided to abandon right to buy, but we have said that when a social home is sold, we must build a replacement. That is why we have decided that 100% of the receipts from those homes should go back to councils, and that new homes that councils build should not be sold for 35 years after they have been built, so that councils have a chance to recoup through the rent the money spent on them.
This brings us to the role of empty homes. Homelessness and empty homes are distinct challenges, and bringing an empty property back into use will not always provide a swift solution to those in immediate need of housing. But where we can bring previously empty properties back into use, it can provide temporary or settled accommodation and help to relieve pressure on local housing markets. The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned a number of initiatives from local government and housing associations. These continue to evolve and I see them all the time when I go around the country visiting our local councils.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing this question before the Committee and for highlighting in his speech the frustration felt by everyone in this sector and by everyone who cares about housing that we have empty homes, sometimes long-term empty homes, at the same time as we have people sleeping on our streets and an enormous temporary accommodation bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. There are around 303,000 long-term empty homes in England. The Government want to see more of these homes brought back into use.
That brings me to the proposal at the heart of today’s debate: a national empty homes strategy. Let me first be clear that our Government share the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Bird; bringing empty homes back into use can provide homes for people who need them, support regeneration and help to relieve pressure on local housing markets. But recognising the importance of the issue does not necessarily mean that a new national strategy is the right response.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, identified, empty homes arise for many different reasons. Properties vary in their condition, ownership and the cost of bringing them back into use. Local housing pressures and property markets also differ considerably. A single national approach could, therefore, be overly prescriptive and may not reflect what will work in each area. It could create additional reporting and administrative requirements for councils, which would in itself draw resources away from the practical work of identifying empty homes, engaging owners and returning properties to use.
We already have national strategies that address the wider challenges to which empty homes contribute, including our National Plan to End Homelessness. Crucially, councils are already taking action. They are best placed to understand why homes are empty in their areas and to decide which course of action will be most effective. Many councils already have their own empty homes strategies, reflecting local circumstances and priorities; I commend them and hope that those councils that have not yet considered an empty homes strategy will do so.
The central challenge is, therefore, not a lack of recognition or another layer of strategy but making sure that councils can make effective use of the tools available to them and match the right intervention to the right property. For some empty homes, financial incentives, such as the council tax premium, may encourage home owners to bring their property back into use. Where owners are unwilling to act, stronger enforcement powers, such as enforced sale, compulsory purchase or empty dwelling management orders, may be used. As we outlined in the English devolution White Paper, we intend to strengthen the ability of local authorities to take over the management of empty homes. We will provide further detail in due course; I hate that term, but I assure noble Lords that in this case “in due course” means very soon.
Where the objective is to use empty homes to provide accommodation for people who are homeless, funding is often required. Councils can access a range of funding opportunities for this purpose. Every part of the toolkit has a role. By encouraging, enabling or requiring more empty homes to return to occupation, these levers can improve the use of the existing housing stock, increase local supply and help ease wider housing pressures.
I want to make some specific comments about funding because a number of noble Lords—everybody who spoke, actually, but in particular the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Young and Lord Greenhalgh—mentioned it. Local authorities and registered providers can access funding, such as through the local authority housing fund or the social and affordable homes programme, to bring empty homes back into use. Both can use SAHP funds to purchase market housing for affordable housing, and bids are assessed on individual merit by Homes England and the GLA.
The £950 million fourth round of the local authority housing fund is for councils in England to increase their supply of better-quality temporary accommodation. It also provides safe and suitable housing for some families, such as those on the Afghan resettlement programme. Councils can partner with registered providers to use LAHF funding to purchase existing properties, including empty homes; that is a big resource.
In some areas, empty homes can help reduce reliance on expensive and unsuitable temporary accommodation by quickly bringing existing housing back into use. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, commented on the nearly £3 billion spent on temporary accommodation. We want to make sure that we return long-term vacant properties—empty homes—to occupation in order to increase the housing supply. This will vary from area to area, of course.
The noble Lords, Lord Bird, Lord Griffiths and Lord Greenhalgh, referred to the rise in the numbers of children in temporary accommodation. It is an absolute scandal; it is unacceptable that those numbers are increasing. I should say, though, that the number of children in the most harmful form of accommodation—bed-and-breakfast accommodation—is decreasing each quarter. Since the peak on 30 June 2024, the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation over six weeks has fallen by 75% to 1,000 households, as of 31 March 2026—but that is 1,000 households too many for me; I want to see that figure down to zero. This encouraging progress follows our £30 million investment over three years in the emergency accommodation reduction programme.
I am running out of time so let me conclude by saying that I am sure that the purpose of this debate is to draw attention to the importance of empty homes. Let me be unequivocal for the noble Lord, Lord Bird: our Government believe that bringing suitable empty properties back into use is an essential piece of this puzzle. However, we believe that the most effective approach is to empower and encourage councils to act locally, supported by appropriate national powers and funding, rather than imposing what might appear to be a one-size-fits-all national strategy. We will respond formally to the policy paper sent by the noble Lord to the department.
In closing, I thank all Members across the Committee for their very important contributions to this important debate.
