Representation of the People Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I was here on Monday evening at the point of adjournment, and not only am I in my place but I am next to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who was in the same place as well. Things move on.

On nearly every amendment to this Bill, and in other parts of the work of your Lordships’ House, I support my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, but, regrettably, I cannot support his Amendment 124, which would require by law that election counts be started overnight following the polls closing. It is important to explain why.

Running an election is a complicated task for election staff. You have to recruit presiding officers, polling inspectors and count staff, and handle all matter of other ancillary tasks, such as fetching and carrying the ballot papers. I know that this happens at a general election, and it is important that we maintain the requirement for overnight counting in those contests, but we have to recognise that local government works over a much larger geographical canvas. It often encompasses multiple constituencies. There are many more electors in the race. We have multi-member wards. We have funny business when it comes to alternative and supplementary votes for some contests. More people and different and more complicated systems add complexity and time.

Local elections are different to the national elections, where, simply, the person with the most votes wins. Let us not forget that, unlike a parliamentary vote, where there is just one election to count, local elections may have many wards interspersed with town council by-elections, so the number of contests is not just greater; it is an order of magnitude larger.

Attracting presiding officers and count staff, who have historically come from our high street banks—tellers and other high street financial workers—is harder. In the age of tap and pay, we just do not have tellers who are used to handling banknotes any more, so we have ended up with a diminished pool of talent to operate the election. The facts of life are that, oftentimes, we rely on presiding officers, who have done a stretch from 7 am until 10 pm, to turn up again the following day to do the count. If we want to have confidence in our democracy, we cannot have people working for 24 hours non-stop in the most delicate and mentally taxing work, which requires huge concentration not just for validation but for the count, banding, bundling and tallying. Local elections have many more types of parties and candidates and therefore a higher propensity for recounts, where many contests are decided by just a handful of votes or even a coin toss.

As I warm to my theme, this short debate gives us the opportunity to remind the Prime Minister that if he is minded to change the current parliamentary voting system, any changes are likely to prejudice the ability for overnight counts if greater complexity is introduced. The voters rejected electoral change in a referendum in 2011, but he does not seem to be listening. The consequences of change are likely to be that the ability to count overnight is diminished or, at the very least, the announcement of the results and the clarity the electorate deserve will be delayed. I do not believe that has been taken into account in any other forum; here is my opportunity to mention it.

To return to the amendment, this is detailed work. It needs staff who are as bright as a button and on the ball to do these local elections, which are more complicated, take more time and provide more opportunities to go wrong than parliamentary contests, where there are often just two or three main candidates slugging it out and the majorities are weighed in handfuls of thousands, not handfuls of votes. For these reasons, I cannot support my noble friend in his endeavour, attractive though it may be. It is better to take your time and get it right than rush and live with the consequences.

[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.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was not here during the debate on Monday so he cannot speak.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, I have followed this debate over the last couple of days. I give huge congratulations to my noble friend Lord Frost on bringing this forward; this is an area that has exercised me for some years. I pay tribute to the House of Lords Library for extracting a lot of information on this to try to bring out where reciprocation exists—and I have to say that the reciprocation arrangements within the Commonwealth are very skinny indeed.

The Government have opened up Pandora’s box with this Bill, because at its heart is the franchise, which the Government are attempting to expand to 16 and 17 year-olds. If the Bill before us is trying to change and tidy up things, and widen the franchise, then surely it is the right Bill to consider a wider franchise, which has not been considered since the Act in 1969.

We have to consider this against the backdrop of CHOGM, which is in progress at the moment in Antigua. As a huge supporter of the Commonwealth, I am somewhat saddened that, in the post-Brexit world, we have not made a better arrangement with our friends around the Commonwealth to create a new friendship and trading arrangement on preferential terms. I hope those sorts of issues are being discussed at CHOGM as I speak. But the electoral franchise is surely very odd. We have vast countries, with huge populations—India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Bangladesh, to pick out a few—of probably 1.5 to 1.8 billion people between them. A transfer of such people to this country, as temporary workers, students and all those good areas, is to be welcomed, but surely to come on a student visa for a short time and then be allowed to vote is a very strange situation.

I might consider that to be fair and reasonable if there was a reciprocal arrangement with those countries. As my noble friend Lord Frost has said, perhaps that is quite complicated to achieve. It would require a department of the Home Office to keep an eye on electoral franchises in those countries of the Commonwealth. Perhaps Amendments 25 and 26, proposed by my noble friend, are cleaner. Perhaps this is the time to make that breakaway, which most other countries have considered to be proper and correct, and say one has to be a British citizen.

As we know, British citizenship can be obtained. One of the reasons some people never bother obtaining it, even though they have lived here for a very long time, is the cost and aggravation, but it is achievable and doable. One has to pay the fee and do the Life in the UK Test, and then, lo and behold, one can become a British citizen, with all the rights and duties that come with citizenship. The powerful point behind my noble friend’s suggestions is that feeling of being part of this nation—one cannot just up sticks and return back to the country where one holds citizenship.

The Australian situation is rather odd. I believe it was Australia’s 1984 Act that made quite a separation between the new country and what might be called the old country. At that date, Australia decided that one could vote in Australia only if one was an Australian citizen. As my noble friend alluded to, a British citizen who had lived in Australia prior to 1956 but had never taken citizenship could still vote there.

The anomalies around the world are few and far between. As the Government have opened up the franchise for discussion, it is time that we use this Bill appropriately to consider the franchise of Commonwealth citizens. It is a throwback of yesteryear and, much as I like yesteryear, we are not there any more. We are in the modern world of 2026, and the day is done for the old colonial arrangements that those on the Benches opposite would like to throw off as rapidly as they can. We cannot have this subsisting into the future. I hope we can have cross-party support for this measure, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments as to why it is unacceptable. I would have thought such a provision would more likely come from that side of the Committee than from this, strangely.

I hope that the Government will listen to this. I know my noble friend said that this was merely a probing amendment, but I think it deserves to be more than that. I would like to see this beefed up for Report, when we can perhaps vote on such measures.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Frost’s amendments, particularly Amendments 28 and 29.

As we meet this afternoon and consider the American elections that took place yesterday, we can look back and think about the sanctity of the franchise and how important that is. We are very fortunate in this country that we do not, for instance, have gerrymandered electoral districts; we have independent Boundary Commissions. We are also fortunate in this country that most people believe that the franchise is clean and safeguarded and that the electoral process is one of integrity, honesty and transparency—and that is because, broadly speaking, it is.

Your Lordships will know that, in the United States, the Jim Crow laws and the residency, literacy and numeracy laws were used to ostracise and discriminate against African Americans and others. Thankfully, they are a thing of the past, but that goes to show how important it is that we protect the sanctity of our electoral process, which my noble friend Lord Hayward rightly mentioned.

The current Commonwealth voting right is outdated, as my noble friend said. It is anomalous and indefensible, and it is time to bring our legislation up to date. As has been said, the vast majority of Commonwealth nations do not have reciprocal voting arrangements with British citizens. There are around 1 million Commonwealth citizens living in the UK, 66% of whom are qualified and registered to vote, as at March this year.

The beauty of these amendments is that they are not harsh and draconian. They do not remove, with ministerial or statutory fiat, the right for Commonwealth citizens to vote. They are incremental, permissive, probing amendments that invite the Government to think about the reciprocity between countries. In so doing, they recognise how important the familial and friendship relationships we have with countries are, as my noble friend alluded to. The other thing is that they are colour-blind. They do not make reference to ethnicity, religion, background or gender. They talk about nations such as New Zealand, Nigeria, Ghana, Australia, Canada, Suriname—I think—Guyana and others that are members of our Commonwealth family.

Although the number of Commonwealth nationals residing in the UK and the percentage of Commonwealth citizens registered to vote in the UK have been estimated, the Government have been unable to produce accurate figures concerning the number of qualifying Commonwealth nationals in the UK. That is a very significant knowledge gap. If you are fighting a general election in good faith, you really need to know who the people are who are going to be able to vote for you. If you do not have a cumulative estimate nationally of how many of those Commonwealth citizens are able to vote, you may very well rather cynically feel that you are appealing to a nobbled jury. You have to be sure of who the electorate are.

