Representation of the People Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Udny-Lister (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall also speak to Amendments 3, 4, 33, 301 and 302, all in my name.

On Amendment 1, I am firmly of the view that you should be able to vote in an election only when you are old enough to meet the age criteria to stand as a candidate for that election. Eighteen remains the legal age of adulthood and is currently the age at which a citizen may put themselves forward to be elected to the House of Commons. That connection is important, and it is in alignment with the age criteria to vote. If the Government are unable to support Amendment 1, I hope Ministers will be able to explain why they are so keen to separate the age of voting and candidacy in this way. This is not an argument regarding maturity, though much could be said on that topic; I am moving this amendment in defence of a long-established electoral principle.

It will come as no surprise to your Lordships that I do not support the franchise being lowered to enable 16 and 17 year-olds to vote. Through Amendment 1, it is my intention that the minimum voting age remains at 18, which would maintain alignment with the minimum age to stand for election in the Commons under Section 17 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006. Through Amendment 1, I seek to preserve the existing and long-standing alignment between the age of voting for and the age of standing as a candidate. The parliamentary franchise is one of the very foundations of our constitution, and in the passage of the Bill thus far I have failed to see any justification from the Government as to why such a long-standing national rule ought to change.

Further still, I put it to your Lordships that the Government have failed to address what the consequences of the Bill are and why those consequences are justified. Data from the Electoral Commission confirms that through this legislation, if left unamended, we would extend the franchise to 1.7 million additional people. Make no mistake: this represents a major constitutional change. The question is not whether young people should get the vote—it is whether the Government have established a principled case for changing the parliamentary franchise and whether the safeguards, preparation and democratic consent are commensurate with this change. As of yet, the burden of explanation that is required by the House to justify the constitutional significance of this change fails to meet what I consider to be the basic test of proportionality. Perhaps that is because the essence of the Bill is sadly more about gerrymandering the franchise than it is about strengthening the electoral system.

I am, however, sympathetic to this House supporting the greater involvement of young people in our democracy. That is a must. But we should not and must not mistake engagement for the single question of enfranchisement. If the Government are committed to strengthening democratic values and engagement among younger people, I hope that today the Minister will be able to commit to bringing forward a fully funded and credible programme of proper and unbiased civic education, whether or not the Bill succeeds. That will mark whether this Government are serious about the engagement of younger people in the process.

We need only look at the data from Scotland and Wales, where 16 and 17 year-olds are already permitted to vote in the devolved parliamentary elections as well as local elections. Electoral Commission figures from 2025 estimate that only 61% of 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland and a shocking 39% in Wales are actually registered to vote, despite having the opportunity to do so. This demonstrates my earlier point that the widening of the franchise does not solve the problem of engagement and suggests that the Government should turn their focus to civic education prior to any national law change.

I come to Amendment 3. I am asking noble Lords to support retaining the existing age qualification of 18 for the signing of a recall petition under the Recall of MPs Act 2015. When the recall Act was passed, it was widely accepted that the power of recall was a distinct and profound constitutional act. Through this amendment, I seek to acknowledge the severity of the recall process by asking your Lordships to consider the recall franchise on its own merits and not to assume that every adjustment to voting age must automatically be copied. Amendment 3 would thus ensure that the age for signing recall petitions is equal to the established age of adulthood and the minimum age at which people could vote in the last parliamentary election. If the Government are unable to support this amendment, I ask Ministers to explain why changing the voting age should automatically alter the recall electorate and why they are of the view that this particular extension can be made without full and independent justification.

Given that the power of recall has the highly sensitive ability to remove representation, it is for the Government to now justify whether it is their intention to change the eligible population empowered to terminate the mandate of people elected to the current Parliament. If it is their intention to do this, it is problematic for a number of reasons. If this is left unamended, the House will, in effect, be making changes to a constitutionally sensitive accountability mechanism, simply as a side-effect of another clause. I put it to your Lordships that this is not a sensible way to deal with the complexity of constitutional matters. Therefore, I ask noble Lords to back Amendment 3 as a limited safeguard.

I recognise that the Government made a manifesto commitment to lowering the age of voting, but I caution your Lordships’ Committee that on such major constitutional matters we should still utilise the process of taking the question directly to the people through a referendum. If the question of how we elect our Members of Parliament was considered sufficiently fundamental to warrant the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote, I ask the Government to explain why the question of who should be entitled to elect them is considered any less deserving of the consent of the British people.

This is important. As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about increasing the franchise by an additional 1.7 million people. Through Amendment 4, I am asking for the Government to seek the reassurance of the electorate that this is wanted, as I sense that the national mood on this subject matter is very different from the direction that the Government are taking. My amendment is a democratic safeguard that would require a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16 within two years of Royal Assent.

