Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, is very important; it relates also to the earlier comments by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on Amendment 51 about ensuring that eligibility is strictly adhered to. There can be nothing more destructive of democratic trust than believing that anyone is playing fast and loose with who is allowed to vote in an election. We have just sat through an incredibly complicated Statement about the various degrees of the new immigration status. That will have to be taken into account in terms of eligibility and we have to be confident that the system can cope with it.

In that spirit, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, did us a real a favour earlier when he talked specifically about the nuts and bolts of how we deal with the fact that children will now be voting and they will not necessarily have at their fingertips the usual adult forms of ID, as he illustrated rather wittily and very well. I was rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, was so cynical that he saw these comments as somehow partisan. In fact, I thought that cynicism was itself rather partisan rather than anything else. It is really important, if you are going to extend the franchise in the way that we have been discussing, that you ensure that the franchise is strictly and absolutely foolproof and safe. One of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said was that surely we want as many people to vote as possible. In that sense, you could just carry on expanding the franchise ever younger, or you could also say that anybody who happens to be wandering in can have—

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

I was absolutely crystal-clear that I meant all those people legally entitled to vote; “legally entitled” is very important and a part of the principle of everything I have argued for.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Clarification understood. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to consider that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, was trying to ensure that people who were entitled to vote were checked up on. The accusation was that he was somehow trying to limit the franchise and I was defending him in relation to that point.

I want to ask the Minister about something that was in a government amendment in an earlier group—we kind of run out of time but it relates to this—which is that registration officers will now have to obtain information, or will be given the right to obtain information, about 14 and 15 year-olds throughout the land and to retain that information for use when inviting them to then register to vote. I thought the point about any Government’s history—I am not making a sectarian point—of looking after data and keeping it safe was a point worth noting, especially if children’s data has been gathered up.

On registration officers collecting data, could the Minister say whether there will be any consideration of the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about using national insurance numbers? I thought that was a really good suggestion, but I am really asking the Government whether they are open to detailed discussions on the nuts and bolts of how we are going to make this work in relation to both immigration status and the expanded franchise for 16 year-olds. Will there be an opportunity or are there plans to ensure that this is watertight?

To reiterate, if people believe that elections are happening that are not safe, with people being able to vote who have not been strictly checked on or are not registered, then it will undermine democracy. I know that that is the very opposite of what the Government aim.

Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, it is more than 50 years since we legislated to extend the franchise to allow 18 year-olds to vote in general elections. A great deal has changed in society since 1970 when those 18 year-olds cast their first votes, and it is right that we look again properly at the issue of the franchise.

The debates since 1970, including this afternoon, focus largely on the issue of at what age it is appropriate to do whatever people want to do. But the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, that few people who are 16 or 17 in Scotland and Wales are registered to vote is not an indication that they should not be able to vote; it is an indication simply of how difficult it can be to be on the electoral register when you are a young person. That issue is addressed elsewhere in the Bill, but was sadly neglected over the last four Parliaments.

I accept that there are things we should not let people do as soon as they are 16. For example, smoking is self-harming, alcohol carries great dangers, gambling can be deeply addictive and purchasing fireworks, knives, crossbows and airguns should not be permitted to anyone under 18. But going down to a polling station or filling in a postal vote should not be seen as a harmful activity, any more than it is for older generations.

A 16 year-old in this country can consent to medical treatment, leave school for another form of education or training and consent to sex. With parental consent, that young person can join the Armed Forces, apply for a passport and get married or enter a civil partnership. Yet, under present laws, someone whose 18th birthday falls just before a general election may not get to cast a vote in one until they are 21 or 22. If politics is not for them when they are young, it may never be for them.

In 2003, in a debate on a Bill that would have reduced the franchise from 18, I argued that maturity and political understanding do not suddenly materialise on your 18th birthday. My view remains that it is wrong to suggest that everyone over 18 generally possesses sufficiently political wisdom to make choices, while no one aged 16 or 17 can properly decide whether to vote or who to vote for. My own experience with political research often involved me interviewing the interviewers who sought to discuss political issues with voters. The people they interviewed, who were entitled to vote because they were 18, frequently knew so little about the issues facing a democracy that the interviewers even said to me that they sometimes doubted the wisdom of the universal franchise.

Wisdom, political experience and judgment do not always come with being older. Younger people, in my experience, are sometimes ahead of older generations in considering long-term challenges such as climate change, alongside immediate priorities such as education, transport and housing. Amendments today seek to maintain the voting age at 18, or to reduce the number of young people who will be added to the voting registers. The suggestion is even made—I think it is preposterous—of having a national referendum before extending the franchise. Another referendum, and on this issue? We can only imagine what Brenda from Bristol would have to say about that.

Retaining the vote at 18 or pausing at an arbitrary halfway point of 17 ignores vital lessons from when the franchise has been extended in Scotland and Wales. Studies across both nations demonstrate that 16 and 17 year-olds living at home and attending school are embedded in a supportive social structure that actively fosters democratic engagement: a structure that 18 to 20 year-olds currently entitled to vote who are living independently often lack. In Scotland and Wales, and in other countries such as Austria, which led the way by lowering the voting age to 16 across all electoral levels in 2007, there was no meltdown of democracy. In fact, in local elections in Vienna, turnout among 16 and 17 year-olds reached 64%, compared with only 56% among 18 to 20 year-olds.

We on these Benches accept that the issue of enfranchisement cannot stand alone. We should look to research from Jersey, which lowered the voting age in 2008. It was demonstrated there that extending the franchise in isolation, without structured democratic education, failed to deliver sustained engagement, leaving young voters facing persistent confusion over candidates’ policy platforms and how democracy works. So, in a later group of amendments, we will argue that extending the franchise and strengthening citizenship education must be treated as twin pillars of a single coherent strategy, aimed at improving political engagement and the health of our democracy.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to a couple of amendments, including Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, because I think it is valid to ask, “Why 16, not 17?” We could as easily ask, “Why 16, not 15?” This is overall an important group of amendments, not necessarily because anyone here is interested in overturning a manifesto pledge or getting stuck in a row about the maturity or otherwise of teenagers, but in order to probe how far the Government have considered the impact of these changes, what they mean for the adult franchise and the problem of inconsistency in relation to age when it comes to the way we view the age of majority.

My fear is that we are in danger of getting in a muddle about what adulthood means. The age of majority, according to law, is 18. Successive Governments have created fairly hard lines about what under-18s cannot do, as we have heard, including buying alcohol, nicotine products or vapes or gambling: all the sins, the harmful things. Under 18 year-olds are also deemed incapable of exerting full contractual capacity when it comes to loans or mortgages or doing jury service. I think that jury service is good and I hope that, by the time they grow up, there will still be juries left for them to be recruited to—but I put that to one side.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Lord Rennard and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Well, good. I have got a few “hear, hears”.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

Does the noble Baroness accept that a crucial difference is that organisations such as ASH are funded by organisations concerned with public health, including Cancer Research UK and people who deal with trying to save lives, while FOREST is funded by the tobacco industry, which kills half its customers?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was coming on to that point. I would really appreciate a dose of honesty in this House. If those people who are so hostile to smoking a legal product believe that it is the killer they allege, they should call for smoking to be made illegal and be done with it. At the moment, tobacco companies are legal companies. People talk about them with such distaste, as though they should be abolished. It would be better and more heartfelt if they argued that tobacco should be illegal; then we would have a different debate. Public health is not always neutral when you talk about public health lobbyists, in my opinion. The freedom to choose to do something that is bad for your health is still allowed in a free society, despite some people wishing it was not.