Representation of the People Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendments 41 and 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. These amendments arguably ought to have been in the previous group, because they raise very similar questions. For reasons of time, I will not run equal and opposite arguments to the ones I just ran in the other group, but I want to make two points.

First, the effect of Amendments 41 and 42 would be once again to extend the franchise beyond citizens, but in a different way. Once you do that, you lose a firm grounding for the principle you are trying to apply. In this case, it would extend the franchise to anyone with EU settled status or anybody with indefinite leave to enter or remain, which is something that can be changed quite quickly. As we have seen this week, it is relatively easy to change ILR conditions. If these amendments ever came into force, you could have two citizens identical in every respect except that one was a care worker and one was not. Under the proposals announced this week, one would get the right to vote five years earlier than the other. I use that example to show how fluid the electorate can become if they are not soundly grounded on the objective fact of citizenship.

The other point that I want to make that is relevant here is one that my noble friend Lord Jackson made in the previous group. He alluded to the fact that residents do not necessarily have the same interests as citizens; they are not completely substitutable—citizenship means something. In local elections, that may be less so, but with national-level issues, it seems reasonable to think that residents will have different interests on certain important questions—on trade policy, trade links, visas and travel, for instance, or even on defence policy, and which country we choose to be allied with. Those are questions that citizenship and a commitment to a country affect. Of course, constitutional issues are the last one; the sense of legitimacy about a vote on the constitutional future of the country, or an aspect of it, really depends on whether you are legally committed to that country or merely living here. If we extend that situation and make it even more disconnected from citizenship than it already is, we risk undermining the legitimacy of some really quite important votes, because people can see that residents from the EU or elsewhere do not necessarily have the same interests and views as citizens. For those reasons, to come back to the point that I made earlier, citizenship is the only safe basis, and any attempt to extend it for any less satisfactory criterion is inevitably going to work out less well.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I shall comment briefly on one or two aspects of the debate. I first make the observation that I have a group of clause stand part debates later on, and it was my error that probably caused the officials serious concern when briefing the Minister as to why I wanted to have stand part debates on Clauses 18, 19 and 20 but had not included Clause 17. I shall leave that aside.

I have two other observations. One is in relation to the comments and amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I have strong sympathy with her on the size of local government wards and the burdens imposed on some councillors in some parts of the country and not imposed on others. There appears to be no logic behind the position that we have from the size of one council or another. I could understand it if one was talking about large geographical areas—that is a perfectly good reason for saying that a councillor has difficulty in serving an area. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, referred to Kirklees; there are other metropolitan authorities where the number of voters per councillor is substantially less than in places such as Kirklees and Birmingham—the noble Baroness cited London. There is no logic to that whatever.

I shall not go on to the question of parliamentary boundaries, because I referred to it during a debate earlier. I merely make two other observations. One is that Clause 17, in new Section 12A(1)(c), refers to

“the person appears to the officer to be of voting age”.

I am not sure that I am happy with that phraseology. Equally, my noble friend Lord Jackson referred in passing to Christchurch, and I am not happy about that reference either, although the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because of his experience in winning the by-election that crushed my candidacy, would probably get more pleasure out of the reference than I did.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, I was about to say that I would pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, finished, but I shall skip over Christchurch and come to the points that my noble friend Lady Pinnock made about her amendment. There is one important knock-on factor that has not yet been raised in this debate. The age profile of the population varies significantly across the country and hence varies between parliamentary constituencies and councils, but it also varies significantly within many councils. There are in many councils areas of, on average, much older population and, on average, much younger population. Therefore, it is very plausible that the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds will have a very unequal effect on different council wards around the country as to the electorate in those wards. Hence there is a knock-on effect on councillor workload, the ability of voters to get a good service from their councillor and that fundamental democratic principle of trying to give everybody an equal vote. There is also a knock-on in terms of, for example, the work of the ongoing local government boundary reviews, which needs to be tied into giving 16 and 17 year-olds the vote. I hope that we will be able to hear from the Minister what thought has been given to how that process will be properly integrated with the potential knock-ons from this Bill.

In turning to some of the other amendments in this group, I simply observe that Amendment 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, would be an excellent amendment to a Bill that introduced democratic elections to this place, and I hope that we have a chance to debate such a Bill in the near future.

On Amendment 45 from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, I simply observe that there are some datasets in which EU citizens and Commonwealth citizens absolutely are present, which may turn out to be usable depending on how the automatic voter registration pilots continue to play out. I would not quite describe that group of people as completely unmoored from the data that is available.

I perhaps slightly pre-empt Amendment 55 from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, because I think there is a useful point to highlight here. I can understand why that amendment seeks in particular to prioritise providing information in writing. It certainly was the case in the past that being written to was a gold-standard form of communication that, rightly, was often prioritised: if something was legally important, it had to be in writing. It is, however, reasonable to say that we have moved on quite a long way from that, and for two reasons. The first is, sadly, the decline in the reliability of postal delivery services, whether it is Royal Mail or alternative delivery mechanisms. Saying that you are sending a letter to somebody does not have the same guarantee that it used to. Secondly, conversely, people receive information in a wide variety of other ways now. I take the example of HMRC. Every time I log in to its website, to do my tax return or to check things, HMRC is keen to encourage me to switch to having legally required notices about any tax return I might have to do sent to me electronically in future. Many people choose that. I happen to find it more convenient to have those notices sent to me the old-fashioned way so that I can scribble on them and so on, so I have not opted in yet, although I am sure that the incessant notifications will wear me down at some point. That illustrates why it is important to have a range of options available for providing information. Embedding in legislation that it must be in writing is not necessarily the best course. It is a regular feature of secondary legislation at the moment. It is something for which I think the Government should be given credit that we regularly see SIs come to this place that require legal notification to be given in some way and the Government put in quite modern wording that provides flexibility to use modern forms of communication, where appropriate.

Finally, on the right to vote, the split of amendments between this group and the previous group illustrates the point that I made earlier that there is an issue that may be worth looking at, but it should be looked at in the round, as a whole. There is a risk that, if we always single out particular groups of people who we are worried might get registered when they should not be, or who we think maybe should not have the vote, it can give the impression of being unduly fearful of, or uncomfortable with, those groups if we are not at the same time looking at the full, rounded picture. That is much the better way to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hayward]

40: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of cost of duties to raise awareness and provide assistanceWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the costs to local authorities of the duties in sections 15 and 16 (duties to raise awareness and provide assistance).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the estimates in the impact assessment of the Bill of the national costs of its provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is essentially about the operation of the impact assessment and the way in which it looks at costs in general. I have chosen one particular example, but I will come back with more detail about one or two other elements of the impact assessment overall.

Before I do so, I make a broad observation that I am interested in the inclusion of Clauses 15 and 16, which put in an obligation to educate in relation to 16 and 17 year-olds. When we pass legislation in relation to obligations imposed on teachers, doctors or large numbers of other groups, there are no similar clauses in legislation. I do not know whether it is going to be a new development that each time we pass a Bill, we finish up introducing a clause that says there must be an education of farmers, seagoers or whatever it may happen to be. I call into question whether these two clauses should actually be in the Bill.