Sports Clubs: Special Enterprise Zone Status
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this QSD. I thank my noble friend Lord Mann for securing this debate and opening it—because it gives me an opportunity to talk about football, which is never a bad thing as far as I am concerned, but also because it is an important issue. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
My noble friend Lord Mann raises an interesting Question. Sports clubs have not been given special enterprise zone status. Enterprise zones were not designed as a designation for individual organisations; rather, they were place-based interventions, intended to support economic growth and regeneration within defined geographic areas. However, my noble friend’s Question raises a broader and important issue: the contribution that sporting institutions can make to economic growth, regeneration and community development, and I do not think we should ever underestimate that.
According to DCMS’s Sport Satellite Account, published in September 2024, the sports sector contributed an estimated £53.6 billion direct to the UK economy in 2021, equivalent to 2.6% of total UK gross value added. That is a fantastic contribution which demonstrates the significance of the role that sport plays as an economic sector in its own right.
Professional football has a particularly strong relationship with place. Unlike many other major economic sectors, football clubs and stadiums are distributed across cities and towns across the country. Clubs can support employment, local businesses, visitor spending and investment, while stadiums can provide a focal point for wider regeneration. That sits at the heart of what my noble friend Lord Mann is discussing.
That important contribution is here, both for the opportunities it provides and for volunteering, participation and community cohesion. Sport makes that important contribution right across the United Kingdom. I have seen this close at hand in my own area. My noble friend Lord Bassam has already kindly mentioned my own football team. If he made himself Lord Bassam of Brighton and Hove Albion, that would be probably a first in your Lordships’ House. I am lucky enough that my team and my town share the same name, so I can have both designations in my title. My football club makes an enormous contribution to our community, across all ages, from youth football to walking football, and across our community, through social events. It has opened a nursery, and recently an all-weather training facility. During Covid, our club played an absolutely key role at the heart of our community. The first-team players took lunches to our older residents, which brightened people’s days so much. It plays a key role.
The government position today is that sports clubs have an important role to play in supporting growth, but the most effective approach is to integrate sporting assets within broader plans for regeneration and local economic development. The Government are already acting on the opportunity presented by stadium-led regeneration. The Prime Minister has reaffirmed his commitment to a stadium regeneration accelerator, through which the Minister for Growth and the Minister for Sport will work with mayors to help major sports-led projects bring jobs, investment and housing to local areas.
The accelerator is bringing together government departments, local leaders, sporting bodies and investors around viable projects, helping to identify and address barriers to delivery. It is not a capital fund for stadium construction; stadium redevelopment is led and funded by clubs and private investors, while the Government use their convening role to help realise the wider benefits for places. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, pointed out, Leeds illustrates the scale of the opportunity here. The expansion of Elland Road is being taken forward by Leeds United, while the Government and local and regional partners are working to support the wider regeneration potential around the stadium.
This approach recognises that major sporting assets can act as anchors for regeneration and place-making. It also reflects the Government’s wider local growth agenda, which seeks to empower local leaders and support regeneration that responds to the needs and ambitions of individual places. In some places, mayoral development corporations can complement this work by co-ordinating planning, land assembly and infrastructure delivery across complex regeneration areas. The appropriate model will depend on local circumstances and must support a broader plan for the place, rather than simply the commercial interests of an individual club. That does not mean that football clubs and other stakeholders are not key players with mayors and local councillors in driving that regeneration forward.
Alongside support for regeneration and growth—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is particularly interested in grass-roots sport—the Government continue to invest in grass-roots sport and community facilities. At least £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grass-roots sports facilities over the next four years, while Sport England invests more than £250 million each year through Exchequer and National Lottery funding to support participation and to tackle inactivity in communities across the country.
There are also forms of support available to many community sports organisations through existing tax, business rates and funding arrangements. Community amateur sports clubs that meet the relevant eligibility criteria can benefit from charitable rate relief providing 80% relief on their business rates bill, and sports clubs may be eligible for the lower retail, hospitality and leisure multipliers where they are open to visiting members of the public—this probably answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield.
I know that the noble Baroness will not expect me to comment specifically on any Budget proposals that are coming forward—she would not have done that when she was a Minister either—but we are already undertaking a lot to support sport, including the new, permanently lower multiplier for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and the wider support package with a budget of £4.3 million. The small business retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier is set at 38.2p in 2026-27, 5p below the national small business multiplier, and the standard RHL multiplier is set at 43p, 5p below the national standard multiplier. They are also eligible for the other benefits that I spoke about earlier.
I also wish to challenge the issue around NICs again, as I have had to do many times. The NICs rise does not apply to young people. Businesses, whether sport businesses or others, do not need to pay the additional charges on NICs for young people who are employed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Addington, referred to the lessons the Government have learned from previous enterprise zones and how these have informed current local growth policies. It is important to say that the experience of enterprise zones has directly informed what we are doing in government around newer special economic zone programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, mentioned freeports and investment zones; they have all been informed by the enterprise zone experience.
Officials identified five factors as critical to success in any such zone: a clear strategic sector focus; a compelling value proposition for investors, including infrastructure and skills; strong local governance; genuine integration with the surrounding local economy; and co-ordinated investment promotion. These were all built into the freeports model. To address displacement directly, freeport tax reliefs apply only to new investment, and business rates relief can be subject to a displacement test—a direct response to the evidence from enterprise zones. It was felt that enterprise zones were often just moving people locally, not bringing in investment from outside. Freeports and investment zones have been brought together as industrial strategy zones now, offering potential investors a more streamlined and coherent package. I hope that answers Members’ questions.