Voting tied to citizenship is the global norm for a good reason. Elected representatives adopt significant responsibility to act in their electors’ best interests. If electoral accountability is to function properly, the electorate must be stakeholders in Britain’s long-term future. Unless this is robustly the case, representatives, be they mayors, MPs or councillors, will not be bound to deliver genuinely prudent decision-making. Allowing those who are not British citizens to contribute to electoral outcomes risks undermining the quality of that representation by detracting from candidates’ requirement to appeal to people who fundamentally care about their nation’s future.

This is the thin end of the wedge. If we do not get a handle and focus on that philosophical issue, we could quickly slip into the realms of divisive identity politics. We have already seen the beginning of that in our country, as we have in many parts of the world, and we wish to avoid that happening. At its worst, it may encourage political short-termism or the dilution of the representatives’ accountability away from the interests of British citizens and towards the interests of merely current residents. This is a nuanced yet important distinction. It is a fact that Britain is and has been for some time experiencing a sizeable growth in immigration, including from Commonwealth nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am very taken with the points just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about the distorting effects on existing boundaries from extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, but I think she could have gone further. The way in which automatic registration, which is also part of this group, takes into account the universities will have a further distorting effect, particularly on urban constituencies, in another insult to the country mass. This Government are always focused on the imbalance in the cities, but this particular case puts the rural areas at a disadvantage because, if a student from out of town is registered at home but is automatically registered at university, that person has two votes, which will disproportionately affect the concentrated urban situations.

I am sure the Minister, when she returns to her place, will dismiss the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, as wholly unnecessary and say this is nothing to be worried about, but I would like to give a lesson from history. The noble Baroness, who is returning to the Chamber, and I participated on some of those Covid calls during the pandemic in 2020, and there was a rush from the city to the countryside. People who lived in London, for example—but other cities are available—chased to north Norfolk in particular.

I see my noble friend Lord Prior on the Bench in front of me; he was a Member of Parliament for North Norfolk in a previous life. These people were not registered with the NHS and were not registered to vote, yet they consumed all the services in North Norfolk. My concern is that automatic registration will not reflect the reality. It is not just distorting the boundaries, important though that is, and the electoral numbers. The degree of automatic registration could distort the access to services that just do not keep up with these registers. So, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She has identified more unintended consequences from the double whammy of extending the franchise and automatic registration.

That leads me on to my Amendment 45 in this group, which is a probing amendment that asks how, with automatic registration, the electoral registration officer will know when a person is eligible to be registered, or just passing through, or has indefinite leave to remain, or is just a tourist. It seeks to say that, if you are not a British or Commonwealth citizen, you have to apply under individual electoral registration and demonstrate your eligibility, as you do at the moment. The duty is on these overseas electors to provide absolute proof of entitlement to vote, rather than pressurise the electoral registration officer to make guesses. The chances are that these people will not have national insurance numbers and will not be present on many UK databases.

How on earth is the ERO to know? How will he know to prevent a duplicate when a wife keeps her maiden name for professional purposes but has already registered for a married name? Just because there is a Mr Smith who pays the council tax, it does not mean that Mrs Smith is eligible if she happens to be a foreign-born spouse. I think the Committee can start to see quite a lot of different practical complications here.

I mentioned Mr and Mrs Smith, but there are some cultures where the husband and the wife have different surnames. I am thinking particularly of President Zelensky in Ukraine, whose wife is Mrs Zelenska. Neither of them is eligible to vote in our elections, but that is an example of the way in which foreign cultures have different mores to ours. Each ERO, if there is to be automatic registration, potentially of foreign subjects, will have to understand all these peculiarities. That is an unreasonable burden on the ERO.

My amendment is a small one, but it seeks to probe the burdens we place on the electoral registration officer to register people who have no legal or digital footprint in this country and who cannot be validated or authenticated. It would make it clear that if you are not a British, an EU or a Commonwealth citizen, and you are entitled to participate in our democracy, you must apply just as you do today. Let these people make their case with the appropriate documentation, so that the registration officer can scrutinise rather than make guesses. If the register is based on guesswork, it undermines the integrity of our democracy and, with it, trust in the democratic process and the institutions that flow from it.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I do not really understand the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, because she will know that local government boundaries are essentially informed as a result of physical or natural features and community links. Her amendment would have been more coherent if it had linked the delivery of key public services within an expanded ward which was the result of a greater registration of 16 and 17 year-olds, but I fail to see the point of producing a report saying, “There are going to be more people in this ward vis-à-vis other wards”.

If one is talking about the delivery of public services, that is a fair point to make. But equally, in places such as Christchurch, Worthing and Hove, you would also therefore talk about the delivery of services for older people, where there is a greater preponderance of them. Unless I am being particularly obtuse, I cannot see the point of the obligation she is seeking that the Government produce a report on the number of 16 and 17 year-olds, which numerically we will already know.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

The whole purpose is so that we have a democracy that is based, first, on one person, one vote, but then on having boundaries for our electors that are more or less equal in size. Whenever there is a constituency boundary review, there are always parts of the country—in areas such as the highlands or the Isle of Wight—where reflecting the geography of the place means that it is better to have something outside the tolerance of the criteria that have been set to try to make constituencies of a similar size. That is because each is going to elect one person to Parliament to make decisions on behalf of their citizens. To have some representing 82,000 or 83,000 and some at the other end of the scale currently representing fewer than 70,000 leads to inequalities, which is why we have regular boundary reviews.

Within a local authority area, the number of wards is determined, which leads to the number of electors in each ward. In Kirklees, each ward has 5,000 electors per councillor, whereas 3,000 electors or fewer is the norm in London boroughs. If local authorities were required to have wards of a similar size, there could be more equal representation in those areas. That is my argument. We can do it for constituency boundaries, so why are we not doing it for local authority council wards?

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister. I have a significant concern about the Government’s proposal, notwithstanding that it was in the manifesto—a manifesto, incidentally, supported by about 20% of the electorate, with the lowest turnout since 2001 and Labour polling at 33.7%, so one line in one manifesto needs to be taken within a broader context.

My concern is that a really robust case has not been made with real-world evidence. We are looking back to the halcyon days of the past. If young people—16 and 17 year-olds—were so concerned about being part of the franchise, then their close approximation, 18 to 24 year-olds, would have voted in significant numbers at the 2024 election. In fact, the turnout in that age group dropped from 47% to just 37%, so it was not actually a great vote-getter.

If you listened to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for whom I have a great deal of respect, you would believe that Wales was a hotbed of psephological excitement and exuberance. But in fact that is not the case: this May, barely 51% voted for the national Parliament of the proud Principality of Wales, and as little as 42% voted in 2011. So there has not been a significant change in the number of people taking part in the ballot.

The comments of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington were interesting. In 1950, 84% of people turned out to vote. But it was a different world then. People were encouraged, principally by their families and their social background—it was often a battle between capital and labour—as well as by public meetings, newspapers and the radio, although obviously not television. My noble friend made the vital point that young people are sometimes deeply influenced by a monoculture of social media. We can have many debates about that, but it would be wrong and completely irresponsible to ignore the context in which 15, 16 and 17 year-olds are making important decisions about how they vote.

In the past, the number one determinant for how a woman would vote was how her father voted. I am not saying I support that, but that was a societal psephological fact in those days. We are in a different world now, one where people do not read national newspapers or watch terrestrial television news programmes. They are very much interested in what other similarly aged people are saying on social media, and that will be a factor.

The main point is consistency, as my noble friend Lady Coffey brought up. Lowering the age while other adult thresholds stay at 18 is incoherent; it does not make sense. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley made some very important points, and I would be interested in the Minister’s comments about how what is good for the constituency Labour parties and the Labour NEC should be good for the franchise for young people as well. My noble friend Lord Udny-Lister made an important point. It seems incongruous and odd that you can vote in an election but not for someone who is the same age as you. That seems very strange. If you are given the franchise—the responsibility of choosing someone to represent you in Parliament—surely you should be able to vote for someone who is your age.

As for international comparisons, we have already heard that, in mature liberal democracies such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they all set the voting age at 18. This reflects a widely accepted understanding of what adulthood is.

There is weak evidence on benefits. I have already talked about turnout, which has traditionally been very low, for many years, among 18 to 24 year-olds. That is a function of a wider democratic malaise about the faith and trust that young people have in politics and government. I fear that, in the absence of a coherent argument from the Government for why they are bringing this forward—other than out of psephological and electoral self-interest, in that they believe that thousands of young people will turn out and vote Labour—I cannot understand the evidential basis for this policy.

