Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Rennard

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I could not agree more. I did not want to go down that route, because the counter argument would be, “We are only giving the vote to 16 year-olds”. But who knows? In future, it might be 14 year-olds. My noble friend Lord Fuller is absolutely spot on.

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Berridge, I want to address Amendment 44A. I am very worried about this. I have done a lot of canvassing. I have canvassed in every election since 1979—all for the same party I hasten to add—and not always with much success. Nevertheless, I have been out there regularly in a multitude of constituencies. Regularly, particularly in my own constituency of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale, which was previously Westminster North, I have found myself canvassing people who literally speak no English. When I knock on the door and try to communicate with them, they immediately pick up the phone and speak to their spouse or someone—I do not know who—and ask for instructions on what to say.

That is one issue, but the particular issue in Amendment 44A is about protecting children. Again, as a canvasser—I am sure that all noble Lords have done their share of canvassing—in the past, when the door is answered by a 16 year-old, one has simply said, “Can I speak to your parents?” Now, we will have to engage with 16 year-olds, which presents some challenges.

I am not particularly comfortable with the idea of having to knock on the door and engage in conversation with a 16 year-old to try to persuade them to vote for my party. I just do not want to be in that position. I am comfortable with an 18 year-old; I am not comfortable with doing that with a 16 year-old. Indeed, the Government recognise that 16 year-olds have to be protected. If I want to interact with 16 year-olds at the various schools with which I am involved, I have to be cleared to do that. I cannot just rock up at the classroom without having various checks, but as a canvasser, I can knock on the door and engage with a 16 year-old without any checks. I am not worried about me, but I am worried about other people.

Let us take this to not an absurd but a logical conclusion. What is to stop predators identifying children now on the electoral roll and going to see them, supposedly to canvass them but actually with other purposes in mind? I am very worried about this. They can justify to the authorities that they are entering into a dialogue with a 16 year-old because, they will claim, they are out canvassing, but they have an ulterior motive. I want to know from the Government what protection they plan to give in those circumstances.

It gets a lot worse if we are saying that 14 and 15 year-olds need to be educated. What happens if someone says, perhaps with some credibility, “I want to go and talk to 14 and 15 year-olds because they need to be persuaded to vote for my party”? Heaven knows what is going to happen on the doorstep. When I go canvassing, I am regularly invited in to discuss the subject over a glass of wine, a cup of tea or whatever. I always refuse because that is the guidance, but that does not mean that other people will. We are giving people the opportunity to enter vulnerable people’s homes and, if children are on their own at home, to have a discussion with them, supposedly about political matters—but who knows?

I do not have the answer to this problem, but I can see that it is a real problem, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it now or later.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, as a young person, I was so susceptible to subversive influences such as BBC television news, Radio 4’s “World at One”, which I listened to every day, and the Guardian, which I bought daily, that by the time I was 14 I was treasurer of my branch of the Liberal Party, and by the time I was 16 I was secretary of the constituency. I do not suggest for a moment that that is normal for a teenager, but my point is that people are very different and should be treated differently.

Turning to these amendments, the most publicised aspect of this Bill is that which we debated on Monday—the principle of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year -olds—and I do not wish to go over those arguments again. However, I do wish to say that the good intention of seeking to encourage the engagement of young people in political processes will fail unless we do much more about citizenship education. I accept that there are greater risks to our democracy, especially in the internet age, as most young people rely on information obtained online. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Political and Media Literacy, of which I am an active member, says in its briefing that foundational political and media literacy education is crucial to the health of our democracy. It warns that simply changing the voting age will not in itself encourage more civic responsibility or more sustained participation in democratic processes. I mentioned on Monday how Jersey lowered its voting age to 16 in 2008, but it was not such a successful experience because of the lack of civic education to support it.

The research compiled by the academic advisory group to our APPG reveals both an overwhelming desire among young people to engage and a troubling structural deficit in how our current school system prepares them for it. Young people rely heavily on social media. They are therefore more vulnerable to digital misinformation and less educated and equipped with critical media literacy tools that should be part of citizenship education.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, quoted the excellent research from Dr James Weinberg, who studied information from over 3,000 teachers across over half of all secondary schools. He found that at present, less than a third of secondary schools offer weekly lessons in political or citizenship education and over a quarter provide no democratic education whatsoever. The noble Baroness also drew attention to how state schools serving economically deprived communities provide significantly less political literacy education than private schools or state schools in affluent areas. Democratic confidence must not remain the preserve of the privileged. The danger of ignorance among the most disadvantaged represents a threat to the principles which should underpin a democracy.