Mayoral development corporations are developing all the time, and they can enable mayors to use significant private sector investment in world-class sports facilities to unlock that wider regeneration potential, including housing, jobs and facilities for local residents and communities, utilising powers such as planning, CPO and infrastructure provision. I probably should not mention Manchester at the moment—I think Manchester United is having a bit of a tough time, so I will not step on any toes there—but there is a big project in Manchester, and the Old Trafford Regeneration Mayoral Development Corporation is acting as a driving force.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to planning. The steps we have taken both through the revised NPPF and the Planning and Infrastructure Act—which we recently took through the House to introduce a clearer, rules-based process for planning—will help with some of this regeneration, whether it is for football grounds or any other sports facility.
In closing, I thank everyone in the Committee for their very important contributions to this debate. Our thinking is emerging on this, so I have listened with interest to what all noble Peers have had to say.
Home Building Target
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reaching their target of building 1.5 million homes in this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we are driving progress through our bold planning reforms: the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme fund, and our new £16 billion National Housing Bank, which is expected to support over 500,000 homes. Alongside programmes such as the New Homes Accelerator and Small Sites Aggregator, we are working with industry and local authorities to deliver the homes this country needs. The latest statistics, published in June, show that an estimated 392,400 net additional homes have been built this Parliament, with a 15% increase in starts and a 54% increase in outlying planning proposals.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but only Ministers believe that the 1.5 million target is achievable; even the National Audit Office said that the chances are slim. The Prime Minister has recently decided to channel public money for housing away from housing associations and through local authorities. First, does the Minister agree that this means we will get fewer social homes, because housing associations can top up public money with private borrowing while the local authorities cannot? Will she urge him to change direction? Secondly, does she agree that many of those renting could afford a mortgage if they had some help with a deposit? Has she read today’s Financial Times, which indicates that the previous Secretary of State urged the Government, before he was sacked, to introduce a successor to Help to Buy? Will she urge the Prime Minister to continue with that, as this will give the market the confidence it so badly needs?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
On the noble Lord’s first question, the Prime Minister was talking about support between local authorities and housing associations. It is important that we have good collaboration between the two partners in delivering social housing. I look forward to a very productive relationship between local government and our registered providers. I do not believe that it will lower the number of houses that can be delivered, particularly as we now have the National Housing Bank that this Government brought in. I will write to the noble Lord on his second question.
Lord Best (CB)
I am afraid that we are not going to make the 1.5 million new homes target, but we can pull out all the stops and get as near as possible to it. Can the Minister prevail on her ministerial colleagues to commit rather more of the £39 billion that has been set aside to social housing? We can get on with that at a time when the private market is in the doldrums. There are lots of opportunities to help the construction industry get on with the social housing programme, which is so important.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We committed to delivering a stretch target of 1.5 million homes. We know it is a stretch target, but it is better to aim high in this respect. We have already announced, in August, the first tranche of the £39 billion of funding for social housing. We will move forward with the following tranches as quickly as possible.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister said. Housing associations this year built the highest number of social rented homes in the past decade, and National Housing Federation figures suggest that that will further increase. Can she add to what she said and confirm whether her department is making representations to the Treasury to match the ambition of the housing association and council sectors and to increase investment in the social and affordable homes programme in the Autumn Budget?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure that my noble friend would not expect me to comment on the Autumn Budget in advance of the Chancellor’s announcements. It is important that we remember that this £39 billion investment is the highest level of investment in social and affordable homes for generations. As I said, we have already begun implementing that programme, and further funding is available through future allocations. For the first time, three councils have been awarded strategic partnership status outside London, demonstrating how our councils are stepping up to meet these ambitions. We are also removing the barriers to council housebuilding through a 10-year rent settlement, rent convergence, Public Works Loan Board borrowing rates, right-to-buy reform and a further £46 million investment through Capacity to Build to strengthen councils’ skills, expertise and capacity.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. Given the dire state of the housing market, surely the response should be, “Yes Minister”—a very brave Minister retaining the target. Can the Minister reassure the House that to get construction moving, the Government will give priority to encouraging private sector investment in social housing, rather than relying on Help to Buy schemes, which normally end up with higher prices?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am keen to encourage as much investment in the delivery of social and affordable homes as we can. When I did a workshop on this in the City, there was a great appetite for patient capital investment in social housing. I hope we will be able to encourage that. We have reviewed the Help to Buy system, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, indicated. We are working through whether that is the right way to go. There were some issues with the previous Help to Buy scheme. We continue to explore ways to deliver more housing. Certainly, I would encourage investment in this.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford
My Lords, many villages are increasingly unable to retain young families, agricultural workers and other key members of the rural workforce because of a shortage of affordable homes. As the Government pursue their housebuilding target, how will they ensure that rural communities remain sustainable local economies, rather than becoming places local people are priced out of?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
There are a number of issues that we need to address. One is the rural homes exception, which we have thought about. Local authorities need to make sure that they have enough rural housing in their local plans. We need to make sure that we have rural homes exception policies, so that local people can determine what housing is built where. There is also the issue of making sure the services are there to support rural housing. All these issues are important, and we must bring those together as we make sure there is sufficient housing in rural areas.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
The Minister frequently trumpets the Government’s £39 billion social homes programme as a means of accelerating housing delivery. Can she tell the House how many social homes will be completed and occupied by July 2029 through this grant? Would she categorise that figure as a firm commitment or a “slim chance” target, as the Secretary of State describes the commitment to 1.5 million new homes by July 2029?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I say it is a great investment, because it is an enormous investment in social and affordable housing. Significantly, the previous Government left us in a housing crisis, so I will not take any criticism from the other side about investing in social housing. The funding that Homes England is committing now will deliver 73,500 homes via strategic partnerships. The GLA intends to offer allocations of at least £8 billion and will set out shortly the number of homes it expects to achieve through the initial allocation. We will consider whether a national central government target or ambition is appropriate in this regard.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the approach the Government are taking. I ask the Minister whether funds could be made available for housing associations to immediately purchase properties for social rent. There are so many on the market, some of which are under housing association shared ownership anyway.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I appreciate all the issues around shared ownership, and we have debated those extensively in your Lordships’ House. Housing associations manage their own finances—they are independent organisations. Many of them purchase houses that become available on the open market, and we would encourage them to continue to do so.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s absolute commitment to building 1.5 million houses. How do the Government square their decision to build a data centre in the heart of the East End of London—Brick Lane, which is occupied by communities and hundreds of families—which would take away scarce land for housing, to which the Government are committed?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box. We always have to get the balance right between meeting the needs of our economy—data centres are, of course, a critical factor in driving our economy forward—and making sure there is enough land for housing. That situation is the responsibility of our local authorities when they go through their planning processes, unless data centres are referred as part of our national infrastructure system. I will not comment on any individual application here and now.