Public opinion does not support it either. The House of Commons Library notes that polling suggests that the public are unsupportive of lowering the voting age to 16. It is not just old or very old people—given where I am speaking, I will not define “old” or “very old” here in your Lordships’ Chamber—but all manner of people from 18 onwards who are, at the very best, lukewarm and in some cases hostile to these proposals.

We have talked about undue influence and interference, and my noble friend talked about foreign interference via the internet. I do not think it is wrong to focus on the issue of maturity. I know that there is not accepted definitive science about the development of the human brain among young people. Obviously, colloquially and anecdotally, one is told that people are fully formed—physically, mentally, emotionally and socially—at the age of 25, but I understand and concede that that will happen to different young people at different ages. I joined a political party at the age of 16, which made me rather an old weirdo, frankly—the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would probably say that nothing much has changed. The fact is that I was atypical. Most people are not politically engaged and they get their information on political policies second hand, through hearsay and through close family and friendship groups.

I make one final point about Scotland and Wales, which are, of course, an integral and important part of our country. The fact that they have decided to go their own way, in increasing the franchise to 16 year-olds, does not mean that England should back into that. This is the sovereign Parliament of our unitary state—our one country—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is for us in this Parliament to make the decision. I do not believe that our Front Bench will oppose the principle of this, but it is beholden on the Government, and disappointing that they have not done so, to bring forward a much more comprehensive, convincing and coherent argument for these proposals.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, posed a question: do we want another referendum? Of course we do not, because, in 2011, there was a referendum where we asked the people whether they wanted to fiddle the franchise and mess around with the voting system, and the people said no by a very large majority. All noble Lords need to recognise that that is not the way we want to go.

I certainly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, when he proposed his amendment about social media—something I will return to later, in group 9. I will not go under the bonnet now, save to say that I think he omitted, in thinking about 16 year-olds, to consider the attainers who will need to prepare to vote on their 16th birthday but may not be 16 yet.

I associate myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and my noble friend Lord Jackson, who has just spoken, about the muddle that we are in within our United Kingdom relating to the vote and to the franchise. The Bill ought to be the opportunity to bring an end to the hotchpotch of different arrangements in different parts of our United Kingdom. At Second Reading I spoke about the different systems. Clearly, there is first past the post, where the person who gets the most votes wins—easily explainable in the pub, although obviously there are no 16 year-olds there. There is the alternative vote, which now is just used for the Scottish Crofting Commission elections. There is the supplementary vote, with open and closed lists. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who is not in his place, entertained us at Second Reading when he explained to us how he got elected to Holyrood without standing in that election. Then there are thirds and all-outs. The franchise is also different: in Scotland, any resident, of whatever nationality, can vote, but you must be English, from the Commonwealth or from the EU for local elections here. And of course Peers cannot vote at all.

I was taken by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who said that such arrangements risk the peace in our nation that flows from the Belfast agreement and the Windsor Framework. I am concerned that this is a slippery slope. The Prime Minister has already declared that he wants to review still further the voting system to consider proportional representation. We all need to be careful what we wish for, because PR will lead to more sectarianism, more minority voting and more campaigning in Urdu, where single-issue activists seek to hold the rest of us over a barrel, reducing trust in democracy and elections, and the institutions they serve.

I will consider Amendment 279, in the name of my noble friends on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Brady. Some months ago, I attended a Learn with the Lords session at the education service in Victoria Tower Gardens. I was surprised to be paired—I do not know why—with a load of gobby kids, each of them egging each other on, promoting and lionising the Tate brothers and, in my presence, voicing all sorts of unacceptable, misogynistic opinions about immigrants and women. It turned out that it was not Learn with the Lords but “learn from the kids”. I was really concerned.

This plays to the point of Amendment 279 and that which the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has mentioned about where the boundary between childhood and adulthood is. I do not propose to go through another laundry list of the things you can do aged 16, although you can sell scrap metal to a dealer and you can get there on a moped—that would not be a big deal—or, in Scotland, get married without parental permission. I say to my noble friend Lady Coffey, who is in her place, that you may not be able to get a tattoo but you can certainly get a piercing. These are trivial examples, but it goes to the muddle we are in. When you are 18, you can fight on the front line, get a credit card, take out a loan, buy a pint and sit on a jury, as other noble Lords have said. You can make a will, buy land and property, hold a tenancy and rent an adult video—not that anyone rents videos of any sort nowadays. It illustrates the point that we must have the review contemplated by Amendment 279, to be fair not just to the adults in the room but—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with him on these issues. I understand the difference between franchise and the whole business of elections and the institutions to which we elect people, but we have to be extremely careful that we do not undermine a devolution settlement that was set up not just by Act of Parliament but by referenda in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and, in Wales, by two referenda. To do that would be seriously damaging to the devolution settlement.

In Northern Ireland’s case, I had the privilege of chairing the Good Friday agreement talks that dealt with elections. There was an agreement among all the parties in Northern Ireland involved in those talks, and the two Governments of course, to ensure that the final Good Friday agreement would command consensus right across the board. If we start interfering with that, we are in deep trouble. The 1998 settlement was agreed in Ireland by a referendum in the north and south. I am not saying that we cannot change it, but those changes need to be made with the devolved Assembly itself.

In terms of Scotland and Wales, one of my predecessors as Welsh Secretary once said that devolution is a process. I did not agree with him at the time, but he was probably right. It is a process, and over the last 30 years that process has meant that the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and the devolved Governments and Parliament has developed to a very sophisticated degree. If you interfere with that, you can seriously interfere with the devolution settlement. Although in some ways there is some merit in thinking that the franchise should perhaps be universal, the only way you could agree that is by having consensus with the devolved Administrations, and they would have to agree with it.

I am not a great lover of proportional representation; I have always been a first past the post person. I really believe in a link between the elected Member and his or her constituents. I do not particularly agree with the settlement we have in Wales with the 96 Members on a closed-list system—I am not sure that anybody really understands it all that much—but I agree with the right of the Senedd to be able to establish that system. Therefore, we ought to be very careful indeed about how we deal with these amendments.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support my noble friend Lord Frost. I put my name to his Amendments 30 and 31, and the two consequential amendments.

I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. I thought I was the only person who was not keen on the d’Hondt system of voting. He put his finger on a very important point—that system does not allow the voters to hold a particular person or even party accountable. We have seen from recent evidence in the Welsh Senedd that someone can change their political affiliation and refuse to give way, even though they have de facto been elected as a party member rather than as an individual, as a candidate in a set constituency.

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

It is perfectly possible to support these amendments and, broadly speaking, to agree with the concept of devolution. A country such as Scotland had a separate legal system and education system and a proud history, not least in building the British Empire many years ago. It is different from England, and I respectfully say to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that the people of England never had a vote on whether they wanted to set up the Welsh Assembly, as it then was, or the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, their ability to make key decisions was undermined—albeit he would probably say that the Blair Government had a mandate and were re-elected after the establishment of those two devolved Administrations.

My noble friend made some important points, which I will not belabour. A single nation state should have a common framework for democratic membership. The United States is many times bigger than the United Kingdom and has many more people, yet it has the same voting system. We will see whether it works tomorrow in delivering the votes that people want in the mid-term elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to attend Second Reading, but my noble friend Lady Smith of Llanfaes contributed on behalf of Plaid Cymru, and I hope she will continue doing so as effectively.

I oppose the thrust of this group of amendments—which is hardly a surprise to anybody. I do not believe that we are a single nation state. We are not. We are a multi-nation state. While I acknowledge that there is a valid argument that an election to any chamber of government should be on a uniform, consistent franchise basis throughout the area covered by that chamber, there surely can be no valid reason for Westminster to tell Wales or Scotland that we cannot, in our devolved Parliaments, allow our young people to vote at 16 because it does not happen to suit Westminster. Devolution exists to allow us to do things differently in the nations of Wales and Scotland. Indeed, if Westminster acts to take the vote from young people in Wales and Scotland, I cannot imagine a stronger lever to drive those two countries towards independence. I invite the Committee to think very carefully before doing so.

Our experience in this regard in Wales in last May’s election was wholly positive. The degree of interest amongst young people was impressive. I saw it for myself in canvassing during the election, in talking to young people in my home community and to friends of my grandchildren in other parts of Wales, and while acting as a booth agent for Plaid Cymru on voting day in my home village. The turnout in May’s election in Wales was the highest in any devolved election in Wales. Yes, it was a bit over 50%, and we are going to ask why it was not higher in previous elections, but it was a step in the right direction in getting young people involved. It involved not only young people but, very often, their parents, who got to understand what was going on and perhaps participated, whereas in the past they had not done so. There also exists in Wales the Welsh Youth Parliament, a highly respected body which helps the development of young people’s political thinking on an all-Wales level.