My other observation is in relation to impact assessments in general. They started several decades ago. The original intention of impact assessments, as I understand it—I have looked back—was to look at the burdens imposed on particular groups. That was all they were intended to do. I say that as somebody who was for a period the chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association and had to deal with the changes associated with the Licensing Act. Impact assessments nowadays seem not only a question of an assessment of costs and burdens but—and I say this in particular in relation to this impact assessment—a justification of every decision that has been taken. It is quite striking: you read paragraphs that explain why the Government have taken a decision in relation to whatever it may happen to be. That certainly was never the aim of the impact assessment.

Coming on to my major concern, I pray in aid the impact assessment that went with the Football Governance Bill. Only a few weeks ago, it was identified as being out by over 100%, in 12 months. I have gone through this impact assessment and find myself in exactly the same quandary. I do not understand how many of the figures have been arrived at. I therefore ask the Minister: did the same people who drew up the impact assessment for the that Bill draw up this impact assessment, or others who have operated to the same broad rules? There are explanations of the principles that they have followed—I have read every single line of the impact assessment—but if they are following the same rules that resulted in another impact assessment being out by over 100% in 12 months, the Treasury will have quite a surprise when it discovers the actual costs of this Bill.

The chart with the assessment of costs that I want to refer to is on page 62. It relates to the costs associated with the introduction of votes for 16 and 17 year-olds. We heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller on Monday about the information that he had received on the costs for local authorities in registering new voters. The other side of the costs, which we have heard about persistently today, is the obligation to educate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Lister, the noble Lords, Lord Pack, Lord Rennard and Lord Wallace, and any number of other noble Lords have said that there needs to be much greater levels of education for this group—and there does. It is about ensuring that they are not just registered but fully aware, as has been identified on any number of occasions, of the issues on which they are ultimately being asked to vote.

I will quote one or two parts of the impact assessment. In relation to staffing costs, paragraph 122 of page 55 says:

“Extra staff may be needed to deal with the additional demand in some LAs”.


Which local authorities are not going to have the extra demand? I am talking here about both registration and education. Paragraph 160 on page 61 says:

“Wider staffing costs associated with the Votes at 16 policy have been excluded, in line with the treatment of MHCLG departmental staffing costs in this impact assessment”.


Paragraph 174 identifies a particular issue and then says:

“Therefore, this cost is not monetised”.


I do not have the IT capacity to go through the whole document and find out how many times it says that a cost is “not monetised”, but I do not have to look much further than paragraph 174; I just have to go to paragraph 178, where the phrase is used again:

“these contributions are not considered significant in cost terms and have therefore not been monetised”.

What are these costs in paragraph 174 that have not being monetised? It says:

“There is an additional resource implication arising from the collaborative development of this policy, with staff time from other government departments, principally DfE”—


which comes as no surprise, given the debates we have had—

contributing meaningfully to its design … There is also a potential impact on education staff”.

That means education staff in every single local authority across the country. Therefore, how on earth does one come back to “may” have implications for some local authorities?

There are many other examples that I could quote, but, in conclusion, I come to paragraph 166 on page 59 of the impact assessment. The Electoral Commission was asked to submit its assessment of its costs, and there is no question that it has very substantial costs. In the central scenario, these are given as £39.8 million. You might think that the Electoral Commission has certain work, but think of all these local authorities, government departments and registration officers. If the Electoral Commission has £39.8 million of extra costs, what have all the other government departments and local authorities got? The figure is given as a mere £48 million. It is almost the same as it is for the Electoral Commission. I was going to use a word that I would normally hear more on a rugby pitch than in the Chamber, but all I will say is that this impact assessment, in so many ways, is not credible. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spent as much time as my noble friend Lord Hayward going line by line through the impact assessment, but I have spent some time with text search trying to find the paragraphs that relate to the issues that have concerned me most as we have debated the Bill thus far. They are the attainers and the 16 to 18 year-olds. Because so much of it says “non-monetised”, I have made my own inquiries of one the more senior electoral registration officers in the country, who also happens to be a police area returning office, or PARO.

We have heard in the debate hitherto how many assumptions are made about what the powers may be by extending the franchise and also from auto-enrolment. There is going to be so much more hand work and so many more duplicate entries created automatically. There will be a need to de-duplicate the duplicates that have been created, for the best of reasons: that is just where the legislation is. There are so many moving parts.

I did not realise that the noble Lord was going to mention the figure of £48 million, but I want to dwell on the provisions for registering the attainers alone: those aged between 14 and 16 who the Bill proposes will come on to the register but who do not have a national insurance card or a gas bill, because their parents do that bit. They do not have a driving licence and may not have a passport. In effect they do not really exist to the state.

--- Later in debate ---

If I take £45,000 a year for the salary, on-costs—because national insurance is so much more expensive nowadays—training, computer licensing and all those other things, the registration of 14 to 15 year-olds alone will cost £90 million. That is twice the total impact assessment for all the other things put together. Then, we have automatic registration and all the assumptions. How is the electoral registration officer going to make these value judgments if there are people who are not really documented? So there is a big wedge of money there. There is so much still unknown, to be determined by secondary legislation.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I did not make reference to the question of automatic registration, but since my noble friend has encouraged me to do so, on page 101, improving registration is given as costing £5.2 million.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I think that would be characterised as the downpayment, but there we are.

So much is to be done by secondary legislation. I am not going to trespass too greatly on a future group, but when it comes to identification and bank cards, there are all sorts of unintended consequences. There are going to have to be huge changes in bank card systems if they are to be fit for purpose.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is not in her place, posited earlier that automatic registration and the duplicates may lead to more frequent boundary reviews. One thing is absolutely for sure: given the way the legislation is today, we are going to need duplicate and parallel IT systems, which will have to be reconciled, and that is going to be expensive. My focus has been on the 1.4 million attainers, but there are a further 1.4 million 16 to 18 year-olds, many of whom will also not have the documentary evidence.

I know that democracy has a cost. We live in a free society, and that costs money. But what we have not worked out are the costs in this impact assessment. The figure the noble Lord has referred to is just a downpayment; it is a drop in the ocean. Chances are, it is probably four times greater than that, and we should be told.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Does my noble friend at least concede that this is not a prescriptive amendment but rather a probing amendment? Clause 4 allows electoral returning officers to disregard the obligation in emergencies or specific circumstances. It is not a draconian amendment forcing every ERO to do the same.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I broadly support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s comments. Although I understand my noble friend Lord Jackson’s intervention, the key factor that one has to look at here, to which my noble friend Lord Fuller referred in passing, is the sheer number of parties that now operate on a regular basis in multi-member wards. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Pack. As a fellow pedant, I would be quite happy if he wishes to correct me, but if one looks back to the 2022 elections, I think there were only three wards in the whole of England that delivered three councillors from three different parties or independent parties. In 2026, there were three wards in Bradford alone that delivered three members from three different parties, let alone the rest of the country. I see the noble Lord nodding, so I feel reassured that I have been pedantic and accurate enough. That makes my point, which is that the probability for recounts has risen dramatically in the current political circumstances. Whether that continues is another matter, but we really should allow the EROs and local councils the capacity to decide, and decide sensibly, how they conduct the counts, so that there are not errors. At the moment, it is remarkable that there are relatively few errors in local government elections, even where there are recounts that have taken place many hours after the count has started, let alone when election day has begun, which is of course many hours before that.