Amendment 4 should be read alongside my Amendment 301, for the former would require a referendum while the latter would prevent regulations commencing voting at the age of 16 unless a majority had voted for it. The process of a referendum would create a serious and needed national conversation around civic responsibility, one that I hope everybody would be keen to welcome. If we are to make such monumental changes that would alter the integrity of the vote, it is only right that the decision to do so should be put to the British people.

Moving on to Amendment 33, I call on noble Lords and the Government to properly acknowledge the troublesome and dangerous times in which we live. Through Amendment 33, I am calling on the relevant Secretary of State to conduct an assessment of the susceptibility of 16 and 17 year-olds to foreign interference and electoral disinformation prior to lowering the franchise. In tabling this amendment, I am not in any way suggesting that young people are any more uniquely gullible to election-related disinformation and foreign interference than older people. I am asserting the point that the Government have a duty to assess whether any new cohort of electors may encounter particular vulnerabilities or exposures, and what the state must do to protect the integrity of the information environment for the safeguarding of our democracy.

The issue here is that our electoral environment has fundamentally changed, and I draw your Lordships’ attention to the recent research by the Electoral Commission after the 2024 election. It highlighted that 61% of respondents reported seeing misleading information about party policies and 52% misleading information about candidates, and 24% said they had seen or heard an election-related deepfake. These figures must concern us. I fear that 16 and 17 year-olds, through their greater use of chatbots, AI platforms and social media sites, would be even more greatly impacted than older peers.

We know that foreign interference in our electoral process is a real and significant threat. Hostile states, particularly Russia, have in recent years shown their willingness to utilise social media and the plethora of digital tools out there to interfere in the democratic processes of other countries. We would be foolish to think that we are immune to this. With the rapid deployment of AI, it is becoming increasingly hard to establish fact from fiction and the truth from disinformation, and we know there are a lot of rogue actors. Therefore, before increasing the franchise, it is the responsibility of the Government to at least understand the current risks and consider the adequacy of the safeguards.

Amendments 301 and 302 are in my name. Though Amendment 301, I seek to ensure that the Government hold a referendum and publish an assessment of susceptibility of 16 and 17 year-olds to election-related disinformation and foreign interference. These commencement conditions are highly important, as they would make the consent of the electorate in relation to Amendment 4, which would require a referendum, a condition rather than a courtesy and would give the overall exercise a defined constitutional purpose.

Further to a referendum result, through Amendment 301, I also seek to require the Government to discharge the duty to assess the susceptibility to election-related disinformation and foreign interference under Amendment 33. I hope noble Lords will agree that through these amendments, taken together, we would require two independent safeguards prior to commencement.

Finally, on Amendment 302, I seek a requirement for the approval of both Houses under the affirmative principle before the voting age is lowered to 16 for any future elections. In speaking to this amendment, I seek to protect Parliament’s role in scrutiny by reserving the final commencement decision for both Houses. It should be for Members to decide and test whether, through Amendments 4, 33 and 301, a referendum has been carried out and the disinformation assessments properly completed. Through Amendment 302, I provide an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny as I do not believe it should be left for Ministers to be the judge as to whether the prerequisites for extending the franchise have been adequately met.

In speaking to these amendments, I conclude by reminding your Lordships’ Committee that although the Government may be confident in their policy—indeed, they have the numbers to force the Bill through—a parliamentary majority is no substitute for principle and for democratic consent. I tabled these amendments as the Bill is fundamentally flawed. Why should 16 year-olds be permitted to vote yet remain illegible to stand for election? Why should the franchise for recall petitions be altered without the Government laying before this Parliament a distinct and compelling justification of the fairness of this? What measures are Ministers putting in place to assess the risks of the susceptibility of young people to disinformation and foreign interference?

If the Government have confidence that the majority of the people in this country support increasing the franchise by 1.7 million then putting this to a confirmatory vote of the British people would surely uphold the integrity of our future elections. All these questions remain unanswered, and the integrity of our constitution should not be seen as a political experiment to be conducted at the whim of whichever Government happen to hold office.

I hope I have the support of your Lordships in asking, through these amendments, that the Government think again. The franchise is the bedrock of our democracy. It belongs not to the Government of the day but to the British people. It should not be altered without their consent. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I advise the Committee that if Amendment 1 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 2 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord made a very interesting speech, most of which I disagreed with. I understand the issues, but to say that there is no mandate, constitutional basis or any political support for this measure is absolute nonsense. It was in the manifesto of the Labour Party. When people voted in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England, they voted, among other things, to agree to voting at 16, so I see no conceivable argument against it constitutionally because it is a constitutional principle—the bedrock of our constitution—that a manifesto commitment is the same as a referendum.