Further, the PR system in Wales ensured multi-party voices in our Senedd, which must be a good thing for democracy. I point out that, if we had suffered a simple first past the post system in our present Senedd, and voting patterns were the same as they were in May, the 96 seats would today have given Plaid 66 and Remain 30. I suggest that, in Wales, we have a sensible system that respects multi-party democracy.

The logic of these amendments is based on the assumption that we live in a nation state. We do not. That is why we have developed into the system that we have today, and we should respect the principles on which devolution was founded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

It is an interesting point but, as the noble Lord said, there are several assumptions leading up to its inclusion, all of which I would share.

We have also heard the argument that the ability of Scotland and Wales to make their own choices might result in pressure on us here in Westminster. In a way, that is quite an advantage. After all, if Scotland or Wales decide to do something and it works, that is a good bit of pressure that we should welcome. Of course, if it fails, it achieves the exact opposite. Seeing how variation plays out is not a bad thing to be scared of.

Indeed, there is much more variation than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is aware of. He made reference to the United States. I point out that the voting system for Congress varies between states, and two of them use preferential voting. I very much hope that all sides of this Committee will pay more attention and maybe learn from the States in that respect.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord pre-empts my response to my noble friend. For clarity, I checked, and he is quite right. I stand partially corrected, in that the states of Maine and Alaska have ranked choice elections, one for governor and senator and the other, I think, just for senator. I am touched that he is interested in those issues. My general point is that the vast bulk of elections are based on the same kind of electoral system across the United States.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

The noble Lord’s proposal is actually what I proposed in previous Parliaments, and his Government resisted tooth and nail any suggestion about registering people at the point that they got their national insurance numbers. My understanding of the noble Lord’s Amendment 8 is that, rather than beginning the registering process with 14 and 15 year-olds, you would start only at 15. Surely that would mean fewer people being registered, but if I have misunderstood, I apologise.

I am concerned with the approach in general and how I think Amendments 49, 50 and 52 are all about improving the health of our democracy, because democratic elections cannot fully take place without people being registered to vote. Many groups of people who are legally entitled to vote are often not registered to vote under our current arrangements.

When individual electoral registration was introduced, many of us warned that, without extra measures, millions of young people, students and people who move home frequently would fall off the electoral rolls. Perhaps that was the intention of the proposal among some people. I believe that it was. I know that it was a great preoccupation of the now noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he used to meet his deputy to discuss constitutional issues. He was determined to drive this process through. Had it been implemented as he intended, registration levels would have fallen from the level of the mid-1980s to about 60%, according to the Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission briefing for this debate shows that as many as 8 million people who are legally entitled to vote are not correctly registered and therefore would be unlikely to be able to take part in the democratic process. The commission says that it strongly supports the principles of what is commonly known as automatic voter registration and is described in this Bill as “registration without an application”. The problem that it seeks to address involves young people especially. The commission’s previous research indicated that, although 95% of those aged over 65 are registered to vote, only about 65% of under-25s are included on the voter lists. There are similar problems with people who rent privately, or who come from diverse backgrounds, missing from the registers.

My biggest concerns about the processes in the Bill are how the plans for registering without application will take too long and the Government are proceeding too cautiously. It will be too late to have many more people who are legally entitled to vote registered for the next election and too late for the next review of parliamentary consistency boundaries, which will draw on data from 1 December 2028—hence my support for Amendment 67, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, my noble friend Lord Pack and others.

The first and most obvious way in which we can address the underrepresentation of young people is by registering them when they are notified of their national insurance numbers. The House of Lords Select Committee that reviewed the impact of individual electoral registration unanimously recommended that this be done, and I am delighted that the principle had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, whose expertise is very widely regarded in this House.

When debating the idea during consideration of the Elections Bill on 23 March 2022, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, then speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said that

“people are already written to ahead of their 16th birthday with their national insurance number. If we can do that, why can we not at the same time have an automatic registration to vote? We have the means to do it, so why do we not just get on with it?”—[Official Report, 23/3/22; col. 1058.]

That is the question that I ask today.

A little later I won a partial victory on the issue when the noble Lord, Lord True, eventually accepted from the Government Benches that a reference to registering to vote could be made with a notification of national insurance numbers. But it was a very unpressing reference, and the process should not now require specific application if the qualifications for registration are satisfied. That is the aim of my Amendment 50.

A second crucial point at which we can get many more young people registered is when many of them enter higher or further education. From the Labour Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, championed the cause of registering students, with her usual great skill and determination, during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. The noble Baroness demonstrated how easy and simple it was to have data-sharing agreements between higher education and further education providers and local registration offices. This would enable students to be enfranchised and help to make their legal entitlement to vote a reality. We are trying again to have that principle adopted by Amendment 52.

Finally, I will speak to my Amendment 61. The issues of electoral registration and constituency boundaries are inextricably linked, although the tight drafting of the Bill means that we are not properly allowed to consider that link. I draw the attention of the Government and others to this connection. There should be consideration of how the measures in the Bill will change the data from which the electoral registers are drawn. The data will change as a result of measures in the Bill, and it will affect the process of revising the constituency boundaries, which will begin in two years. The electoral registration data forms the building blocks from which the Boundary Commissions must create constituencies; they are obliged under the rules to create constituencies with a very narrow and inflexible margin of difference in the size of the electorates for each of those constituencies. A slight change to a single constituency’s boundaries is likely to cause widespread disruption to many other constituencies, breaking them up into pieces.

The failure in the last series of Parliaments to address issues of the missing millions from electoral registers has distorted the map of constituencies. Millions of young people, private sector tenants and people from diverse communities were left out from the registers. We are now trying to address that. Whether it happened inadvertently or deliberately, the effect of the last boundary review was that many more constituencies were created that would be likely to vote Conservative, and fewer were created that would be less likely to vote Conservative. Registering many more of these groups will address that unfairness. The Government must now consider whether we need to allow the next boundary review to take more time so that it is able to work with the most accurate and complete electoral registers. Every year, according to the Government’s impact assessment, registration levels will rise by around 1.7%, so I hope there will be time for the changes in the Bill to feed through to the next boundary review.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 51. I find myself almost wholly in agreement with Amendment 61 from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, although I am bound to ask rhetorically: if the last boundary change was engineered to gerrymander a stonking Conservative victory, how did that go? But seriously, I think there is a meeting of minds between him and my noble friend Lord Fuller on national insurance numbers and the registration of younger people. I think there might be a consensus on that. My noble friend made a powerful and compelling argument for that age group.

To go back to Amendment 61, Clauses 17 to 19 give rise to long-term changes in electorate sizes. The current obligations of the boundary commissioners do not really take into account what sizeable changes will happen as a result of automatic voter registration or registration without application. The noble Lord is right to pinpoint that issue. That goes to the heart of my Amendment 51, which is to ensure that we proceed in an incremental way if we are to have automatic voter registration and not put a huge obligation on electoral registration officers. Clause 17 is quite wide ranging anyway in giving proactive powers to electoral registration officers to register people as they see fit.

The reason I am seeking to remove Commonwealth and Irish citizens is not because they do not value their right to vote or to have the franchise but because we should focus on the endemic problem that has been identified for many years under all parties and Governments: poor registration of younger people. That happened under the coalition Government, and it has happened under the Labour Government and under Conservative Administrations. That seems to me the kernel of the issue that we need to look at here.

I am quite straightforward in saying that, as other countries do with their own citizens, I do not think we should be ashamed to prioritise British citizens in this clause. If we have limited resources, we should do so. I can debate the situation with the Republic of Ireland and its voters, but it seems an odd situation that you would not wish to prioritise your own citizens, who have constitutional, social and economic links that are stronger than some others—indeed, the citizens of a foreign country, albeit a very long-standing neighbour and friend of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland. That is what my amendment seeks to do.