Having said that in disagreement with my noble friend Lord Jackson on his amendment, it is important that I pick up on one or two other matters that he raised with which I agree. In our adjourned debate, he said that the objective of his amendment was to “to restore voters’ confidence” in the electoral process. That is key in everything that we do daily. In the complexity in which we now operate in this country, it is staggering that there are not more errors—I refer here to the Electoral Commission’s report on the elections in May which identified very few genuine errors—but it is still important that everything we do in this Bill should be aimed at ensuring or restoring, depending on which is necessary, public confidence in the electoral process. We should consider both public confidence and the candidates’ confidence.

My noble friend referred to amendments relating to influencing voters through religious messaging, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is not in her place, gave strong support. I note that my noble friend Lord Pickles is in his place. He did a thorough report on a whole range of electoral issues, and this was addressed in the 2022 legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, is in his place, and he has an amendment. Unfortunately, he was not here previously—these things happen—but I hope I am going down the path that he would have gone down, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, went down, in saying that there are clearly issues that need to be addressed and kept under consideration, and therefore they have to be reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that we are operating sensibly.

My apologies for the slight interruption, but I am going to have to rest on a crutch for the rest of my contribution.

I draw attention to the other comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made in relation to intimidation and crowds outside polling stations, which do nothing for confidence in the electoral process. I shall be returning to this issue later with my amendment on polling, issuing accreditation to tellers and the like, and the process of policing outside polling stations, but I just identify my support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to. I do not know how many Members of this place are aware that in the most recent parliamentary by-election, Holborn and St Pancras, there were so many crowds outside one polling station that the presiding officer asked for those people to be moved. In the end, the agent of the Green Party had to come down and tell the people to move because they were—in effect, being realistic—intimidating voters outside the polling station. This is a matter to which I shall return later, but I hope I have covered adequately at this stage the different issues that are raised by the amendments that we are considering in this group.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I beg the indulgence of the Committee to conclude my remarks on Amendment 129, which I had to curtail because of time on Monday. I want to refer to what my noble friend Lord Hayward said. I was very grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about her lived experience in Watford in support of my amendment on undue influence.

Following the Pickles report—I am delighted that my noble friend is in his place—steps were taken in the Elections Act 2022 to strengthen the provision by “adding undue spiritual pressure”. The Electoral Commission’s review noted that

“unacceptable activity which many people consider electoral fraud—including pressure and intimidation both in the home and outside polling stations”,

which my noble friend Lord Hayward referred to,

“—may not be reported by victims”.

This is a valuable provision in law. It is important that it is regularly reviewed by Ministers to ensure that it is upheld properly and is up to date with the challenges of the UK’s changing demographic and religious landscape. Without regular reviews and monitoring, such provisions risk stagnating or becoming subtly and consistently subverted. The law means nothing if it is not enforced. The Pickles review and recent legislative changes reflect the importance of the provision for the UK’s electoral integrity. It is vital that it is not diminished.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I especially look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, who I know was not present on Monday, which was commented on from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am sure he will explain that there was a perfectly good reason. His Amendment 136 and my Amendment 129 are very similar. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I want to explain why and bring one element into this debate that we have not had so far, which is the voters and how they perceive the electoral process in local elections. It is quite a recent development that counts have drifted into the next day—really only since the late 2000s in local elections. We seemed to manage the situation perfectly well before that. Certainly, elections have got more complicated since then, as many noble Lords have noted. Nevertheless, we seemed to do it, and it is not an inherently implausible suggestion that we might be able to do it again.

In UK elections there is a sense of drama, and that sense of drama is important: the idea that something significant is changing as a result of the ballot. The drama of democracy is quite important. That is more true at general elections, but it is something we should not lose in local elections, which have, in many ways, just as big an effect on people’s lives as general elections.

On Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said:

“The main beneficiaries of immediate counts are not the voters”


but

“the campaigners, candidates and commentators”.—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1452.]

That struck me as an interesting comment, because I am not sure I entirely agree with it. Speaking as somebody who has seen elections on TV and listened on the radio far more than I have actually participated in them, one of the things that has struck me with our longer counting process is that it allows much more opportunity for political parties, the party leadership and party-aligned commentators to spin the results. Long before we know what the actual results of a whole period of local elections are, we have media comment on them. We have party spokesmen telling us how to interpret the results long before we know what the actual results are.

One or two councils take on exaggerated significance because they come relatively early in the sequence and shape the narrative, and that suits political parties. I am not making a party-political point; I think it is true of all parties. It blurs what is important. It allows scope for commentary and spin, and the actual results of the process take longer to come out. By the time we know the results, what is more important is the nature of the commentary. So, there is an issue here. I am happy to give way.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My noble friend has not addressed the issue of the extra matters on which we now give local voters the opportunity to vote. He referred to 2000, but in the previous Conservative Government and before that, we introduced things such as environmental neighbourhood referenda, mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. I am not going to delay the House by listing them all, but that is one of the reasons why, as was identified, you finish up with people being asked to vote on three, four or five different decisions on one day.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her very generous comments at the start of her contribution. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I omitted to observe that, when reviews of pilots take place, cost should be considered. If one is taking trials over a period of days, there are all sorts of attendant costs in addition to the question of whether the system worked.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hayward]

13: Clause 7, page 10, line 23, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Hayward, seek to allow for a debate on the complexity of electoral law as affected by this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that I can please the Government Whip by indicating that, although I tabled a few amendments in relation to one particular aspect of this group, I could have tabled dozens of amendments on this subject. The subject was possibly best described by someone whom one might describe as a half-Irish lyricist who was brought up in inner south London. Four years ago, when he spoke to this Chamber, he said:

“I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister, they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1709.]

That half-Irish lyricist from just south of the river is, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who made an observation on the Ballot Secrecy Bill. I gave him notice that I intended to quote from his speech on that occasion.

As noble Lords can see, the one amendment I have tabled to Clause 7, Amendment 13, runs to a whole page. We have to look at a string of legislation, much of which was introduced by my Government and previous Governments. It has been a clear fact for years that our electoral law is a complete mess and is in desperate need of consolidation into one Act. Page after page of this Bill just refers to one piece of legislation or another. I could understand it if it was dealing, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, referred to on Monday, with devolved powers and therefore devolved legislation, but in far too many instances that is not the case. We have what I would best describe as a complete cacophony of electoral law.

