Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Lord Murphy of Torfaen and Lord Hannan of Kingsclere

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I think the most interesting thing in this debate is the things that were not said. When the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, went directly to the point that everyone else had been tiptoeing around and, slightly indelicately but deliberately, said this was a partisan Bill that was psephological in its content and was actually about advantaging one party over another, I watched very carefully the expressions opposite. The Minister did not swoon theatrically; there was no clamour of outrage, with people demanding that either of the noble Lords should withdraw. In fact, with the honourable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who at least tried to reject it—she said she refuted it, but I am not sure she did—the reaction everywhere else was some studied looking at screens. The reason was that the noble Lords were not saying anything remarkable.

Lest that noble Lords think I am being partisan about this, this has been the case with every change in the franchise. In our entire long history, I cannot think of one Representation of the People Act that has not been manipulated for partisan advantage by every party at the time. It happened in 1832 and 1867, it happened in the 1884 and 1885 Reform Acts, it happened in 1918, and it happened when the voting age was last changed in 1969 by Harold Wilson. It happened when the Triennial Act was introduced in 1694, when the Septennial Act was introduced in 1716, and when the quinquennial Act was introduced in 1911. On every occasion, people have—perfectly understandably, because politics is politics—tried to game who would benefit.

As King Solomon said,

“there is nothing new under the sun”.

I will of course with great pleasure give way.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

The noble Lord might recall that I was a history tutor, and I am going to disagree with him. In Wales, the first time—I think it was the first—that 16 year-olds voted, the Labour Party, which had been in power in Wales for over 100 years, was reduced to nine out of 96 seats.

[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?