Under current electoral law, qualifying Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland can vote in parliamentary elections. Qualifying means meeting normal age, residence and registration requirements, and they will have permission to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. Specifically for your Lordships’ House, this amendment would not change who is legally entitled to vote. However, it would restrict who is automatically registered without an application to those with the strongest constitutional links to the UK. This would reduce the risk of eligibility verification errors, which would automatically register individuals who are not legally eligible to vote. It might be the case, for instance, that those on technically non-qualifying visiting visas may very well be swept up in the system of automatic voter registration. Perhaps the Minister might reassure the Committee on what specific efforts the Government are making to ensure that the correct people are registered under automatic voter registration. Additionally, the introduction of automatic verification is a novel and untested feature of the Bill. This amendment seeks to ensure that it is introduced cautiously to prevent accidental scope creep and ensure that its first implementation is thorough and effective in registering only those with the genuine legal right to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

For those reasons—time is of the essence—I am delighted to propose Amendment 51. I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friends.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.09 pm.

Home Owners and Home Ownership

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Eaton for giving us the opportunity to debate the issue of home ownership and the Government’s record on housing delivery. I will focus on one or two areas. One is about family housing, the other is about the current housing crisis and supply and demand, and a few practical solutions to the current malaise.

I will not rehearse the comments I made at Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill on 1 June. Suffice it to say that there is little evidence that the Government understand the need to support more home ownership for families and have failed to address, via regulatory policy or legislative changes, the economic and social impact of falling birth rates. What we saw in that Bill was a spiteful ideological assault on right to buy, which will be all but scrapped by raising the required tenancy length and eligibility and reducing the discount to 5%, which will lock 600,000 potential householders out of the scheme. A future Government will and should reverse this pernicious and incoherent policy.

There is no doubt that the Government’s housing record is lamentable. Nationally, housebuilding starts are at a 12-year low. There were 261,000 housing starts in the last 18 months, compared to the implied target in the Labour Party manifesto of 525,000. Bloomberg predicts a shortfall of between 90,000 and 100,000 starts each year between 2026 and 2029.

The situation under Mayor Khan in London is even worse—indeed, it is dire. In quarter 1 of 2026, 6,325 homes were started, just 7% of the mayor’s target. Some 22,000 homes are unsold or under construction. There is no way that the Government’s annual target, which is broadly supported on both sides, will be achieved to meet their 1.5 million homes aspiration. Are we surprised, given the Government’s mishandling of the economy? We have the highest energy costs in Europe, and there are labour shortages and increased inflationary pressures on materials. Higher national insurance contributions, a higher minimum wage, rising taxes, increased borrowing and mortgage rates have all contributed to and exacerbated what Savills has described as a “particularly gloomy” outlook for the housing sector.

On the supply side, the Government’s planning reforms are, to be fair, a small step forward in the right direction, but no more than that. I welcome some aspects of the revised NPPF. Under the NPPF changes, faster infrastructure consent was brought into force in August. There was a redesignation of low-quality green belt and a focus on brownfield and transit land sites, but it is simply not enough to overcome the inherent viability squeeze on new building sites. Planning hold-ups, long decision times, biodiversity rules, nutrient and water neutrality conditions, infrastructure levies, tighter building standards and the forthcoming building safety levy—due later this year—all mean that land which is viable and buildable on paper cannot and will not be developed profitably. The Government should address that.

In addition, we have one of the highest levels of affordable housing targets in the western world. It is much higher than most of the developed world. That means that sites are land banked and lie idle and undeveloped. We need to look at this 40% to 50% figure again, because it is not delivering housing that we need.

The Government have also failed to look at demand. Only 27% of tenants in social rented accommodation are in work, so the Government intend to borrow £39 billion for their social and affordable homes programme to build more properties to warehouse welfare—a direct capital transfer from business, working people and pension funds to the workless, who will continue to receive benefits. This is economically insane and unsustainable. Immigration and welfare are integral to better housing policy. We must look again at prioritising working families and young people. It is a badge of shame that in 2021, over 100,000 social lettings in London were held by foreign-born tenants. It is indefensible and offends against fairness, efficient resource allocation and social equity, and it is a breach of the social contract. The figure is 12% across the whole of the UK.

In conclusion, a future Conservative Government—or, indeed, perhaps even a Reform Government—should cut taxes for SME builders, which suffered so grievously in the downturn in 2008-09. We must reduce regulations; establish a sovereign wealth fund to build new houses; give priority to families, married couples, veterans and young working people; restore right-to-buy eligibility post ante; and relaunch the coalition Government’s very successful new homes bonus policy. The present Government’s anaemic policy response will do nothing to tackle this grievous housing crisis and build enough homes. Much more radical change is needed.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I will be following along with her arguments but will speak to my Amendment 94. I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful meeting I had yesterday with her officials.

Amendment 94 does not require local authorities to house ex-prisoners but aims to improve their rehabilitation by prisons and local authorities working better together to prevent post-release homelessness. This is the point of the amendment. About 10 years ago, I started working with the Ministry of Justice on prison reform, specifically conducting two reviews on how prisoners could maintain family and other key relational ties to prevent their reoffending. I am still involved in the implementation of the recommendations of those reviews, but I am beginning to feel a little like an IPP prisoner with no set date for release.

My amendment would contribute to a collective refocus on offender rehabilitation, which is much needed if we are to have any hope of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs this country £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, and especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any rehabilitation activity they have ever undertaken. Their proven reoffending rate, 76%, is more than twice that for those released from custody into settled accommodation, at 36.4%.

I have been told that existing legislation to prevent homelessness is adequate. However, there appears to be very little accountability regarding local housing authorities’ compliance with that law, which I will touch on briefly. Some are far more effective than others at finding accommodation for ex-prisoners. This is not simply about available housing stock, but the processes they follow and how well they work in partnership with prison and probation. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports, for example, that several London boroughs are frequently problematic, while others with very pressured housing markets are not. Similarly, in 2025, the London Assembly Housing Committee reported inconsistent practice across London boroughs with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and borough housing teams.

My amendment seeks to tighten up the rather loose legal framework, which is not delivering as it should. Ministry of Justice data says that almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. My amendment’s reporting requirements would reveal how local authorities compare with their statistical neighbours. The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 introduced a duty on public authorities, including prison and probation, to refer those at threat of homelessness to local authority housing teams, because they would be released within about two months and have nowhere to go. Looking briefly at how that should work, statutory guidance says, rather weakly, that

“Housing authorities are encouraged to … acknowledge receipt of any referral”,


which

“may be in the form of an automatic email reply”.

If that is all the prison is getting and there is no feedback loop, the referral may have simply entered a bureaucratic Bermuda Triangle. Non-statutory guidance says:

“The duty to refer will help to ensure that services are working together effectively to prevent homelessness … It is also anticipated”—


which, again, sounds a little weak—

“that it will encourage local housing authorities and other public authorities to build strong partnerships which enable them to work together to intervene earlier to prevent homelessness through increasingly integrated services”.

However, the local housing authority is merely required to contact the prisoner being referred. The guidance also states merely:

“It is good practice for local housing authorities to go beyond referral procedures and work with other public authorities to prepare a comprehensive assessment of need”


for the prisoner. Where is the grip on local authorities? They are paid from the public purse to obey the law. They are, or should be, accountable for spending and saving public money. Reducing reoffending by just 1% would save £180 million.

My amendment would enable regulations to specify how local housing authorities must respond to referrals. Regulations would specify response times they would need to work to, including when they would need to notify a final decision, and require them to inform the prison or the Probation Service as well as the prisoner. Prisons have a strong legal duty of care towards prisoners and are responsible for pre-release planning. They also need this information and cannot rely on prisoners passing it on to them. The London Assembly Housing Committee found that prisons are not consistently complying with the duty to refer, with late referrals from prison contributing greatly to uncertainty; hence, the regulations are tightening the process at their end as well.

To conclude, currently there are many gaps in the system that we need to close so that soon-to-be-released individuals no longer fall through them. Without accommodation, as we have heard from other noble Lords, they cannot seek work, restructure their lives or take ownership of their rehabilitation. It can be a matter of life or death. Just last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025, a 28% rise since 2021. The primary driver, according to experts, is a rise in prisoners being released into homelessness and falling through “trapdoors to crisis”. The duty to refer was designed to prevent this wherever possible. Almost 10 years on from the Act that introduced it, we must acknowledge that it is not working as it should be for ex-prisoners. The Bill provides the perfect opportunity to fix it.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak to these amendments, and it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Farmer: he is one of the most indefatigable and persistent champions of the family and of the education and rehabilitation of prisoners, and I commend the work he has done over many years.