Representation of the People Bill
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsMonday 14th September 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 2 September 2026 - large print - (2 Sep 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to open this Second Reading debate on the Representation of the People Bill. Noble Lords across the House bring great experience of electoral law, electoral administration and the practical operation of our democracy. I look forward to the contributions that will be made today and to the constructive scrutiny that our House will bring to the Bill.
This Bill renews our democracy for a new generation, opening up participation and strengthening the integrity of our elections. It restores confidence, reinforcing trust with stronger political finance rules and better protections against harassment and intimidation, closing down opportunities for those who would seek to undermine our democracy. But it would be wrong to introduce this debate without acknowledging and reflecting on events of recent times.
When I catch the 6.15 am or the 6.31 am train from Stevenage to London in the mornings, I share the carriages of that train and then the Underground with people whose interests are at the heart of our community: tradespeople, in their steel-toecap boots; public sector workers, including those in blue light services, heading for their early shifts; and small business owners getting an early start to prepare for their day. It is a fundamental principle of our democracy that every one of their votes is exactly equal to the votes of millionaires, crypto bros and industry magnates. It is that which sits front and centre in this Bill.
We must put politics back under public control. We all share concerns about the rise of big money and its ability to dominate public power. At its heart, this Bill is about renewing the foundations of our electoral system so that it remains fair, secure, transparent and accessible in the years ahead. At the Last Night of the Proms on Saturday, the conductor, Sakari Oramo, referred to another version of AI, which was authenticity and integrity. That must sit at the heart of electoral reform, so that we restore the confidence of the 6 am crew that their voice really counts.
Delivering on our manifesto commitment, this Bill extends the franchise to eligible 16 and 17 year-olds for UK parliamentary elections and other reserved and excepted polls. It enables more automated forms of electoral registration, broadens the forms of voter identification that may be used at polling stations, and makes a range of changes to the conduct and administration of elections, referendums and recall petitions. The Bill strengthens the rules on political donations and expenditure, including measures to reduce the risk of foreign money entering our politics. It improves transparency in digital campaigning material, strengthens enforcement and information sharing by the Electoral Commission, and requires tougher sentencing where offences are aggravated by hostility towards candidates, elected officeholders, campaigners or electoral staff.
Opportunities for those who seek to undermine or illicitly influence our democracy must and will be closed down. This Bill responds directly to a changing and increasingly hostile threat environment and takes action to tackle risks by strengthening safeguards, closing loopholes and hardening defences. Taken together, these measures will help deliver a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system. They will support public confidence, protect our democracy from those who would seek to undermine it and open participation to a new generation of voters.
The Bill is ambitious but practical. It addresses the everyday operation of democracy: who can take part, how they register and vote, how campaigns are funded and conducted, and how the rules are enforced. The balance is important. The Government are not seeking reform for their own sake. The measures in the Bill respond to real changes in political campaigning, how people participate in politics and how threats to democratic confidence can arise. Some of these changes are technological, some are administrative and some reflect the need to ensure that our democratic arrangements command confidence across generations. The Bill therefore looks both to the integrity of the system and to the experience of those who use it: voters, candidates, parties, campaigners and electoral administrators.
The Bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform; work will continue. As a first step, the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for MHCLG have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality.
As noble Lords would expect, the Bill has not remained frozen in aspic since its introduction; it has continued to develop through scrutiny, engagement and the Government’s consideration of how best to give effect to its objectives. During its Commons stages, the Government brought forward both substantive and technical amendments to strengthen the Bill in response to points raised by Members and to ensure it better delivers its policy intent.
For example, the Government brought forward amendments to strengthen the “know your donor” requirements and further tighten the rules relating to donations made by unincorporated associations. Those changes were designed to improve transparency and ensure that the political finance regime keeps pace with the risks it is intended to address. These risks cannot be overstated. The threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding are an ever-growing danger—one that we cannot afford to delay tackling.
Responding to further evidence of the threat we face—namely, the conviction of Nathan Gill, as well as cases such as Christine Lee—we commissioned Philip Rycroft to review foreign financial influence and interference in politics. His report was thorough and challenging, and the Government have accepted its recommendations. Safeguarding the integrity, transparency and fairness of our electoral system is a fundamental priority, and the Bill provides an important vehicle for taking that work forward.
