Representation of the People Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, there is so much in this Bill to debate and take issue with, so it is a little disappointing to have so little time at Second Reading for each of us. But rest assured that the Bill needs and will receive detailed scrutiny from us all at later stages. Although it is not a disclosable interest, I remind the House that—unlike my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who seems to have escaped—I am still a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party.

It is a very disappointing Bill and, frankly, follows much of the direction of travel established in the Employment Rights Act, which itself interferes with the established system of politics in the UK. As my noble friend has said, the Act enabled trade unions to take money from their members in a way that would be considered completely unethical and breaches best consumer practices in terms of fundraising. Even more importantly, it allows unions not to publish the accounts of the political fund, so we do not know how their donations are made.

It is disappointing that in respect of this Bill there was no consultation after the general election, despite Labour Ministers promising this. They did have the grace to admit this in the Commons on 3 March 2025. This Government have clearly risked breaking long-standing convention that the Government of the day do not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties. By contrast, the previous Conservative Government, and the previous Labour Government before that, consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel for major parties—I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was not a member, but that is recognised on the Electoral Commission website.

I will spend most of my time and my remarks focusing on donations. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, forgot to mention Michael Brown; he did not make a donation because it was not permissible, but his company—5th Avenue Partners—did at £2.4 million, and the creditors are still waiting for a refund.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Do not forget Lloyd George.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

In fine tradition.

Before I carry on talking about donations, I must address the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. It is disappointing that she did not have the courtesy to discuss with me in advance what she planned to say. If she had done so, I would have pointed out to her that both Mr Amersi and his partner have been on the electoral roll since 2017. She selectively quotes from emails that he must have given her, and it is disappointing that she chooses to rely on Mr Amersi, who has been extensively discussed in the other place. I categorically state that neither I nor any member of the Conservative Party canvassed funds from Mr Amersi in respect of the 2024 election. I look forward to those remarks being withdrawn in due course. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to disclose fully to the House that my family helped finance her elections in Barking to defeat the BNP.

As it happens, most donations to parties are from individuals, but some companies do donate, and the rules proposed are simply not manageable by a regular volunteer treasurer of a local association. The pages and pages of risk assessment requirements—I do not know whether noble Lords have read them yet—are just not practical and are a classic example of red tape imposed on people wanting to help society by those who simply do not have the same experience. In particular, the real-time aggregation rules in respect of pre-donation checking will be impossible to put into effect. Too little thought has gone into this in the rush to produce 250 pages of legislation. These proposals have clearly been made by someone who has never actually been involved in local or national political fundraising and has not had the courtesy to talk to those who have.

Then there is the profit test for corporate donations; however well intentioned, it is a nonsense. It fails to understand that companies can be in a loss in accounting terms for very many years but can still be cash generative. If a company loses money for years and subsequently makes a one-off profit, it would seem not to be caught. So, what is the purpose of this? I remind the Minister that Ecotricity is one of Labour’s biggest donors. In 2023-24, the group made a loss of £5.6 million. In the same year, it gave £2.8 million to the Labour Party. One would hope the party does the decent thing and returns the money.

There are much better ways to achieve the objectives of the Bill, and we will be spending considerable time exploring them in later stages. Why are foreign-owned companies being denied the right to sponsor conferences and the like in the UK? They employ huge numbers of people in the UK and should not be denied the same rights as British companies to openly advertise and market.

I have not had time to remark on the plan to give children the vote. Yes, they are children, by any and every definition. Weirdly, if the party they vote for is successful, they are not allowed to go out celebrating in the pub with the rest of us, and Labour Ministers have refused to lower the drinking age to 16 on the grounds of “protecting children”. I thank the Minister for her letter to me seeking to answer my concerns that teachers will have undue influence on children, with whom they interact daily, at the time of elections. I note her points, but I do not see how this is going to be monitored. What guarantees are in place that no abuse will happen?