As a constituency MP, I had a prison in my constituency. I was once critical of what I thought was the cushy lifestyle of the women’s wing of the prison—it was a coterminous prison, men and women—because it provided aromatherapy in the gym. I criticised this, as the local MP, and of course the Sun put it on the front page, with the immortal headline, “In for a stretch”, which was quite amusing. The serious point is that we can spend very significant amounts of money to make sure that prisoners can read and write, understand civic engagement and have meaningful work, but that is all completely wasted if, when they leave prison, they go back into the clutches of the nefarious and criminal classes, particularly drug dealers.

I commend both noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Teather, will not remember, but we worked together, many moons ago when she was Children’s Minister in the other place, on the rather niche subject of children with Tourette’s syndrome—she did a great job in that role in the coalition Government. Both noble Baronesses are absolutely right that we need to focus. These are permissive amendments to focus on collecting and collating as much data as possible on both ex-offenders and Armed Forces personnel. That is all that these amendments ask for and I heartily concur with all the later amendments in this group.

Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I concur 100% with the comments from my noble friend Lord Hayward. I am going to take this statutory instrument at face value and discuss the issues that it raises on the alternative vote and first past the post. As noble Lords will know, when proportional representation was tested with the electorate in 2011—in this case, the alternative vote referendum—it was lost by a margin of 68% to 32%.

Noteworthy in the statutory instrument is the paucity of intellectual rationale for why the changes are happening. I agree with my noble friend: it looks like a cynical stitch-up to avoid embarrassment in the combined boroughs of Greater Manchester. But it also potentially looks like a strategy for a progressive alliance being rolled out in the run-up to a general election—for instance, with the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats —with the stated or probably unstated aim of locking out the Conservatives and Reform UK from power.

First past the post is simple and fair, and Conservatives have always supported it. It ensures proper representation and broad campaigning by parties, rather than policies targeted on a subset of voters. It is simple and transparent. Even in a disaggregated, fragmented political landscape, it is still stable and effective at delivering governance. One person secures the plurality of votes and that is transparent. As it happens, almost 100 Labour MPs have been elected in the other place with less than 35% of the votes. So if it is good enough for this Government’s majority in the other place, it is good enough for our elections generally.

In 2016, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that first past the post was best to replace the supplementary vote in police and crime commissioner elections. SV causes confusion and leads to a lot of spoiled and rejected ballots. The Electoral Commission, in its September 2021 report on the 2021 elections, noted:

“A quarter of people who had difficulties filling in their ballot paper in areas holding both local government and PCC elections said it was confusing that the elections used different voting systems. A third of people voting in London said that they found the two voting systems confusing”.


In fact, the rejection rate in the London mayoralty election in 2021 was 114,201 ballots, of which 87,000 were because voters cast a vote for more than one candidate in the first-preference column; 265,353 votes were invalidated because the second preference was cast for the same candidate as the first; and 319,978 second preferences were unmarked. These void rates exceeded the votes validly transferred to the two leading candidates: Mr Khan got 192,000 votes, and Mr Shaun Bailey—now the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington —got 85,000 transfers.

First past the post focuses on clear accountability. Electors know the one individual who is responsible for the failings or the successes of public policy. SV gives a recycled second vote the same democratic credibility as voters’ first choice. Each vote should count equally. One person, one vote. In fact, a supplementary vote is used almost nowhere else across the globe. The late, much-renowned and much-missed elections expert and academic, David Butler, described SV as a silly answer, based on the need to compromise between rival factions.

First past the post is quicker to count and cheaper to administer, as my noble friend Lord Hayward said, and better understood by voters. Some very eminent people in your Lordships’ House agree with this. In fact, one of them said that “SV is one of the worst systems. We had a referendum in 2011 on changing the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. This was wholly rejected, and I have seen nothing following on from that result, or anything that has happened subsequently, which leads me to believe that the country wants to change the voting system for any elections. We have managed to heap on voters a whole plethora of voting systems. That is not a good thing to do. I thought that one of the worst systems was the SV system. I have observed many counts where people have put a cross in the second column, which means that their votes are discounted.” Brilliantly said by the current Labour Government Chief Whip—quite, my Lords. Indeed, in 2021 the UCL Constitution Unit described the supplementary vote as “an anomaly” and out of step with other elections in England.

At least AV, which is an alternative system, allows a more pluralistic preference voting. I ask the Minister directly: will she confirm that these changes will take effect in respect of a putative Greater Manchester mayoral by-election, which may or may not happen later this year? This is about raw politics. It fails to make a coherent fact-based intellectual case for reverting to an SV regime. It is about locking out Reform UK and the Conservatives from power, and therefore it fails on merit and is a retrograde step, which my party and I oppose.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will bear with me for a moment, I am going to answer some of his other points. If I do not cover it, he is welcome to step in.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, raised issues about the voting system. I am sure he will make his comments on voting in London when we make the instrument for London mayoral elections. To be clear, this particular instrument does not cover London mayoral elections. SV was the voting system implemented on the introduction of both mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections. As I said, we think it is much more appropriate for selecting single-person executive positions such as mayors or police and crime commissioners.

However—and the noble Lord Jamieson asked about this—we believe that the first past the post system is a clear way of electing representatives which is well understood by voters and which, although not perfect, provides for a direct relationship between a member of a legislature and the local constituency. The first past the post voting system is therefore a more suitable system where there are a number of seats to be filled, such as for a council or a Parliament, and the likelihood is that people representing a range of views and parties will be elected. Therefore, the Government have no plans to change the electoral system for UK parliamentary or local council elections in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister. On a point of fact, as a result of the 2022 legislation which reverted back to first past the post, the Greater London returning officer estimated that, because it was not necessary to use the e-voting infrastructure for counting, there was an indicative saving of £4 million. That is the difference between the SV system and first past the post, so surely the Minister will concede that there is a significant greater cost of this new system that we do not yet know.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

As I said, this instrument does not cover London, and there is no price to put on democracy. We should always be aiming for democracy first. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, I will do my best to find out if there is any financial impact of this instrument.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, asked me about the sector being able to cope with the late change. SV has been used in the past extensively and recently and will be deeply familiar to returning officers and their teams. My department has been working closely with the sector as it prepares for the changes arising from the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, and we will continue to support it in managing any changes once this instrument is made. As I said, we consulted with the Electoral Commission, which did not have any concerns about this, so we are confident that the change is straightforward and the sector will have no issues in implementing it.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—for very different reasons, I think—asked how the public will be informed of these changes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, had some concerns in that area too. Electors will receive information on the voting system used via a number of methods, including guidance on postal voting statements and in polling stations that they will read prior to voting. More importantly, where there are three or more candidates at an election, the ballot paper itself will be clear that electors have the option to select a second preference. I am confident that electors will be informed of the change and understand their options when casting their vote, especially given that this is a voting system that has been used extensively in the past and will be well understood, and indeed familiar, to many voters. Greater Manchester used SV for almost all its elections, with the exception of one in 2024, reflecting its status as an established voting system.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock—again, I expect, for very different reasons —asked me why we were using SV, not a different system. The Government have no plans at present to introduce the single transferable vote to mayoral and PCC elections. The Government acknowledge that different voting systems can be better suited to different types of polls and elections, and we take the view that SV is the right system to use for selecting single-person executive positions. It requires the winning candidate to receive the majority of votes counted, and that ensures that they have broad support across the area and a broader mandate from the people they are representing. A key advantage of the SV system over other preferential voting systems is that, as I said, it was widely used before for mayors and PCCs, so people are familiar with it.

The other question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was about how the supplementary vote is counted. With a supplementary vote, if no candidate gets over 50% of the vote, the top two candidates continue to a run-off and all other candidates are eliminated. When casting their ballot, voters can put a second choice of who they would vote for in a run-off on the original ballot paper. If your favourite candidate gets through then your vote is counted for them in the run-off, but if they did not and your second choice did, then your vote goes to them. The run-off candidate with the most votes is declared the winner.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 15th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the House will not agree with Amendment 1. I feel a little bit personal about this because the amendment knocks out huge chunks of the Housing Act 1985, which I put on the statute book 40 years ago.

The noble Baroness talked about the erosion of the social housing stock. However, 17% of the housing stock in this country is social housing. That is roughly double the EU average of 9.3%, so already we are way out of line with our European neighbours in our provision of social housing. But I oppose this amendment because if one looks at Clause 9, it makes it clear that 100% of capital receipts from the right to buy will be ploughed back into social housing. So it is exactly the opposite of what the noble Baroness said, that the right to buy would increase the waiting time. What would increase the waiting time is acceptance of this amendment, because it would deny local authorities the capital receipts which would still accrue to them, so I disagree with her fundamentally.