A number of recommendations from the Rycroft review were therefore implemented through amendments made to the Bill on Report in the Commons. Those amendments form a significant part of the Government’s wider response to the risks identified by the review. The first of those changes concerns crypto assets. The current political donations framework does not sufficiently reflect the particular risks that crypto assets can present, including the difficulty of identifying the true source of a donation. That creates a risk that malign actors, including state actors, could seek to obscure the origin of the funds. The Bill therefore introduces a ban on the use of crypto assets as a means of making political donations. To support that change, the Government have amended the Bill to clarify the meaning of a donation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That will ensure that property, including crypto assets transferred to a party to meet an expense, is treated as a donation, so that the law cannot be circumvented simply because value is transferred through property rather than cash.
The Bill caps donations to registered political parties by overseas electors at £100,000. This also applies to individuals who were formerly resident outside the UK, who are subject to the cap for a minimum of a calendar year after arrival here. That responds to concerns identified by the Rycroft review: first, that the origin of funds from overseas donors can be harder to trace; and, secondly, that democratic fairness may be put at risk if individuals are able to make unlimited donations into the political system while having only a limited connection to public life in the United Kingdom.
Further amendments change the test for company donations so that it is based on profit rather than revenue. That change follows careful consideration of the Rycroft review and engagement with stakeholders. Profit provides a clearer indication of a company’s financial position and helps ensure that donations come from companies undertaking genuine economic activity.
The Bill was also amended to implement the Rycroft recommendation that the Electoral Commission’s information-sharing powers should be extended. This will enable the commission to receive relevant information from relevant public authorities as defined in the Bill, supporting more effective regulation of political finance and a better understanding of emerging risks. The Government also amended the Bill to extend the commission’s powers to require disclosure of information outside a formal investigation, allowing the commission to more proactively monitor compliance, support timely regulation during election periods, and take a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement.
Beyond the Rycroft recommendations, on Report the Government introduced a targeted regulation-making power into the Bill to allow key political finance restrictions, including those relating to crypto assets, overseas elector donation caps and company donations, to be extended beyond political parties via secondary legislation in the future. This is to ensure that malign actors cannot circumvent the rules by providing to other non-party regulated donees.
While much of the consideration of the Bill so far has been focused on strengthening the political finance provisions, the Government tabled further amendments on Report to extend the maximum duration of longer-term postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three years to five, and to better align the duration of anonymous elector registration provisions with those changes. These changes will provide greater clarity and consistency while reducing repeated administrative burdens on people who may already be vulnerable.
The Government have also amended the Bill to clarify when an overseas elector may be removed from the electoral register. Overseas electors must satisfy specific eligibility requirements when they register. Although registration lasts for three years, circumstances may change during that period. These amendments ensure that an individual who no longer meets the requirements can be removed, helping electoral registers remain accurate. Taken together, the Commons amendments strengthen the public scrutiny of political finance, reduce avoidable administrative burdens and ensure that the Bill responds sensibly to modern forms of participation, campaigning and donation.
As the Bill has progressed, our desire to engage with all interested parties and our willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints has continued. Following the strength of feeling expressed at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Government tabled an amendment in Committee to repeal the Government’s powers to designate a strategy and policy statement to which the Electoral Commission must have regard. That repeal supports our manifesto commitment to strengthen democracy and uphold the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission.
The Government have committed to tabling an amendment during the Bill’s passage through this House to strengthen accessibility at polling stations for voters with disabilities. We will develop that amendment in the spirit of the new clause brought forward on Report in the Commons, working with interested Members of both Houses to ensure that any new provision is proportionate, practical and deliverable.
In addition to introducing a robust regime that ensures that donors contributing above the £100,000 annual cap must demonstrate a genuine and ongoing connection to the United Kingdom, we are considering how we will strengthen the residency requirements, including ensuring that the length of time spent in the UK aligns with broader government policy. We will continue to engage with political parties bilaterally and through the Parliamentary Parties Panel, and we will provide the House with further details in due course. I am keen for that spirit of constructive engagement to continue as the Bill proceeds through this House. I have hosted a drop-in session for all Peers, and I have been pleased to meet a number of noble Lords separately. Throughout the passage of this Bill, my door will remain open to those who wish to discuss any aspect of it with me.
Outside this House, we have worked and will continue to work with bodies such as the Parliamentary Parties Panel and stakeholders across the electoral sector to ensure that the Bill operates effectively for political parties, electors and administrators. We have also engaged with Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, recognising that implementation will require continued close working with the devolved Governments and legislative consent in those areas within the responsibility of the devolved legislatures.
I also recognise that successful implementation will matter as much as the legislation itself. Electoral administrators, returning officers and those who support the running of elections locally will be central to making many of these reforms work in practice. The Government will continue to engage closely with them as the Bill progresses and as the necessary secondary legislation, guidance and operational changes are developed. We want reforms that are ambitious but also workable, clear and capable of commanding confidence on the ground.