If we think this is a mess, just imagine the sets of circumstances under which the returning officers have to operate. Whereas we can spread out our discussions on electoral law over a number of days, the returning officers are operating, particularly when they do not have notice of an election—for example, a general election—under extreme pressure. It really is astonishing that we have so few cases of an error being made in one form or another. Just think of what we will be coming on to talk about, whether it is postal votes, entitlement to vote from abroad, or registration of votes. Whatever it may happen to be, the poor returning officers are looking at this on an hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis. It is truly astonishing that we do not get petitions asking that matters do not go to the elections court and challenging the result in one form or another. I have paid credit to returning officers previously, but I will do so again on this occasion. As I say, there are many amendments that I could have put down here, but I chose not to.

On the other broad category of amendments, this is where we have a serious problem. I ask the Minister clearly to identify when she replies why on earth we need all these amendments saying that, instead of a registration officer we have a senior registration officer, or that we have to ensure that councils call in every possible officer to administer the elections. I will come back to that point in a minute.

We are talking here about devolution. One of the great mantras of this Government is that we must devolve power. The Prime Minister went to Lanarkshire the other week to tell the Scots that they are not devolving powers enough. The Minister herself, earlier this week, said:

“As we extend the devolution programme, this Government have made it very clear that we think that it should be people with skin in the game in their local area who take the key decisions about those areas. It is perfectly right that each of the Governments around the UK are free to do what they feel is right”.—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1407.]


If we are devolving powers to local councils, how is it that clause after clause tells local councils what role and status the registration officer should hold within a local council? Birmingham City Council’s chief executive is paid £300,000 a year. Surely, he knows better than the Minister and officials in Whitehall who should be deputed to handle what aspect of elections. It is true throughout the land that we have highly paid chief executive officers, one after another; yet Whitehall seems to think it knows best how an election should be administered. I could understand it if a whole series of elections had gone wrong—but I refer again to the Electoral Commission’s report on general elections. There is not one reference to a general election going wrong; in local elections, there are one or two very minor exceptions. I genuinely believe that this is Whitehall dictating utterly unnecessarily to local councils who should handle what.

The bit of the Bill that astonishes me most is the clause stating that a council should require all its officers, whatever they may happen to be—this is implicit in the phrasing of the Bill—to be called on to administer elections. Are we going to insert in an education Bill that every employee of a council should be called on to help with education; or that every employee should be called on to help with environmental matters or hygiene matters, or whatever it may happen to be? There is no justification for this, given that we do not have a failed electoral system; we have an extremely challenging one, but we do not have a failed one. I see no reason whatever why there is a series of clauses in the Bill suggesting that Whitehall knows best.

In conclusion, I referred to the Prime Minister going to Lanarkshire to deliver his message on devolution. He should go to Marsham Street and deliver the same message in relation to this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Shamash (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Hayward. I woke up this morning thinking that I would love to quote Martin Luther King—that I had a dream. I will give a tiny bit of history. The Representation of the People Act 1983 is the core legislation that everything has sprung from. It was 18 years from 1983 to the creation in 2001 of the Electoral Commission, in which I, and maybe others here, was involved. It is now 43 years since the 1983 Act came into being, and there have been repeated amendments and additions: the Electoral Administration Act, the Elections Act, and so on. We are getting to the point where, to move election law, you need a pick-up truck. It is completely crackers that we are in this situation.

The most important thing, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hayward, is consolidation. I have discussed the possibility of that with others, including my noble friend the Minister, and it is a major undertaking. But there is a new kid on the block, and that is AI. We must get to a situation where we can do this, because it is impossible to operate. I should have declared my interest as a former election lawyer to the Labour Party for many years. Having to deal with this legislation is very difficult, and you can miss things out very easily. My plea to the Minister is to take this idea away to the officials, so that my dream can actually come true and we can have a bit of consolidation in this Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

I must say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, produced in passing a wonderful image of the average adult voter conducting independent research on political issues. I am not sure that I have met too many voters while canvassing who have been conducting independent research in detail themselves. Let us not overemphasise how wonderful our electorate is. However, the purpose of the Bill is to encourage the practice and habit of voting as a lifetime exercise for the young, to strengthen the voice of younger generations in our ageing society and to build a more active democracy, and for all those reasons we on these Benches support it.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I touch on one or two other things, I just say to my noble friend—I do refer to him as my noble friend—Lord Wallace that I think he meant “residents” rather than “inmates” when he was referring to care homes.

I do not intend to cover ground which has been covered by a large number of other people, but my noble friend Lord Wallace also touched on the question of changing the franchise. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is not in her place at the moment, but my noble friend was absolutely clear about the historical analogies. I was one of the people who fell within that range of the 1969-70 Act in terms of implementation, and there was no question about it: it was not broadly supported by the Conservative Party because it thought it would benefit from it, and I have a very clear recollection because I fell within that age group.

One or two important issues have been touched on, one of which is Northern Ireland. I have every sympathy with noble colleagues from different Benches who have referred to the implications of what is not an equality of power of vote, and that needs to be carefully considered. However, I was also impressed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about a category of people that is very small but which needs to be looked at incredibly carefully. A very close friend of mine is deeply involved in that community, and we have to remember that 40% of all the adult inmates in prison in this country come from care homes. It is a difficult task to deal with, and we therefore need to address the sorts of issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised.

I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, made, that this was in the manifesto. However, the trouble with the Bill is that very little else was in the manifesto. I have said to both the current Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, that the Bill would be far better if the Government stuck to those parts of the legislation which appeared in the manifesto, rather than spending their time adding amendment after amendment and curtailing debate both in this House and the other House. If the Government came back with a Bill that dealt solely with manifesto matters, this House would have a far more coherent debate, and it would be logical and appropriate if it were considered on all sides on that basis.

I do not favour 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote. I could have cited many other examples of contradictions in our legislation, but they have been made over and over again, with the summary message being that what we are doing in the vast majority of cases is raising the age at which people should act in a certain way, whatever that action may happen to be.

In conclusion, I just make the observation that I am a former chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association, and I will be quite happy to explain to my colleagues, who seem to think that 17 year-olds are not allowed to drink in pubs, that they are. However, that is for another date.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, cheers to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said moments ago that we have been debating franchise extensions for 200 years. As one of the last speakers in a two-hour debate, I begin to know what that feels like.

I support a number of amendments in this group, but mainly Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Perhaps I come at this from a different point of view, and perhaps I am a lone voice on this side, in that I support the Government in lowering the voting age, and I congratulate them genuinely on doing this. However, like many others, both noble Baronesses have highlighted many inconsistencies, and I think the phrase “It’s a bit of a muddle” seems to be correct.

