Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, as my noble friend Lord Wigley has covered some of the most important points. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is interesting that there is the exception in these amendments for the City of London but not for whole nations, so it would be interesting to hear more about that in closing.

The only points I wanted to raise was that the Welsh Parliament, Senedd Cymru, is the people of Wales’s Parliament. Therefore, it is only right that the people of Wales decide how it is run. The same goes for Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. These amendments are, essentially, an unnecessary power grab. Why is it the business of this Parliament how the people of Wales and Scotland decide to be represented in their Parliaments there?

On the point in relation to different electoral arrangements and whether people understand those when you vote at 16, I want to share the story that during a lot of engagements with younger people across Wales, a lot of them raise how they understand the different systems, particularly because of what happened during the Covid pandemic. During that pandemic, Wales and England made different decisions on whether schools were open. They also made different healthcare arrangements. The younger people of today have experience and knowledge of that; they understand the systems and what the different Parliaments make decisions on. It is really important to share that and rebut what was said in earlier speeches; because of those experiences, they know those differences of opinions.

We take a different approach on matters, and that is devolution. I end by saying that this is a matter, in my opinion, for the Welsh Parliament and the Scottish Parliament only.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Jackson. I do so because it is important for this country and its constitutional arrangements that we have these changes. This country has always been a unitary power. It is one of the oldest unitary powers; it is also one of the most stable political democracies. That second characteristic matters as much as the first, and its nature, both being old and unitary and being a stable democracy, means they are linked to each other.

Constitutional change is for the whole country. First, it has historically involved the whole country through broadsheets and with long debates and public discussion. For all these Parliament has been, as Churchill once said, the forum for the nation. It was Samuel Johnson, I think, who made Parliament popular for the public by being the first person to report systematically its proceedings—he was long the precursor of Hansard.

Secondly, it is important to avoid sectional politics in constitutional decisions. One cannot help escaping the feeling that in some decisions taken by other assemblies in Wales and Scotland, there is the hint of political considerations in determining these grave constitutional matters. It is much harder to break the mould of one party’s popularity and, for that reason, it is not a particularly bad thing that we have constant changes of political parties in this country. It is very good for democracy and stability that the other people have a chance.

The Government will not support these amendments. The Government are committed to maintaining and defending the devolution settlements. Allowing the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments to set the electoral franchise for their own elections, as well as for local offices, is a fundamental part of those settlements. The Government see no clear benefit to changing that position, one that has held for many years. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—who I think answered his own question—that there was indeed a mandate for the devolution settlements through the 1997 general election.

Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

One thing I want to stress to the Minister as we go forward with the Bill is that she sees tabling these probing amendments as an attempt to undermine a manifesto promise, destroy the Bill and all sorts of negative things. We have just talked about the role of this House, and I genuinely think that these and similar amendments are trying to push the Government to think through whether the Bill is fit for purpose and whether it needs some clear red lines and guidance on these important matters. If the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds is of such historic importance as the Government maintain, we should give it a lot of attention and not just box-tick it through.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Fuller’s Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 38, which would require non-partisan teaching and non-party political posters, which would require balanced hustings, with all the candidates invited and with proper notice. They are very important amendments. It may be argued by the Minister that they are already covered by law under Sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Act. Indeed, the law requires schools to

“prohibit the promotion of partisan political views”

and

“take steps to ensure the balanced presentation of … views”.

There are also teachers’ standards, which require teachers not to use their standing or position to influence pupils who may or may not be vulnerable due to their age. We also have the duties under the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act, as well the promotion of British values. All these are there.

I do not know how the Minister will respond to these amendments, but they are important because we are now looking at an entirely new category of people aged 16 and 17. The law as it stands was framed for the general teaching of youngsters at school, most of whom would not be going to the polls during their school years —maybe some at the very end but mostly not. Therefore, the idea of what teachers are doing is a pretty abstract notion. But now we are going to be teaching impressionable youngsters—children—who will be going to the polls and for whom this is not an abstract matter at all.

As other noble Lords have said, there is a danger of influence—maybe not intentional, but non-intentional —by the kind of material displayed and the kind of teaching mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. How can somebody who is a committed member of any party avoid somehow influencing youngsters? It is necessary for the Government to think about how to put in special provisions for people at school who will be voting, as opposed to the cohorts at whom we have, to date, aimed the law, most of whom will not be voting in parliamentary or other elections.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, touched on perhaps the most interesting element of this group, which does not directly affect the Bill at all. It is the potential wider knock-on effect on the Online Safety Act. If we get to a place where we have 16 and 17 year-olds registered, the existence of that electoral register, as the noble Lord rightly mentioned in passing, may become an important building block in future age-verification processes under that Act. So, I suspect that in some ways the most important issue these amendments raise is not for this Bill but for other areas that exercise us at other times.

A general point has come out through these amendments and in several earlier groups, which is that we will have two fundamentally different processes. Under this Bill, we will have the right to vote from 16; under the Online Safety Act the key age threshold is 18. I will not relitigate the previous debate, particularly in light of my comments earlier, but just observe that those two ages being different is not a reason to be particularly hostile, because we have many variations in all sorts of other areas, as was noted in previous debates. However, we should recognise that those two numbers are different. It would be helpful to have more clarity from the Government about their plan to ensure that the different age threshold under the Online Safety Act does not provide inadvertent, unwanted consequences that damage the extension of the franchise to 16 year-olds.

I do not agree with all the details of the methods that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has chosen in his amendments, but one important point is worth drawing out, which comes under his Amendment 35. Lawyers might argue over the word “outcome”. I think it is reasonable for schools to teach children about the values of democracy. If we look at, for example, the decisions made about the national curriculum under previous Conservative Governments, there is a very clear direction that we, as a nation, are not neutral between democracy and dictatorship. Therefore, it is reasonable for schools to communicate that we want people to participate in elections. It has to be done in a way that is fair and that recognises there are people who may wish to spoil their ballots or not to vote as a matter of principle, but promoting democracy is a reasonable part of our education system. Although there are some details I disagree with, the basic point about how the Online Safety Act world and the world to be created by this Bill are going to interact is one on which it would be helpful to hear more from the Government.