Democracy is not sustained by institutions and legislation alone. It depends on people believing that their voice matters, that the rules are fair and that the outcome of an election reflects the free choice of the electorate. That confidence must never be taken for granted. This is a substantial and important set of reforms to electoral law. I know that noble Lords will bring expertise, rigour and practical insight to its consideration. I look forward to engaging with those debates in the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been developed. I beg to move.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a thoughtful, wide-ranging and characteristically well-informed debate. I have particularly enjoyed some of the history lessons we have heard about, though I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that many of the dates she gave were before the Labour Party came into existence—well done for winning those elections. The breadth of experience brought to bear by this House, particularly on electoral matters, is one of its great strengths, and I welcome the careful scrutiny that noble Lords have given to the principles and purposes of this Bill. I, too, echo the thanks that have been given to the many organisations that have provided briefings to us all. I particularly thank Philip Rycroft for all his work on his excellent report.
At its heart, the Representation of the People Bill is about strengthening confidence in our democracy, ensuring that our electoral system is secure, accessible and fit for the future; that those who administer and participate in elections can do so safely; and that every eligible citizen is able to take part freely and with confidence. My noble friend Lady Paul spoke powerfully in saying that challenges to our democracy do not come from voters turning up to vote at their local polling stations—we know that. But challenges do come from elsewhere, and we must all put our minds to how we tackle them.
I was interested to hear both that the Bill is too big and that it does not include the things which noble Lords from around the House want in it. We have also heard that it is being rushed through—that is an opinion—and we were asked whether it will be in time to address imminent crises in some of the areas we are looking at. We can only do our best to get things through as quickly as we can, and to create a Bill that is practicable and manageable but which tackles the main issues.
I will seek to respond to the main points raised in the debate. Where I am not able to cover every contribution in detail, I will of course write to noble Lords. It has been a long debate and I am pretty sure I will not get to everything.
I start by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield for his contributions to your Lordships’ House and I wish him well in his retirement. It was a great honour that he chose this debate for his valedictory, and I am grateful for everything he has done during his time here.
I thank my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood for his maiden speech, which was described by my noble friend Lord Foulkes as powerful, elegant and witty. I totally agree with those sentiments. I note that my noble friend Lord Macintosh is from the Isle of Skye—I have been there only once, but it is one of the most beautiful places I have ever been, and I envy him that. I also echo his thoughts. While we are talking about the political world, as we do in this Bill, all of us owe thanks to our families who put up with the vagaries of living with our political careers. I thank him and wish him well in his career in your Lordships’ House.
I start with some of the points made about engagement on the Bill, which is crucial. The measures in this Bill have been developed through close engagement with key partners from across the electoral community and the devolved Governments, and with younger people, civil society organisations, academics, think tanks, the Parliamentary Parties Panel, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, colleagues from across government, and so on. To deliver these changes, we will continue to work closely with our partners in local and devolved government and with political parties, the electoral sector, education and civil society, and citizens themselves, as we need to ensure that impacts are thoroughly considered and changes are successfully implemented. I absolutely dispute the accusation of lack of consultation. I have been provided with a long list of meetings and engagement that I am happy to provide to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady O’Neill. I checked that Philip Rycroft did consult with the Conservative Party during the course of his report.
There has been a great deal of talk—not surprisingly in the current circumstances—about donation caps. My noble friends Lord Wills and Lord Foulkes will know that my style is both to listen and to act on Members’ concerns. This Bill will be no exception to that. The noble Lords, Lord Evans of Weardale, Lord Rennard and Lord Carter, my noble friends Lord Watson and Lady Hodge and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wanted to insert a wide enabling power in the Bill. As I said in my introductory speech, we must put politics back under public control. There are shared concerns about the rise of big money in politics and its ability to dominate public power. This Bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform. Work will continue. As a first step, the First Secretary of State and the MHCLG Secretary of State have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality. I have heard all the points raised in the Chamber, and I will take those back for consideration.
A number of Peers spoke about the cap and asked why it should be retrospective. We will not allow bad actors to funnel money into our elections in advance of a change in the law. There is a clear time-critical risk of evasion of these new rules that would undermine their purpose if they were brought in at a later date. Donations made by overseas electors—I think this is the information the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was looking for—that breach the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an overseas elector as a participant that breach new requirements will have to be repaid. Donations made by individuals who returned to the UK, but who were not overseas electors from 6 July 2026, that breach the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an individual who has returned to the UK as a participant that breach new requirements will have to be repaid. We are removing the incentive for those who want to circumvent protections that we deem necessary. This is not about any one particular donation. These provisions were in consideration before this weekend.
The noble Lords, Lord Wallace, Lord Evans, Lord Rennard and Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lady Hodge raised issues around party spending limits. The Secretary of State and the First Secretary State have asked the Electoral Commission to undertake a review on lowering registered political-party, third-party campaigner and candidate limits to ensure the entire electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose. In terms of timing for that, the commission has been asked to provide recommendations no later than July 2027.
Completely understandably, we have had a number of contributions on crypto assets. I will write to answer the specific questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I will make some general comments, but I will write and answer her specific ones. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked very particular questions on this. With this ban, we need to take decisive action to defend the legitimacy and integrity of the democratic system from foreign interference. We do not want to undermine the ban. Applying the ban only after Royal Assent of the Bill would risk bad-faith actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the passage of legislation and undermining public trust in our democracy. As set out by the former Secretary of State on 25 March, any donations made to political parties in crypto assets will not be permitted under the new requirements. Recipients will have a period of 30 days following the coming into force of the provisions in the Bill to return or forfeit crypto-assets donations accepted on or after 25 March 2026, after which enforcement action can be taken and failure to comply will risk criminal liability.