I wish to refer to an inconsistency that I think has not been mentioned, and which I have raised before in Home Office Questions: criminal sentencing and our differentiating between adult and juvenile at 18. I know that this is incredibly complex, as is always the case in the legalities involved in international agreements, but a recent horrific case—which I questioned the Minister about at the time—highlighted, at least to me, why we should look at whether the balance will now be right. Personally, I think it needs to change.

I say that because, if we ought to lower the voting age—and I think we should—with that right has to come a sense of responsibility; and with that right, I would argue, your role in society changes. We should properly and carefully go through these issues. It is not just a right-wing thing to say that; in fact, it is not a right-wing thing to say that. President John F Kennedy best communicated it when he said:

“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”.


I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, who was in his place earlier, for his Private Member’s Bill, which referred to citizenship lessons for younger people.

I do not want to stray too much into what I think is covered in group six, but I want to refer to an issue that is dealt with in some amendments in this group, and which has been touched on already. My fear is that in lowering the voting age, we are implying that we have simply achieved our aims overnight without debating what it means: how to build national unity and to allow for some political discourse, and what being a citizen in modern Britain means. What are your rights and your responsibilities, and how can you play your part in our country?

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on Amendment 20 are valid too. Looking at the issues associated with social media should not be scorned by anyone. I am the proud father of two very young daughters, and, trust me, when I put them to bed every night, there is a growing list of things in my head that they will face as they grow up in Britain, and which fills me with fear. However, we should consider what it means for young people to be engaged and receive this information, and how it happens.

I repeat that I support the Government, and my concern is not with the principle but with the insinuation that we are treating votes at 16 as an end in itself. As a few people have said, the Bill will pass and we will feel able to congratulate ourselves and say, “Job’s a good ’un. Mission accomplished. Let’s move on”, saying nothing about some of the things that many people really want fixed and want the Government to get on and support. If we genuinely want to strengthen democratic participation, lowering the voting age should be accompanied by an understanding of what citizenship is and what playing a part in our free, liberal, democratic society means and entails. There should be greater clarity to help make the system work—a system which engenders active, proud and patriotic citizenship. Otherwise, my fear is that we risk making a constitutional change without addressing the reasons for making it, and, arguably, undermining it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I support my noble friend’s amendments. I think they are sensible. They do not resile from support for the concept of devolution, but they try to bring some coherence and commonality to our electoral systems in this country. That would be good, because people would then understand what they are voting for and would be more likely to vote and exercise their franchise. It seems common sense and sensible so to do. On that basis, I strongly support the amendment.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

This is not intended to undermine the coherence of my noble friend’s overall argument, but, as a pedant alert, my noble friend said that the 50 states of the United States operate on the same electoral system. They do not. There are differences between a host of different states, in one form or another.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I bow to my noble friend’s greater knowledge. I was referring to national ballots. I understand that for rat-catcher, county sheriff and other roles there will be local differences, but, for the election of, for instance, a governor or members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, they are generally the same.

Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Grand Committee

This is a modest, practical and proportionate reform. It will support responsible businesses and community activity while preserving the protections contained in the Licensing Act 2003. I beg to move.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I was chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association when the Licensing Act 2003 was passed. I spent many—I shall not say “happy”—hours debating TENs, and every other aspect of the then Licensing Bill. I should make clear that I have no specific link now with the industry, although obviously I retain many contacts; I am therefore speaking as an individual rather than as somebody with a direct association with the industry.

I agree completely with what the Minister said in his introductory comments. The hospitality industry is facing massive difficulties at the moment for a whole series of reasons, with pubs closing at a depressing rate. In fact, it not only affects pubs but restaurants as well. As the Minister said, when it comes to TENs, we are talking about responsibly run premises and taking a decision in relation to previous experience. I noted that, in the analysis provided, certain sectors had objected —the health authorities, for example—but their comments relate, I am sure, not to this group of businesses because, as the Minister has said quite specifically, the police and other organisations still retain their capacity to object, whether it is to the existing lower level of TENs or the proposed increased level.

In general, it is fair to say that what happens is that pubs or restaurants will chart the events that they will want to celebrate on special occasions. They will look at football World Cups, rugby World Cups and other major events and they will probably reach the limit. Therefore, a degree of flexibility is sensible. I can only imagine, as one is progressing towards the end of the calendar year, that, in light of Fleetwood’s great success last night in beating Arsenal, there may be a number of pubs and restaurants in Fleetwood that happen to be up against their TENs limit and may want to have another celebration this weekend—and many congratulations to Fleetwood.

So, overall, I welcome this proposal, having experienced the detail of the original Licensing Act and, as the Minister suggested, I think it is a sensible change to the current regime.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I am allowed to address a few remarks and questions to the Minister from this far away. I very much welcome the order. I was delighted to serve on the committee with my noble friend when we looked at the review of the Licensing Act 2003.

A number of concerns have been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I should welcome the opportunity to press the Minister. In particular, is there any reason why the changes have been made at this late stage? Is it just administrative? Obviously, it is good that they going to be in place before matches take place, but it is a source of concern that, with any changes made, there is sufficient consultation with the licensed premises and the police in that regard. Has the Home Office considered whether a minimum notice period for the police might assist their planning and thereby reduce public safety risks? This approach may at the same time also help licensed venues themselves, for example in planning their staffing.

There is nothing too critical in what I am saying on the order, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments in regard to the timing and allowing sufficient preparation for all the parties concerned in the instrument before us.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, before I turn to the Bill, I thank the Minister for the action that she has taken in relation to another matter. I spoke on the duty of candour in relation to the Hillsborough Bill and I had been pursuing for three years the briefing given to the Minister by officials. At no stage was anybody willing to allow me to discuss it with either the Minister or officials. Within one week of me raising it on the Floor of this House, the Minister has taken the action and I have had a conversation with officials. I would like to put on record my appreciation to the Minister for the action that she has taken. Whether we agree in the end or not is another matter. I also take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her involvement with many Members of this House. In my case, she rang me yesterday for a discussion about aspects of the Bill and I greatly appreciate that.

There are two broad comments I will make about the Bill. One is, I am afraid, that it is far too long. I made the point previously that legislation on electoral law should have been consolidated years ago, and it should be consolidated now. This is a missed opportunity.

That leads me on to my second point about the general debate. I am not talking here about disagreements in relation to policy: ages of voting or whatever it may happen to be. There have been a number of contributions this afternoon where people have said, “We’ll need to change this urgently, next year or the year after”. They have come from all sides of the House. My criticism of this Bill is that it has come at the wrong time, because many aspects of donations or other matters have not been carefully enough considered to encompass the whole range of issues, whether it be donations, subscriptions, access through cryptocurrencies or the like. Those are two broad comments.

I will now touch on two questions of detail. There are elements in the Bill which, to be honest, are utterly unnecessary. They appear to have been drafted because returning officers and councils have come to disagreements, and I will, solely at this point, identify one classic case. I am referring to Clause 32(3)(a), which says

“for ‘an officer’ substitute ‘a senior officer’”.