There are other reasons for disagreeing with Amendment 1. For millions of people—1.8 million people—it was a foot on the property ladder for those who simply could not otherwise afford it, and many of those against the right to buy are people who own their own home. It gave people financial security which they would not otherwise have had. It became no longer the preserve of those on middle or higher incomes, and it gave something back after paying years of rent. Also, in the long term, it can reduce dependency, because those who bought their home now have an asset that can be taken into account if and when they move into care. There are wider benefits that we touched on at Second Reading, which I will not repeat. The right to buy helped break down the monolithic nature of some of our local authority estates. I very much hope that the Government, and indeed others in the House, will resist Amendment 1.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to take part in this debate in Committee. I will not reiterate the comments I made at Second Reading, because I talked then about family provision in social housing and we will discuss that specific issue in later groups. I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley on her promotion to the Front Bench, and it would be remiss not to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her promotion. I think it is a promotion—anyway, she is back on the Front Bench.

As has already been said by my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, right to buy was one of the most transformative policies in British political history. It resulted in 58% of people owning their homes in 1981, being boosted to 69% by 2001, although that figure has now fallen back to 63%. Boosting home ownership boosts self-reliance, and 81% of people in most recent polls support the concept of owning their own home and being part of a property-owning democracy. In fact, 1.9 million homes were sold following the Housing Act 1980 to date, affecting 4.5 million social tenants. As we heard at Second Reading, right to buy improves social mobility, especially for those working people on low or modest incomes. We also heard demonstrable, empirical evidence from the London School of Economics about the impact being in homes that were bought under right to buy had on the educational attainment of children and young people. That was a longitudinal study, as noble Lords will remember.

I must say in passing that the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, are always sincere and well-resourced with research, but on this occasion I cannot agree with her for the reasons that my noble friend made clear. Capital receipts from right to buy were £51 billion, of which £47 billion was retained and remitted to His Majesty’s Treasury. The most recent sales in England in 2024-25 raised almost £800 million from 7,494 sales.

The important point to remember is that between 2012 and 2025, 48,000 units were replaced directly from recycled right to buy receipts back into the social housing stock. It is also important to nuance the arguments and remember that we had the renaissance of housing associations and alternative housing providers in that period, so it is not altogether correct to look at council housing and social housing just within the context of local authority housing.

There are a number of myths about right to buy, which is one of the reasons why I oppose the noble Baroness’s amendment. As my noble friend said, the level of social housing that we have is still high by international standards. I think we are fourth in Europe out of about 25 countries—significantly more than France, Italy, Germany and other large countries.

The fall in public sector housing construction began well before the advent of right to buy in 1980. Social housing waiting lists were, in fact, bizarrely stable when right to buy was at its most popular in the 1980s. There is a reason for that: social housing waiting lists were derived as a function of demand, not supply. So, in the period between 1981 and 1997, social housing waiting lists fell from 1.2 million to 1 million, in a period when we were selling off 100,000 council homes under right to buy. The problem, of course, was that the wider housing market was overheating, with a rise in real housing prices of 108% between 1997 and 2009.

The final myth is about discounts. Yes, you can say that discounted money is dead money to the taxpayer, but that criticism has to be misplaced. If one looks at the cost of, for instance, significant maintenance by local authorities and the payment of housing benefit then those alleged costs are significantly lower than claimed by those who oppose right to buy.

As my noble friend said, by abolishing right to buy we would remove the revenue and income stream for building more social homes, and that cannot be right. We would need to have an alternative if we were going to get rid of right to buy. Although I might not wholly agree with this Government’s objectives as outlined in the Bill, the noble Baroness’s proposal does not make sense because it would mean fewer homes for people who needed them, and that cannot be good. On that basis, I oppose the amendment.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a part-owner of rented property in West Yorkshire.

One of the strikingly important things for me, and I hope for all noble Lords, is the positive outcomes for young people exposed to the right-to-buy scheme from the 1980s. This is not wishful thinking on my part; it is clearly shown in research from the London School of Economics. I referred to this at Second Reading, but it is worth reminding noble Lords about.

The right to buy guaranteed detectable, sizeable school performance gains among young people exposed to it, increasing good grades in high-stakes exams. There is also evidence that there is an income effect, which gives more financial stability to households through home ownership, and there is a crime reduction effect from public housing tenants becoming owners of their own home. It is disappointing that such prejudice against right to buy is likely to remove from social housing tenants the opportunities which right to buy has created for so many.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 95. As is clear, it is a probing amendment, and a permissive amendment that would require the Government to make provision by regulations for requiring social housing providers to publish data and evaluation on policies for developing social rented housing for families. This amendment is clearly in scope, but the important context to remember is that housing is an important part of economic and social policy, and particularly social housing. Getting housing policy right has an impact on population, on public services and on economic growth.

This is an important amendment, and will require debate and discussion within government, because we have a crisis in family formation. The total fertility rate is 1.39 children per woman, compared with the 1960s when it was 2.9 and the 1970s when it was 1.7. It has been declining since 2012. There were 585,396 live births last year, a reduction on the previous years. There are societal reasons for that, principally around childcare costs but also housing costs and other societal issues, including financial uncertainty about delayed parenthood and more women being involved in the labour market than in the 1960s and 1970s. This amendment is saying not that women should have more children per se but that it is good policy for the Government to be in a position to understand their duties and responsibilities in a wider economic sense to collate, collect and analyse information, and to encourage registered social providers and local authorities to help families who want to get into social housing.

For instance, the Government might require local plans and housing needs assessments to track and plan for bedrooms and family-sized homes, not only total dwelling numbers. We know that the experience over the last 10 or 15 years has been a drive, because of affordability issues, in planning policy across local authorities, towards flats and smaller units. This is essentially inimical to families being able to move into social housing accommodation.

We would expect local plans and housing needs assessments to specify an evidence-led bedroom mix in areas with strong demand from young families, and to use policy design codes and public funding levers—particularly in social housing—to secure an adequately supply of three-bedroom homes in both urban and suburban locations. Planning policy should actively favour small and medium-sized schemes, which deliver an above-average share of three-bedroom homes and usable private or shared play space, especially where developments are under 50 units and local impacts are modest. National planning policy and local design codes should encourage mid-rise terraces and mansion block-style flats with shared gardens, courtyards and safe streets, rather than long corridors of single-aspect one-bedroom units.

I do not expect the Minister to respond to this amendment in detail, but it is a good start to enable local authorities and the Government to get a handle on encouraging families to access social housing. That would make a big contribution to a good social and community mix across all communities—rural, suburban and urban. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that this begins a useful debate on an issue that is important to us all, and particularly important to an ageing population with fewer young people in the workforce, and to resolving the significant issues we have around family formation and the provision of social housing.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 58A in this group. I am delighted to support the other amendments in the group about which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has spoken, asking the Government for various assessments of impact.

The Government contend that they want to protect the stock of social housing but also to maintain the right-to-buy scheme, but under the Bill tenants are likely to be discouraged from exercising the right to buy by obstacles, delays and uncertainties posed for a renter aspiring to home ownership. My amendment would require the Government to provide on an annual basis, once the Bill comes into operation, an analysis of the income to the public purse as a result of any change in the number of sales, broken down by the numbers sold, the resulting income and additional income from cost savings from overhead and maintenance when a property is sold and no longer a charge on the council. This should equip the Government to assess the scheme and its costs in the round against competing commitments when establishing an order of priority in spending, as Governments must do, and an overall budget. Councils too would have the essential figures to judge how best to meet their competing commitments and responsibilities.

Indeed, for a democratic system such as the UK, Parliament should also be given the full picture to assess matters and judge how the legislation is operating. Above all, the public, who foot the bills through council tax, rates and general taxation, and who face the highest overall levels of certain taxes—income tax et cetera—since records began in 1948, should also know what impact these changes will have in respect of right-to-buy sales. One of the most popular measures passed by any Government since the 1980s, right to buy has enabled 1.9 million council homes in England alone to be sold to tenants so that they can stand on their own two feet.