There have been a number of comments around think tanks. This has been a really important issue, both debated here today and in the discussions on this Bill outside. Today we have heard contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Brady, and my noble friends Lord Wills, Lord Evans of Sealand, Lady Royall, Lady Hodge and Lady Goudie. Electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that only those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy—for instance, requiring recipients to undertake know your donor due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding. The Rycroft review identified broader risks of foreign financial influence across the political system, including the potential for existing arrangements to be exploited, rather than risks specific to any one type of organisation. Our reforms are designed to address those system-wide vulnerabilities, but we are continuing to think about the issues around think tanks.
We heard many points about the consolidation of electoral law. I understand the issue, particularly after listening—not in the Chamber—to my noble friend Lord Shamash setting out how broad the spectrum of electoral law is. We also heard comments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans, Lord Jamieson, Lord Fuller, Lord Norton, Lord Shamash and Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. We understand the calls for consolidation of electoral law. Of course, major reform would take very careful consideration and an extensive amount of time. The Government’s immediate priority is the implementation of our manifesto commitment. A full-scale consolidation and simplification would need an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation, which would be the job of more than one Parliament to achieve.
The Government have an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including giving 16 and 17 year-olds the right to vote and strengthening the rules around donations. We are focused on delivering that agenda via the Bill. However, we are cognisant of the challenges facing election teams. As the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said, we are taking a tiny step towards consolidation with the forms issue, and we will continue to look at areas that can help modernise and improve the electoral process and delivery.
We heard many comments—some formulated as questions—on young people voting at 16 and 17, and rightly so. There is a lot of support for this around the Chamber, although I appreciate that it is not universal. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, asked us to look at the Australian preparation for elections. I am very happy to look wherever we can for information about that. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Brady, meant to say that voting can damage our health. I do not know whether that is a new Tory strapline, but I do not think we will be picking that one up.
The noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, spoke about votes at 16 improving voter turnout in Scotland. The noble Baronesses, Lady Leaman, Lady Foster, and Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke about voting at 16 and 17, as did many other Peers. The important question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to be able to vote, and our Government are clear that the answer to that question is yes. Sixteen is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right. Extending the vote will allow 16 and 17 year-olds to have a say in the government who shape their future and set them up for lifelong engagement in democracy. Sixteen and 17 year-olds have views that deserve to be represented, as my 16 year-old grandson is always telling me. As we have heard from the experiences in Scotland, engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, tried to press me on scientific evidence in favour of 16 and 17 year-olds not being able to vote. I say to the noble Lord that 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.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Bailey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall, Lady Prashar, Lady Thornhill, and Lady Deech, asked the very important question about the steps being taken to support young people’s voter education, which goes right to the heart of the previous question. My noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Watson referred to the APPG’s work on citizenship education, which I commend. We want to break down barriers and drive participation. We know that education and engagement are a crucial part of implementing this policy. It is vital that young people understand and value democratic processes and feel they are relevant to them. We want to ensure that democracy education reinforces the importance and value of participating and inspires greater democratic engagement, and we want that to start at 16 and continue into adulthood. We are working with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments and civil society to consider what additional measures we can take to support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical voter and civic education, and our colleagues in the Department for Education are looking at this in terms of curriculum.
There were some important questions about addressing online abuse, particularly abuse targeted at female politicians and candidates. We all need to address online abuse as a matter of urgency. The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned this: the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned in particular Ann Widdecombe. We have had a number of attacks on elected politicians that make us focus our minds again, but hundreds of other attacks go on around the country. This is a top priority.
The Online Safety Act placed a legal requirement on all tech platforms to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls. This includes harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography, and intimate image abuse. We have implemented the new measures in the Online Safety Act and, going further still, we have criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes—building on existing offences—criminalising sharing or threatening to share such content. We have made this offence a priority under the Online Safety Act. We need to continue our efforts in that regard to make sure that this does not have a place in our political dialogue.
There were some questions around AI-generated misinformation and disinformation. Illegal AI-generated content is already regulated under the Online Safety Act, as I said. A range of legislative offences apply to deepfakes and misinformation and disinformation in this context, including the false communications offence, which makes it illegal to knowingly spread false information with intent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm.
I have a number of comments on bank cards and whether they undermine the security of the policy. Our understanding is that the policy will remain secure and that this use of bank cards does not undermine it. We are limiting the policy so that only cards from UK-regulated issuers can be used. That is because the UK is recognised having one of the strongest systems in the world for stopping money laundering and terrorist financing, so this safeguard will ensure a high level of security. We are also limiting the policy to cards that have a visible expiration date and require that this date has not elapsed. As bank cards are a non-photographic form of ID, it makes sense that they need to be in date to maintain security and integrity. Although bank cards do not bear photographs, we believe that this is a sufficient and appropriate level of security. The change will ensure that more legitimate electors are able to meet the voter ID requirements and will not be denied their right to vote.
The last thing I will have time to cover is the national commission on electoral reform, which a number of noble Lords asked about. I understand the push for that. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people. The Prime Minister has been clear on his commitment to bring about a new voting system and he welcomes a national debate about this. But this Bill is not the place to legislate for that debate. We have to get these measures over the line for our 16 and 17 year-olds to vote at the next election and to curb foreign influence in our democracy. Our Prime Minister is open to different ways of having a debate about how we can better include everyone’s vote and voice, and we will set out a path on that in due course. I look forward to those discussions.