Now, I ask your Lordships: is that an indication that officials in a council could not agree? You should knock their heads together—it should not be whole clauses in a Bill. There are other more substantial examples that I could give and will give in Committee.

The other aspect to which I think there has been virtually no reference today is the impact assessment. It is a very lengthy document. To be honest, it is a statement of every reason why you should support the Government’s decision. It does not consider alternatives. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and I will disagree on many things in relation to registration, but it does not address the alternatives which are available. It just says, “We have decided this, and this is how we are going to do it”.

Associated with that, many of the costings in the impact assessment are barely credible. I will draw attention to just two. One is on page 59. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made reference to the need to educate people and communicate well. The Electoral Commission has put its costs at £39.8 million as a central estimate on an annual basis. The rest of the national costs are supposed to be just over £40 million. Is it credible that if the Electoral Commission reckoned its costs are going to be a figure, the cost to the whole of the rest of the nation is going to be almost exactly the same figure? The reason I have doubts about that example—but I could cite any number of them because I was sad enough to spend the Summer Recess reading the impact assessment—is paragraph 174 on page 61, which says:

“There is also an additional resource implication arising from the collaborative development of this policy, with staff time from other government departments, principally DfE ... There is also a potential impact on education staff. However, these contributions are not considered significant in cost terms and have therefore not been monetised”.


Anybody who believes that they cannot be monetised and should not be monetised is stretching credibility beyond belief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke for less than a minute on Second Reading and therefore I did not have an opportunity to congratulate my noble friend Lord Macintosh of Eastwood on his very powerful maiden speech. My purpose with this amendment is exactly the same as the one on the public accountability Bill: to strengthen the role of the elected Members of the Commons. I will make a couple of general points and then come to this Bill.

In the Commons, Second Readings are all effectively guillotined. It is called the programme Motion and it affects all Bills. The effect is that the Government always want to boast about the numbers of Bills, which is done at the expense of scrutiny of Bills, so the Bills arrive in your Lordships’ House as a result of inadequate scrutiny. We end up sending more amendments back to the Commons than would otherwise be the case. Then, in the Commons, the Government—it is only one Government in both Houses—blame the extra work for elected Members in the Commons on the upper House abusing its position, leading to calls for reform. Even when we return amendments to the elected Members, they are limited in the time they can use due to the original programme Motion. My view is that elected Members need more time for scrutiny. The Government have to return to Parliament some of the power that they have taken away with the programme Motions designed to fit in more Bills rather than better Bills. Asking for a list from the Government of what they have not allowed to be scrutinised puts the buck back where it belongs.

On this Bill, on 2 September the Commons dealt with Report and Third Reading. They had five hours during which there was debate and Divisions, on which I do not comment. Then the programme Motion from 2 March took over and the Government’s 15 new clauses and six schedules occupying 72 columns of Commons Hansard were approved on the nod—no debate, no speech, no vote. One of those new schedules—in the Commons it was called Schedule 8 and it has now turned up in the Bill as Schedule 12—is 19 pages of the Bill.

We are a revising Chamber. We need to know what we are revising, because in this case you cannot identify from the Bill any of the changes passed on the nod. They are dispersed throughout the Bill and the numbers have changed. They could, for example, be italicised. We would not need a list then. The Bill would show us that these were the bits on the programme Motion passed on the nod. The only way at the moment is via Commons Hansard, which of course is a bit unsatisfactory. We should have an official list from the Government of what the Commons did not have time to scrutinise. That is what it is all about. We cannot identify in the Bill the part that we are not revising but scrutinising for the first time because nobody else has scrutinised it.

We are being taken for Charlies, as it were, because we get the blame later on. I venture to say that there will be a lot of amendments to this Bill. In a few months, when the rows start about what has been sent down there, I want the audit trail complete. In a way, that is why I have raised this amendment.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has just said. He has identified a problem. It is not new. It has evolved over a period of decades, but it is a real problem that this Chamber is facing now. I strongly support the detail outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, which we face and which the Commons has not addressed.

[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.

Voter Registration, Election Turnout and Compulsory Voting

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In terms of voting at 16, the Government intend the franchise change to be in place in good time ahead of the next general election. We were elected on a clear mandate, which included extending that right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, and that will be a major change to the electoral franchise. We need to get it right. It is not just the change to the electoral law but making sure we have the democratic and civic education process in place, and I know that my noble friend the Minister for Education is working on that as we speak. We are putting all that in place before we get to the stage where 16 and 17 year-olds will be asked to cast their vote.

On the issue of single person council tax discount, that is a matter for people’s declarations. They make a declaration to their local authority which is renewed regularly when they renew their council tax bill. They have to say consistently that they still wish to claim that single person council tax discount.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister may have been somewhat disconcerted by receiving support from my noble friend Lord Robathan. She will be even more disconcerted that she is receiving support from me as well on compulsory voting and compulsory registration. Can she confirm that she has looked carefully at the way Northern Ireland provides access to everybody to check the register? Would that not provide the opportunity for good online voter registration without the cost to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We worked very closely with the devolved Administrations as we went through this process. There were a number of pilots in Wales, for example, and we are working with our Welsh colleagues to explore what they learned from their experience. We are looking very carefully at open registers because, as we explore and adopt those more automated approaches, we want to remove the presumption that citizens will be added to an open register unless they opt out. I think it will work the other way round, in effect, once we have automated voter registration. All those issues are being explored very carefully, and we are very much looking at the experience in our devolved Administrations to learn what we can with them and from them.

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, referred to me. In opening, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Pack, said. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in his seat, since I notified him that I intended to quote him. On 15 July 2022, he said:

“I hope that, when we get a new Prime Minister”—

how perceptive—

“they will look at the whole issue of our electoral law, which desperately needs some revamping”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1709.]

I now move on to the question of implementing changes in this particular field. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has already made comments about this. I know that the Minister is an old Alleynian—a product of Dulwich College. There is another product of Dulwich College who may have a certain influence on the changes that are necessary in this field. It is because of the events that we are witnessing and the investigations that are being undertaken by the Ethics and Integrity Commission that I ask the Government: please, can we not force through amendments to the Bill now, when we may be in the position in the imminent future of having yet more changes necessary to the legislation?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am indeed a product of Dulwich College, which only goes to show that it is not the school’s fault. I am sorry to say that I am older than Nigel Farage, and I am tempted to make jokes about bins and recycling—but I will not, because the Chief Whip will tell me off. On the substantive point, we understand that there is a lot going on. These are not matters for me; they are matters for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Electoral Commission. We hear what the noble Lord says about the need not to keep double-dipping on this, so we will watch the situation carefully, but I should not comment on individual cases, as I know he understands.

Lobbying Transparency (In-house Lobbyists) Bill [HL]

Lord Hayward Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in the gap. I did not put my name down to speak because I was at a Madonna concert last night and I was not absolutely certain that I would be available. That is relevant, in that I was a guest of a major company. That company was Grindr, and the question about lobbying is relevant in terms of the actions of major companies. I noticed a number of noble Lords’ response to my presence at the gig last night; it looked like jealousy.

