Representation of the People Bill

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

I am always very grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen. There is a reminder in what he said that you should be careful what you wish for and that it may just be worth considering what has changed in the opinion polls between when this measure was put in the manifesto and now. Of course, however, we do not need to worry about that sort of thing in our elevated position here.

What makes this one a little bit different from all those others is not the fact of the electoral calculation and manipulation, but the flagrancy. What I mean by that is the list we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. It is not just that parties on all sides have agreed on 18 as the standard age for maturity: the age at which you can make a contract, use a credit card, get a mortgage, serve on a jury and stand as a candidate. It is that, in many cases, the age has been raised from 16 to 18 as the age of consent by the same people who are now saying we should lower the voting age.

One of the first debates I took part in as a newish Member of your Lordships’ House was on raising the age from 16 to 18 to get Botox treatment. It was supported on every side. People said, “Well, this is just closing a loophole. This, after all, is the age we already use to get a tattoo and buy a knife, a bottle of wine, a scratchcard or some fireworks”. Absolutely true. As we heard, the last Labour Government raised the age of consent for a lot of these things, and certainly voted for it when other parties did.

The difference is not that it is happening; it is the sheer brazenness and flagrancy of it. That serves to undermine confidence in the system. It makes people cynical, because it confirms all the negatives that people have about politicians. If we have decided, as a country, that people below the age of 18 are legally children, are we really going to say that they are not responsible enough to buy or knife, scratchcard, firework or pint of beer, but that they should have the right to decide whether anyone else can do those things? Is that a reasonable proposition?

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said. He seemed to suggest that one of the burdens of this legislation was to increase the engagement and participation of people in the democratic process, and certainly that is important. But surely one of the basic, central principles in a democracy is the restoring of trust within the population. The noble Lord mentioned how, over the years, things have changed. I was elected to the other place for Mid Ulster for 14 and a half years. The participation rate of the electorate who came out to vote over those years, in all those elections, was between 70% and 83%. There was no lack of interest or engagement as far as the population was concerned, certainly in those elections.

I know things may have changed. For Northern Ireland, we have had a change. The central principle in a democracy is surely that everyone’s vote is equal. I heard a lot of talk about England, Scotland and Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned Northern Ireland in the context of different methods of election. For example, for the Assembly and the councils we have proportional representation. Every person’s vote in that electoral system was certainly equal. Across the United Kingdom, there were varied manners of electing people, yet when it came to Westminster, everyone’s vote was the same. In all those years—my participation in the other House was 25 years in total—everyone’s vote was certainly equal.

That changed in 2021. We now find that, when England, Scotland and Wales go to elect a Member of Parliament, they vote for a person who will legislate on the matters relating to their constituents. But, when it comes to Northern Ireland, that has changed. They can only legislate for some issues in their constituency. They can participate in all the other votes in the other House, for England, Scotland and Wales, but, when it comes to Northern Ireland, there is a plethora of laws that are now forced on the people of Northern Ireland that the United Kingdom Parliament cannot vote upon. Therefore, those who elected a person in Northern Ireland are going to endure legislation and laws forced on them that their elected representatives have never voted on. That is completely different from any other Member of Parliament. Therefore, the vote of a person in Northern Ireland is not the same.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the equality issue; surely, there is an equality issue here. Therefore, I hope that, when she comes to the concluding wind-up, the Minister will tell us how the Government intend to explain to a 16 or 17 year-old in Northern Ireland, if they give them the vote, that their vote will mean less than the vote of someone else in the rest of the United Kingdom. Without that answer, we can change the age, but there is still a major problem. Therefore, when it comes to restoring trust in democracy, we should surely have Members of Parliament elected to be able to vote on the issues which their constituents are supposed to accept as the law of the land.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches strongly support the idea of votes at 16, for two broad reasons. First, we want this to be a citizen democracy: not one in which passive subjects wait for the Government to deliver things to them and are supposed to be thankful, but one in which people feel they share in government, local and national, and have a voice. We believe that bringing the voting age down to 16 will help to engage people in their democracy before they leave home.

We have heard a lot—as we did during today’s second Oral Question—about the need for a national conversation. In the strategic defence review last year, we heard about the need for a whole-society response to the threats we now face by engaging local communities, volunteers and the like. That requires people to feel that they are part of our political community and, therefore, that they share the need to decide what goes on with government.

The second reason is because we—as well as France, Germany and others—increasingly have a problem of demographic balance in our politics. Some 30 years ago, when I was in charge of writing the manifesto for my party for the 1997 election, I spoke to people writing the Labour and Conservative manifestos. Among the things I was told was that we were really writing for people over the age of 45. Those under 45 did not vote so often and did not care so much about the details, so our package needed to be oriented towards benefits for the older generation. That is a problem. It is a huge problem in France, for example, where old people resist any increase in the age of retirement. I spent some time last spring visiting secondary schools to see how 16 and 17 year-olds would respond to votes at 16. I have been very impressed by how serious the 16 and 17 year-olds I met were about politics, how much more they want to know and how keen they are to be engaged. It will take a shift in the way we approach education and provide information but it is worth doing.