I did not think I would be able to respond to all the points that were made, and I did not. I will respond to noble Lords in writing where I have not got to them. This Bill is a significant and necessary step in renewing the foundations of our democracy. Of course the Government recognise that this House will rightly wish to probe these matters in detail. We will continue to engage constructively as the Bill progresses, and I look forward to the further scrutiny and debate that will follow in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand mentioned our Prime Minister’s wish for a national conversation about democracy. As I said, I welcome that and look forward to it. But the principle is clear: our democracy works best when it is trusted, secure and open to all those entitled to take part. That is what this Bill seeks to achieve, and it is in that spirit that I commend this Bill to the House.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 7 to 19, Schedule 2, Clauses 20 to 49, Schedule 3, Clauses 50 to 53, Schedule 4, Clause 54, Schedule 5, Clauses 55 and 56, Schedule 6, Clauses 57 and 58, Schedule 7, Clauses 59 and 60, Schedule 8, Clause 61, Schedules 9 and 10, Clause 62, Schedules 11 and 12, Clause 63, Schedule 13, Clauses 64 and 65, Schedule 14, Clauses 66 to 69, Schedule 15, Clauses 70 to 74, Schedule 16, Clause 75, Schedule 17, Clauses 76 to 91, Title.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, conscious of the time, I will very briefly say only that I fully agree with both noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Hayward. Were what is being proposed what we were used to having, we would think, of course, it is completely obvious that we would never abolish the provision of such straightforward information that would help us do our job better, so I very much commend the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment that my noble friend has tabled seeks information on the amendments debated in the Commons, so I thought it would be helpful to the House if I set out the scrutiny that the Bill had in the House of Commons.
The Bill had its Second Reading in the House of Commons on Monday 2 March. The House of Commons then ordered that the Bill should be committed to a Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee itself decided on its sitting pattern. The Committee completed its scrutiny in nine sittings over five days. As usual, all clauses and schedules were considered, as were all proposed amendments and new clauses that were selected by the chair. Report took place on Wednesday 2 September. The House of Commons ordered that consideration should conclude no later than five hours after it commenced. All proposed amendments and new clauses selected by the chair were considered.
I have no doubt that noble Lords will add to the work of the Commons with their usual high-quality scrutiny. There will, I am sure, be time to debate all the issues that noble Lords raised in detail as the Bill progresses through the House.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend, but let us get this absolutely clear: the Committee in the Commons did not discuss the stuff that was dumped in the Bill after the programme Motion on Report. The Committee did not know about it. The reality is—noble Lords can read Commons Hansard; it is there for them to read—that 15 new clauses and six schedules, occupying 72 columns of Hansard, were approved on the nod. They were not discussed. What is more, they were all government amendments, because the programme Motion means that only the government ones are passed on the nod: the ones in the names of opposition or individual Members disappear.
The programme Motion is designed to secure the Government’s business, and quite right too. I was there at the beginning, in 1997, when we introduced the idea of guillotining every Bill, but it has got out of hand because they are too close, too tight. More Bills are being pushed through, and we are now ending up with unscrutinised legislation, and that is not good legislation. I beg leave to withdraw.
Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL]
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage ExcerptsFriday 11th September 2026
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] 2026-27 View all Local Plans (Burial Space) Bill [HL] 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, for managing this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House, and all noble Lords who have contributed so constructively. How we bury our dead is a hugely important issue, but one which is too often overlooked or which people feel uncomfortable talking about. It should not be so.
Edmund Burke said that society is a partnership of the dead, the living and the unborn. It is only right that we can lay our loved ones to rest with dignity, and therefore right that local authorities make the necessary provisions for burial space. Just last month, it was reported that 17 local authorities in London will run out of space by 2040, and Camden, Hackney and Tower Hamlets already have. So, as the noble Lord says, there is a need for this timely Bill, which promises to address a gap in our planning framework to ensure that these issues are addressed. We look forward to its progress in the other place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, for bringing this very important matter to us through this timely Private Member’s Bill, which helpfully coincided with the publication of a new National Planning Policy Framework. It remains the Government’s position that local matters, such as burial space, are best addressed in local plans rather than legislation, so that local planning authorities retain the flexibility to respond to the particular circumstances of their areas and the needs of their local communities. I appreciate the comments from my noble friend Lord Stansgate on this.
Some of the events we heard about the other day in the Chamber—genuinely shocking events that took place—highlighted that this is an issue where, although local authorities play a key part, there may be further work that government can do in terms of regulation and so on. I echo the thoughts expressed in the Chamber to the families of those affected by that recent scandal.
The National Planning Policy Framework sets the policy expectations for what should be considered in local plans and in decision-making. I am pleased to update the House that the new National Planning Policy Framework was published on 17 August. The definition of “community facilities” in the NPPF has been updated explicitly to include cemeteries and burial grounds, in recognition of concerns raised that these local assets have not been sufficiently recognised in national planning policy. This means that all relevant policies in the NPPF relating to community facilities also apply to cemeteries and burial grounds. This includes that development plans should be informed by an understanding of any existing deficits and additional requirements expected in the availability of community facilities and, where appropriate, should allocate land specifically for community facilities. That applies to local authorities in London as well, of course.
I hope that the recent changes made to the NPPF provide reassurance to the noble Lord that the concerns he has raised have been carefully considered. They were extremely important and are now reflected more clearly in national planning policy.