The important thing about this welcome Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that it raises questions about how people lobby now. We have heard a lot of contributions about how circumstances have changed, particularly concerning those people who are paid but do not, at the moment, have to declare the fact that they are actually lobbying. One of the groups that comes to mind is lawyers. Lawyers will claim client confidentiality or say that it is a peripheral interest, but if they are paid to represent a particular view or to advise in relation to a particular issue, it is appropriate that major law firms—or small law firms, for that matter—should be obliged to disclose what they are doing in the same way that others who will be affected by the noble Baroness’s Bill should be required to disclose their actions.

In conclusion, I agree with the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, raised about some of the implications of the Bill, because it is easy to pass a piece of legislation and think, “Oh, it doesn’t affect small businesses”; there has been reference to small businesses. Every bit of regulation that impacts on a small business adds to cost. Therefore, there are two ways of looking at, or exempting, certain circumstances or occasions that have been cited about private conversations and the like. One way is to ask whether they are paid to do so, and the other is some form of de minimis turnover that might apply in relation to small businesses. It is just too easy to say, “Oh, well, it’s just a little sum of money”. Lots of little sums of money can send a lot of small businesses under and we certainly would not want that to happen. But in broad principle, I welcome the Bill’s objective because it brings us up to date with where we are in terms of lobbying in 2026.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, is hoping to take part remotely, but he has been having audio problems. It appears that the problems have not been resolved, therefore I call the noble Lord, Lord Pack.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introductory comments, and I shall return to one or two of the points that she made in a moment. It is worth being honest in relation to election changes. In every party, when they make election law changes, they may hide it in one form or another, but, over their shoulder, they are looking at how they are going to benefit from any particular change, and that is worth acknowledging. In this case, the speed with which this order has been brought forward is striking. One has to ask the question: why on earth is it being brought forward at this stage, particularly because, as the Minister said, the legislation has just been passed, having received Royal Assent in April? She also went on to say that:

“Further legislation will be brought forward”


for other matters

“in due course”.

Every single debate in which I have participated on election law in the last decade has included a request to simplify the whole process of elections law, and to not make it more complicated. There has been persistent reference to the Law Commission, its original report, and further changes thereafter. What do we have here? It is an admission by the Minister that we are debating one thing this evening, but at some unspecified stage, further legislation will be brought forward. Why? The answer is quite simple: it is because the Labour Party has got itself into an almighty mess in the north-west. There is a by-election in Makerfield on Thursday, and there is the possibility of a by-election for the Greater Manchester mayoralty thereafter, at a cost—although the Government refuse to identify the actual figure—probably of around £5 million, to solve their problems. That is the first issue.

Let us be honest about this order. It is not normal to identify who would be affected by a particular change of law, but this order is an attempt to prevent Reform winning the possible Greater Manchester mayoralty by-election. It would be better titled “Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Stop Reform Winning the Greater Manchester Mayoralty) Order 2026”, because that is what it comes down to. There is no other justification for the haste with which this order has been introduced, other than that it solves the Labour Party’s problems and prevents Reform winning a mayoralty. It does not do British democracy well when the position is as blatant as that—nothing more, nothing less. Otherwise, the order could have waited until all the different changes necessary could be introduced in one go, at one time, in the near future.

I want to comment on one other element of this order, and that is the impact assessment. All changes in legislation have an impact; some are smaller than others. The Minister is right that we are reverting to a system that operated previously. Therefore, there should be relatively small changes, but they are changes none the less. It has been quite a few years since this system was introduced, and there will be many polling station officers, returning officers and people asked to administer the whole process who are new to this. A necessary set of changes will result in training courses. As the Minister identified, notices will be different and understanding will be different.

I cannot believe that when this is introduced, the Electoral Commission will not expect to provide guidance to the voters of Greater Manchester on how they will now vote, as against how they did last time. Although the costs in the impact assessment are relatively small, it is not correct to say that there will be no or virtually no cost. It is appropriate that we should be told what the cost is and what the total cost of a Greater Manchester by-election would be, as the Labour Party tries to get itself out of a mess of its own making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their considered contributions today. I first pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about the principle behind this. I think that is the most important thing; I did set it out in my introductory speech. It is that the Government believe that this is the most appropriate voting system for single executive offices where it is essential that an individual has a broad mandate. Having cleared up that point of principle, I will try to answer all noble Lords’ questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked whether the reason for delivering this change at pace was political advantage. The answer to that is, clearly, no. As I have already said, the Government were very clear during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act that we intended to make this change for mayoral and PCC elections after May 2026. There is now the potential for such an election; I will come on to more about that in a moment. We are therefore acting to deliver on our commitments made to Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, raised these issues as well—I am sorry that the charm offensive that I experienced yesterday has come to a shuddering halt, but never mind. The noble Lord referred to

“locking out the Conservatives … from power”.

They did a very good job of that themselves; I think that is clear.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked me about the cost of any by-election in Manchester. If he does not mind, I will write to him on that issue. It is paid for by the local authority and not from central taxation. However, in the general course of things, when it is not a by-election, these elections will be held anyway. Ballot papers have to be printed anyway. The count has to be held anyway. Those costs are very similar, whether the election is held under SV or under first past the post.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am very pleased indeed by her commitment to write to me. My noble friend Lord Jamieson referred to the associated costs of introducing this process. Could we possibly have both at the same time?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will have a look at whether it is possible to get that figure; I thank the noble Lord for that question.

The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Jamieson, asked me why we are changing the voting system only for two types of mayoral elections. First, to reiterate— as I think was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—these changes revert to the 2017 voting system, which was brought in by the Conservatives, and it was the Conservatives who changed it back in 2022. We are reverting to the system that the Conservatives had introduced for these single-office posts.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 received Royal Assent in April this year and the Government’s stated aim has always been that we will work at pace to deliver secondary legislation needed to implement the new law at the earliest appropriate opportunity. Of course, the Government are conscious that there is now a possible scenario in which a mayoral by-election may need to be held in Greater Manchester in the coming months, subject to the outcome of a parliamentary by-election in the Makerfield constituency on Thursday this week.

To fulfil both Parliament’s will and this Government’s stated commitment to reimplement SV, we have drafted this order at pace to ensure that the necessary legislation will be in place for this system to be utilised if that mayoral by-election takes place. To meet this deadline, the order had to be kept concise and could not include measures to amend all other types of mayoral elections. Amending all the relevant mayoral and PCC election conduct rules would also require a range of statutory instruments, as they use different parliamentary procedures. We intend to implement SV for other mayoralties and PCCs in due course through separate instruments.

Local Authorities (Changes to Years of Ordinary Elections) (England) (Revocation) Order 2026

Lord Hayward Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I want to intervene briefly by referring to the example of Suffolk. I entirely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench about these issues. I draw attention to the fact that I chair the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and support the Norfolk and Suffolk Development Forum, although I do not chair that. But for these purposes I am speaking simply as a Suffolk resident.