There are two deeper reasons for my amendment. First, there is the imperative of obliging any Government to take account of the finances of the country in making policy, and the burdens their policies might place on the economy and on the people and businesses who work and pay taxes. Secondly, there is a need to reduce benefit dependency, yet one of the most effective ways of reducing dependency is to help people to buy their own homes. By contrast, one of the most dangerous ways of encouraging dependency is to put increasing numbers of people in the socially rented sector, where already 25% of households fall into the economically inactive category and other inactive categories. This is excluding people who are retired or have a physical impairment. If the Government are serious about reducing dependency, they should not be putting new obstacles in the way of people who want to buy their council houses.

I hope the Government will accept this modest amendment for an impact statement on the results of the Bill. This would ensure that the Government themselves, the councils and everybody who needs to know has the knowledge of the outcomes of the new arrangements, so that we have the evidence to measure the impact of the Bill on right-to-buy sales and associated finances. On that basis we can review the Bill and, if necessary, make changes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Lord’s comments. I will check why that has not happened, but it is certainly on the GOV.UK website.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I feel duty bound to correct the Minister. She promoted me to being a former leader of a council. I had the honour to be a borough councillor for eight years and a constituency Member of Parliament but never a leader of the council.

Also, the very helpful and comprehensive letter that the Minister sent to noble Lords in the wake of Second Reading was helpful and the best letter that I have received from a Minister. I thank her for that.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for the error and thank him for his kind comment.

Social Housing Bill [HL]

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend on the Front Bench: it is quite right to debate the effective allocation of scarce public resources. That needs to be said.

The Government have brought forward the Bill ostensibly with the desire to protect social housing and facilitate the building of new supply. This is an admirable goal. We need more houses. The UK is building only 200 homes a year per 10,000 people added to the population over the past 20 years. However, there is an aspect of this discussion which does not receive the attention it deserves and which I will highlight later in my remarks: population and housing tenure.

I welcome in particular Clause 12 and Schedule 1 on victims of domestic abuse. However, the tenor of the Bill is generally hostile to right to buy and seeks, particularly in Part 1, to circumscribe and curtail the rights of those seeking to exercise their rights under the scheme. I know that, for many people in the Labour Party, right to buy is a totemic scheme to which they have been opposed by habit and tradition with tribal hostility. But for many of us, it represented and still represents the greatest and most profound transfer of capital via property rights, in our country’s history, to working people away from state oligopoly and, sometimes, municipal slum landlords. It gave a pathway to prosperity, self-reliance and family stability and success to thousands of British citizens of modest means from 1980 onwards and boosted home ownership to almost 70% by the early 2000s. I accept that it was by no means perfect and that more emphasis should have been placed not merely on paying off local authority debt but on building good-quality homes for working families—not merely substandard properties for those on welfare, which exacerbated multigenerational welfarism.

It is important to dispel the myths about right to buy. Your Lordships’ House will no doubt be aware of research published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics. Human Capital from Childhood Exposure to Homeownership: Evidence from Right-to-Buy demonstrates strong empirical evidence not just of increased prosperity and financial stability but of real demonstrable improvements in educational attainment. It generated detectable, sizable school performance gains among young people exposed to home ownership, showing an increase in the number of good grades in high-stakes exams as well as a reduction in crime.

Despite all that, I want to leave the ideological debate for Committee. Instead, I ask a fundamental question about housing and particularly social housing: what sort of housing do we want? What sort of homes would best serve the needs of the British people? What do we want our housing to do?

The ONS has argued that, from about now—mid-2026 onwards—deaths in the UK are projected to exceed births. The BBC reported two weeks ago that births have fallen to the lowest level in 50 years. The UK is facing an unprecedented situation that will have a significant impact on the strength and viability of our economy. Between mid-2024 and mid-2034, there are projected to be 450,000 more deaths than births. We all want economic growth, but low birth rates create an ageing population increasingly dependent on the state, leading to a vicious circle of higher government spending and a weaker economy.

How do we address that? Families are the building blocks on which a society is built. A 2026 poll commissioned by the New Statesman found that 81% of men and 82% of women between the ages of 18 and 30 said that they would like to be married or in a civil partnership one day. It also found that 75% of young women and 80% of young men wanted to have children at some point in their life. Analysis of the 2025 UK multifamily housing survey and historic surveys indicated that the perceived ideal family size has mostly stayed similar since 1945. British men and women in the 2025 survey said, on average, that they would be happiest with 2.1 or 2.2 children.

However, one significant issue that is often not factored in is housing tenure. The analysis of the UK multifamily housing survey found that housing was a significant factor in how British people approach having families. Some 81% believe that the cost and availability of family homes is making it harder for people to marry and start families; only 9% disagreed. Some 74% said that the type and size of housing available has a major impact on people’s decisions about having children. Some 65% of the public agreed that too many new homes are small flats, and that they are unsuitable for raising families. More than half personally know young people or couples who are delaying having children because they cannot afford a suitable home.

The public also have views on how to address the problem. A majority wanted new housing developments to include a higher proportion of family-sized homes, and 65% wanted three-bedroom homes to be prioritised in the planning rules for new development, so that families can put down roots and become part of a stable local community. A survey of people’s preferences from the Institute for Family Studies found that those who wanted to have children saw having a two-bedroom property, instead of a one-bedroom property, as having the same impact on their confidence in having children as a £1,900 to £2,600 reduction in their monthly housing costs.

Policy should not and cannot tell people whether they should have children, but it can make it easier for those who want to. In 2023, flats rose to almost 22% of housing stock, while detached homes and bungalows fell to between 25% and 26%. Our policies, under both parties, have focused on the number of houses and not on those that are compatible with the family. As we think about housing, and social stock in particular, including the aesthetics of new housing developments, we should look to support the family. Local plans and housing needs assessments should track and plan for the number of bedrooms and family-sized properties. Local and national policies should plan for the building of family-sized homes. Our planning policy should focus on schemes that are viable and conducive to families.

Finally, as I have exceeded my time, Britain is facing a crisis of the family and significant housing challenges. The policies we discuss in this House should attempt to deal with both those problems. For no other reason, I welcome the Bill and hope it gives rise to opportunities for the Government to begin to solve these pressing, significant societal issues.

Ballot Secrecy Act: Breaches

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to discuss alleged breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 in relation to the Gorton and Denton parliamentary by-election with (1) Manchester City Council, and (2) the Greater Manchester Police.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that the allegations have been reported to Greater Manchester Police, which is considering the matter. The Electoral Commission is in close contact with Greater Manchester Police and the returning officer. If coercion at the polling stations had occurred, it would have been a breach of the law under the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. It is essential that electors can cast their vote in secret and without the risk of coercion. Your vote should be yours alone. If anyone believes they have witnessed family voting occurring at this by-election or at any time, they should contact the police.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the Minister. She will know that the previous Government introduced a power in the Elections Act 2022 for the Electoral Commission to draw up a strategy and policy document containing measures to tackle electoral fraud and corrupt and illegal practices, including family voting. However, Ministers have now U-turned on this by indicating that they will repeal the legislation and dump their own 2025 elections strategy. Given the substantial concerns after Gorton and Denton, why are the Government removing safeguards introduced because of the endemic fraud in Tower Hamlets, deleting guidance for local authorities on how to stop family voting and introducing secret election pilots for their own partisan advantage? Are the Government going soft on electoral fraud, or is it worse than that?

NHS Industrial Action

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness and I have discussed this in another forum in this House. It is critical that we work with those doctors to find out what their priorities are and how we can work with them to give them more security and to make sure that the training posts are available. I am pleased to say that consultation is on offer around all these points. We have to move forward; the door is open, and we want to discuss how we can make improvements to the contracts.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, obviously, it goes without saying that the industrial action just before Christmas is completely unacceptable, but I would be remiss not to observe that at the time that the 28.9% pay award was made, the Health Secretary attributed problems of industrial relations with resident doctors to the former Government, rather than recognising that it is an ongoing problem. That is a matter of record. I ask the Minister: what estimate is the department making of the impact on other aspects of the NHS, particularly elective operations and primary care, of this completely unreasonable and uncalled-for industrial action?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

As I said earlier, we have done some analysis of the strikes that took place in July, and we are working on the data for November. Obviously, we will take the learning from that through to how we deal with the strikes. I repeat that everyone in the health service has stepped up to the plate to make sure that the impact on patients is as low as possible. We will not shy away from the fact that we think strikes in the week running up to Christmas are completely unacceptable, and I am pleased to say that we have the leadership in the Department of Health from the Secretary of State, who has made his views on this exceptionally plain.