Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Meyer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

Amendment 24, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Meyer, requires that, before 16 and 17 year-olds are given this responsibility, evidence of their decision-making capabilities, maturity and capacity for independent decision-making is compared with that of 18 year-olds, and the assessment published. This major constitutional step should not be taken without serious consideration of the evidence base. Amendments 280 and 287 enable this requirement for the delayed commencement.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 24, tabled by my noble friend Lord Farmer, to which I have added my name. This amendment asks for something entirely reasonable: proper assessment of the evidence on the decision-making capability of 16 and 17 year-olds, compared with those aged 18 or over. Surely, before lowering the voting age, Parliament should have that evidence.

This is not about questioning young people’s intelligence or enthusiasm. It is about whether, at that age, they have developed the maturity and independence of judgment to understand the long-term consequences of their decisions. The scientific evidence is there. To give an example, Professor Sallie Baxendale, a clinical neuropsychologist at UCL, explains that, during adolescence, the brain undergoes extensive rewiring. The connections responsible for rational judgment, impulse control and assessing long-term consequences are still developing. In other words: at 16, the brain is still very much a work in progress.

Research also shows that teenagers are particularly sensitive to emotions, immediate rewards and peer pressure. This is particularly so in today’s world of social media, influencers, foreign interference and online campaigning. Of course, many 16 year-olds are intelligent and politically engaged. But intelligence is not the same as maturity. Most of them are still at school, living at home, and have yet to experience real independence.

Voting is not just about expressing an opinion; it is about choosing who governs us, who taxes us and who makes decisions affecting our future. We already recognise that young people need protection. Both the Children Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child generally recognise that those under 18 are children. As noted before, in England, people cannot marry, buy alcohol or tobacco, serve on a jury or stand for Parliament until they are 18. I remind the House that the Mariage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 passed with cross-party support, including from Labour. It raised the minimum age of marriage to 18, even with parental consent. Why? To protect children from forced marriage and family coercion. If we protect children from family coercion over marriage, should we not be equally concerned about pressure from parents or other adults enticing them to vote in a particular way? Surely, the principle is the same: protecting children from coercion.

Only a few months ago, the Government announced plans to restrict children’s access to social media in order to

“give kids their childhood back”.

But how does involving children in political decisions give them their childhood back? Is it not bizarre that the Government consider 16 year-olds to be still in need of protection from TikTok yet old enough to choose who will govern the country?

The Bill proposes bringing children into the electoral registration system before they are even old enough to vote. When questioned the other day, the Minister told us that,

“Even by the age of 14”,


children

“have decided what subjects they want to continue to study”,—[Official Report, 2/11/26; col. 1390.]

as a reason why children at age 14 should be involved. Surely choosing school subjects is hardly comparable to choosing who should govern our country.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness was in the Chamber when we discussed these issues only two days ago, but all the arguments which she has quite rightly addressed this afternoon were indeed rehearsed then. They have been discussed and debated very widely.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I was basically talking to the amendment, which requires evidence. That is why I was talking about how we do not have the evidence, and that the evidence we have shows us the contrary: that children under the age of 18 are probably not mature enough.

Surely choosing which subjects you study at school is not comparable with choosing who should run our country. This is where a lot of noble Lords before me questioned whether the Government think that this measure will encourage young people to vote for them. I suspect that, if the figures were different and young people voted for the Conservative Party, we would have a very different argument at this stage.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

I am sorry, but changing the voting age should be a matter of principle, not electoral advantage.

I am particularly concerned about vulnerable children, including children in care, who, evidence tells us, are more susceptible to pressure or manipulation. Surely before extending the franchise to younger and potentially vulnerable people, the Government should establish whether they have the maturity and independence of judgment to exercise that right without undue influence.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

As someone who grew up as a child in care, I can assure the Committee that I did not fit into the description put forward by the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Meyer]

The Government point out that, in Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey, children aged 16 can vote in certain elections. However, UK general elections determine who takes responsibility for our national defence and security, and so are quite different from elections in those smaller countries and areas. These are decisions on war and peace.

If the Government are confident that 16 is an appropriate voting age, surely they should welcome a proper assessment and explain why they are prepared to disregard scientific concerns about maturity and independent judgment—or is political advantage the real reason behind this proposal? I ask the Government to look at this amendment and bring forward some evidence. Frankly, some of us might even question whether we have fully acquired the maturity needed to vote at the age of 18.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I share some of the worries summed up by Amendments 18 and 19, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about ensuring that all sides of the argument are heard by our newly enfranchised 16 year-olds, especially looked-after children.

I have noted Amendment 43, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 44, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which both focus on the role that education can play in preparing young people for voting. As a former teacher, I always welcome more knowledge-based education, but I am concerned, for a number of reasons which I raise now.

First, this would put an undue burden on teachers. As we know, every time there is a social problem in this country, somebody says that education will solve it, and teachers are tearing their hair out every time they hear that. Secondly, how on earth might we trust that, if this is the main source of information that young people are going to get before they vote, it is suitably impartial?

In an earlier group, there was a very important discussion in which concern expressed about undue influence on voters, sometimes from families, sometimes women being coerced, sometimes from religious groups, and so on and so forth. We all took that seriously, as it is an important debate. Here we have to ask whether young voters could be unduly influenced, and by what. I am concerned about how we ensure, when talking about education and linking it directly, as these amendments seek to do, to 16 year-olds being prepared to vote, that it is based on impartial information.

As noble Lords will note, my concern in relation to votes for 16 year-olds is about their dependence on state bodies, as people who have not got the majority, because I want to protect the notion of the independence of all voters. It seems to me that we are going to have a group of voters who, by the nature of the way society is organised, are not independent. That most expresses itself, funnily enough, in school or in instances of looked-after children, dependent on the state or local councils, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, explained.

I have a general concern that the whole discussion could lead to the politicisation of schools, and that really worries me. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made the point that education is subversive. It absolutely is, and, to be fair, I am a great fan of being subversive—I try to make a habit of it. However, linking the idea of education as subversive with saying, “You must now go out and be a responsible citizen and vote”, could get us into some difficulties.