There we were in Suffolk, keen, certainly from my point of view, to progress the devolution priority programme for Norfolk and Suffolk. We were then told that the mayoral election for the Norfolk and Suffolk strategic authority was to be delayed. That decision has not been revoked. The decision to delay or to postpone the county council election in Suffolk has now been revoked, which means we will have county councillors, who I think were originally elected in 2001, serving all the way through to 2027—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

You mean 2021. You said 2001.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Did I? Sorry—2021, serving all the way through to 2027, maybe even to 2028 in practice, and overlapping with unitary councils that are to be established with elections taking place in May 2027.

As I think I have demonstrated through my difficulty in trying to follow all this, these are unnecessarily extremely complicated processes for trying to move devolution forward and get us to the point where we are in a strategic authority with unitary councils. The lack of pace in a Government who are always telling us everything is happening at pace seems to have led to an unnecessarily complex situation, not least for the voters and residents of Suffolk. With local government reorganisation taking place at the same time, we are going to end up paying more for the processes of managing this overburdensome democratic situation. I hope that in the context of this debate, the Government will say that they will look very hard at ensuring that they compensate local authorities and support them in managing the delays that they have occasioned.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

Briefly, I make a plea to the Minister that she takes personal oversight of all those councils where the delays may have an impact on staff’s ability to step up and do the right things for the election. Clearly, they will all bust themselves to try to make sure everything is perfect, but it will be worth the Government making sure that they take a closer interest in all of those councils and finding down the back of the magic sofa in Marsham Street some of that spare change that they have that they can bring out occasionally if it is necessary. I do not think the teams running the elections will be waving a shroud, but if they genuinely need extra resource to be able to pay extra money to recruit people that they need at short notice, or shorter notice, the Government should be prepared to provide it. Like my colleagues on the Front Bench, I have some regrets about this, but not for the same reasons that they do.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, may I pick up on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made just now on precedent? I do not think I have heard reference to precedent elsewhere, but there is no question but that there have been occasions when elections have been delayed. However, what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was referring to here was the most amazing set of circumstances, whereby one week we were asked to consider an order for delays in elections on 30 local authorities, and those delays were at a point only weeks before one was heading towards notices for the election, nomination day and the like. Then, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, indicated, two weeks later, because of an apparent legal reconsideration of circumstances, the policy was completely reversed. As far as I am aware, there is no such precedent and, tragically, we have yet to receive an apology from the Government for the confusion—and that is all it is. It is total confusion, within a period of a few weeks going from one unclear policy to another, with the net result of substantial cost.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, identified, democracy is a frail flower, and playing around with it in the way that the Government have in the last few weeks is unacceptable. It is unacceptable not just to the public at large; we have to bear in mind the burden faced by the returning officers and their staff in the local authorities. They do a truly fantastic job in difficult circumstances. It is regularly the case that, where there are not elections in one local authority, it loans its staff to a neighbouring authority which has elections. It is not easy to find polling clerks, and what is happening is that one local authority provides the facilities for another. Here we have a position whereby people who might have been loaned to another authority are suddenly called back. There are all the other associated difficulties with calling an election, cancelling an election and then restarting an election. I will not go into them in detail, but I think most of the people in this House are only too well aware of the problems that are thrown up in the face of the EROs throughout the country by the policies that have been followed over the last few weeks.

I would have hoped that, at some stage, the Government could have apologised to the local councils, and particularly to the EROs and their staff, for the problems that they have caused, but, unfortunately, they have failed to do so. However, it is appropriate that one should identify that democracy and the way it operates need to operate on a degree of certainty, which in the last few weeks or months we have not had from this Government.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for laying the regret Motion. It is a privilege to stand in for my noble friend Lord Pack, who I know is deeply disappointed that he is not able to be in his seat today. I will approach this with the same conviction my noble friend has voiced throughout this saga: that local democracy is not a plaything for departmental convenience. Although we welcome the Government’s U-turn, the how and why of this retreat remains shrouded in a fog of administrative incompetence.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to be very clear that legal advice prompted the Government to reconsider and withdraw their earlier postponement decision. I have quotes from James Cleverly, who has been a shadow Minister in the other place and continues to have a role there, talking about postponement and not disclosing legal advice. It is a long-standing convention observed by successive Governments that the existence of and substance of advice from law officers of the Crown is not disclosed outside government. The purpose of this convention is to enable the Government to obtain frank and full legal advice in confidence. The legal powers to postpone elections remain valid and there has been no finding against the Government in this instance. The focus is now on delivering legally robust and certain electoral timelines for councils. We have always said that decisions will be made on the basis of the evidence available to us and this is what has happened—

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I support very strongly the position that law officers’ advice to government should remain confidential, but is it absolutely clear that the advice on which the decision to revoke the postponement of the elections was taken was markedly different from the legal advice provided previously? To be blunt, there is a suspicion in many people’s minds, probably quite reasonably, that it was the imminence of a judicial review four days after the announcement that resulted in the change of government position, rather than a change in legal advice.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I feel that the noble Lord is pushing me to do what I have just said I cannot do, which is to disclose the legal advice—I am going to stick to that line. The decision was, as he rightly says, taken by another Minister in the department because the Secretary of State had already been involved in the decision. I think we put the guardrails in place to make sure that was done in accordance with what we would all expect to happen. We will stick to the convention of not disclosing the legal advice put before that Minister.

I wanted to talk about my noble friend’s comment about previous elections that were cancelled. There were 17 elections delayed between 2019 and 2022 by the last Government to prepare for local government reorganisation, including in Weymouth and Portland in 2018, Aylesbury, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe in 2019 and Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset in 2021, so there was precedent for that. We took that into consideration when local authorities made representations to us.

I will just go into a little more detail on the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward. The decision was updated following legal advice and the Government acted promptly and responsibly in light of that advice. Where decisions are revisited following legal advice, as I have said, it is entirely appropriate for a new Minister to look at that advice and now all 30 elections will proceed as scheduled in May 2026, and a revocation order was laid in Parliament in February to give effect to that decision. We engaged rapidly with councils and issued written confirmation without delay and are supporting them with their updated plans. This was done at pace. We have always said that a decision would be made on the basis of evidence available to us at the time and that is what has happened. The Government’s ambition remains to simplify local government by ending the two-tier system and establishing new single-tier unitary councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised the issue of town and parish consultation. I understand his point, but there was never an intention to cancel town and parish elections. I understand his point about finances and will give that further consideration. On his point about statutory inclusion of things in Explanatory Memorandums, again, I will take that away. I understand the point he is making, and we need to think further about how that might work.

In conclusion, I hope I have set out the Government’s explanation of the timeline and exactly what happened in this case. I hope I have responded to the concern of the House, both in what I have said today and in the action taken to put an amendment forward to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. While recognising the concern that has been expressed around the House, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.