We have been discussing extension of the franchise for 200 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, rightly pointed out. I am sure he will agree that there have been only two occasions on which the Conservatives have not opposed any extension of the franchise. The first, as he mentioned, was Disraeli in 1867, when he decided to take a gamble and discover what he called the angels in marble. The second was in 2022, following the Elections Act, when the Conservatives pushed through an expansion of the right to vote for overseas voters for their lifetimes. The noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, may note that that increased the number of voters by somewhere between 2 million and 4 million; we are not entirely clear on how many overseas citizens are entitled to vote. That was done without a referendum, without consultation with the other parties, and without thinking through what it meant for changing the way in which you delivered your vote and get postal votes out. Cynics even thought that it was more to do with making it easier for wealthy expats to give money than to increase the franchise—but never mind, it was done, and without a referendum.

There has been talk about capacity and focus. The young people I spoke to—I have no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will say the same—are often very concerned about education and training, for obvious reasons, as well as climate change and sustainability, which tend not to concern our generation quite so much. If we are talking about capacity and interest in relation to the young, we might perhaps also think about the old. When I first went into politics, the local Conservative agent had an extremely good relationship with the matrons of the local care homes. I discovered that he would go round, talk to the matron and butter her up, and she would help the inmates to fill in their postal votes. It had nothing much to do with privacy but it was the way one did things at a local level. That was a long time ago, and I am sure that no Conservative agent would think of doing such a thing nowadays, but if we are to start measuring capacity then it is not just the under-18s whom we have to worry about.

On fiddling the franchise, I add that the 2022 Act changed the way in which we elect mayors, which meant that when the Mayor of the West of England was elected he got 26% of the vote—a good democratic thing. Fiddling with the franchise has been done on a regular basis by both major parties, so let us not pretend that we are doing that here as well.

Elections: Voter ID

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do believe that it was agreed in the legislation that when the review came out it would be discussed by both Houses. If that is not correct, I will correct it in a letter in the Library—but I am pretty sure that that is what was agreed.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, whenever photographic ID was introduced for elections in Northern Ireland, it was supported by all parties and all Members in both Houses of Parliament. Why should it be different for any other region of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We took the good practice from Northern Ireland that has been in place for 20 years and we thought that it was correct and right for the integrity of our democratic system to bring it across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Non-Domestic Rating (Designated Area) Regulations 2021

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks in presenting the statutory instrument.

These regulations form part of a scheme to allow local government to retain a share of non-domestic rates, to be shared between central and local government, with 50% each. As a former local councillor for 37 years, I know how important rates are in providing local services. The Government previously identified a number of geographical areas designed to help job creation and encourage growth. I appreciate that this system applies only to England and Wales, but the 50:50 split of rates income between central and local government is generally mirrored in Northern Ireland.

I acknowledge that these regulations do not extend to the Province, but I share their overriding aim to provide flexibility and support for local councils, enabling them to promote economic development via the rates system. Belonging to a pro-business party, my colleagues have previously outlined our support for devolving to local councillors the powers and ability to lower business rates in their council areas by up to 3%. We also want to enhance the small business rate relief scheme and maintain industrial derating.

Ultimately, these regulations promote and encourage a rates-based growth strategy in designated areas of local government. This is certainly something on which I want to see a greater emphasis in Northern Ireland, and my colleagues in the Executive are seeking to take this forward. New developments and new businesses can boost the income of local councils and generate growth. Therefore, the business rates base should be a key driver.

The recovery from Covid-19 must have at its core an emphasis on skills and productivity, backed by infrastructure investment. A business rates system which is fit for purpose and allows the economy to grow and evolve is therefore essential. Higher rates bills are not only a barrier to business creation and growth, but a harmful impediment to existing firms. Rates reforms can remove these obstacles to growth and place the future of businesses that are under threat from the chaos of the pandemic on a more stable footing.

I am also mindful that the charitable relief from non-domestic rating has been a vital lifeline for faith-based organisations and for the community and voluntary sector. Any strategy for spearheading the recovery from the ravages of Covid-19 must not neglect these groups, as their operation has already been severely disrupted.

In conclusion, I agree with those who have emphasised the necessity of a specific plan to revive our town centres and high streets. I trust that the Government will give us a positive lead on that.

Religious Groups: Financial Support

Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support they have provided to religious groups in the United Kingdom during the Covid-19 pandemic.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

During the pandemic, faith-based organisations and places of worship have been able to apply for a range of government packages available to support charities and businesses. These include the Coronavirus Community Support Fund, Historic England’s Covid-19 emergency relief fund and the Local Authority Discretionary Grants Fund. We continue to consider how government can effectively support the sustainability of faith groups.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, as a retired minister, I refer to my entry in the register of interests. Over these long months of the pandemic, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has provided financial aid for people and businesses greatly impacted by Covid, but churches themselves, which provide vital assistance to the isolated, the elderly, the sick and the dying, have received nothing, although their finances have been greatly depleted by the non-attendance of most of their congregations because of government rules and restrictions. What consideration has been given to this matter, and will aid be forthcoming?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I do not recognise that no support has been given. In fact, during the pandemic, there have been 10 schemes available to places of worship, including churches, four of which are still available. I point to the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme from DCMS, the gift aid small donations scheme, the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme through BEIS and the Job Support Scheme from HMT, all of which are still running and available.