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, this is not about whether 16 or 17 year-olds, or indeed 18 year-olds, are smart and intelligent enough to vote. I owe the Committee an apology for not being able to speak at Second Reading: I was speaking about free speech to a group of sixth-formers who were thoughtful, articulate and mature. I know through the schools Debating Matters competition, which I founded, that many of those 16 and 17 year-olds could run rings around people in their 40s and 50s—indeed, around many in this Committee. But adulthood is not a technical accomplishment. The franchise is not determined by intelligence, maturity or debating skills. It is about when we as a society say that you are no longer a child and you are released from childhood into adulthood. That gives us freedom, autonomy and independence. My fear is that votes for 16 year-olds, who are inevitably not free and are dependent, will undermine adult freedoms and independence. The importance of voting as an independent activity is something we should not undermine carelessly, which I fear this does.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and her very considered remarks. I welcome the debate on this group, which explores the most unwelcome decision to bring children into the voting net. In particular, I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, specifically Amendment 301.

The wording of the government amendments, which no one has spoken of yet, requiring officers to investigate whether 14 or 15 year-olds live in a household, sends shivers down my spine—as does the concept of allowing this for children, whose rights in so many other areas of life are correctly postponed until they are responsible enough to use them wisely. We had this debate during Brexit, when the idea of 16 year-olds voting was mooted and discussed and then, quite rightly, dismissed. The point was made then— it is obviously true now—that there is substantial scientific evidence that a person’s capacity for reasoning, logical judgment and decision-making continues to develop up to the age of 18, and many would say thereafter. Although it is true that some basic cognitive capacity and logical reasoning can be reached at around 16, there are other areas where they are not.

In particular, studies highlight that resistance to peer pressure develops well beyond the age of 16. This is absolutely key, as my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, who has unparalleled expertise and experience in this area, pointed out. Peer pressure is not just from others of a young person’s age, and it is not meant to imply Peers such as me who go canvassing. It is teachers and other influencers, particularly these days, as most young people have access to influencers whom they regard as incredibly important and relevant to matters that matter to them, such as fashion and sport. Maybe these influencers are skilled in fashion, sport and related areas, but it would be worrying if they persuaded people how to vote based on extremely limited understanding of the policies themselves.

Scientific research has found that someone under 18 might be just as capable as an adult of understanding an argument, processing information and reaching a logical conclusion, and I do not doubt that. But they are most certainly less capable of resisting peer pressure or emotional impulses. Can the Minister advise us whether the Government have undertaken any specific research in this field to be sure of the competencies of 16-year-olds? In particular, can the Minister explain whether such 16 year-olds will now be eligible for jury service? If not, why not—not forgetting, of course, that jury members are selected from the electoral roll? How will that work? Perhaps she can explain why, in July 2025, the Labour national executive committee decided to change the rules so that officers of local Labour parties have to be over 18.

Let us look at some other glaring inconsistencies. Sixteen year-olds need parental consent to join the Army or marry. Young people cannot order a drink in a pub unless they are 18, so if their side does win the election—possibly due to their vote—they cannot join in the celebrations in the pub or, like the Chancellor, exhibit their joy by inverting a pint glass over their heads. Not unreasonably, Labour refused to lower the drinking age to 16. Why? In Labour’s words, to protect children from harm. Labour says that under-18s are not capable of making that decision for themselves. Labour raised the age for buying cigarettes to 18 “to protect children”, according to the Labour Minister. Why? Because Labour decided that children were not to be trusted with this important decision. Likewise, under-18s are dealt with in different courts and cannot watch the same films as 18 year-olds, because the British Board of Film Classification requires a person to be 18 before being classified as an adult.

As we have heard, the same applies to buying fireworks, using sunbeds and even buying knives. Labour legislated that children had to stay in school or comparable education until 18. Why? Because they were not capable of taking the decision to stay or leave themselves—this has nothing to do with protection. Welsh Labour banned under-18s from tongue piercing, arguing that

“young people may be less likely to have the experience or knowledge”

to take that decision.

Labour does not trust children under 18 to have Botox or buy corrosive substances, and it does not trust children to place bets or even enter a gambling shop. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, then deputy leader, said:

“Those who gamble should be adults”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/19; col. 721.]


So he confirms Labour’s view that under-18s are children. When Labour reduced VAT on children’s meals—another Brexit win—HMRC confirmed that under-18s are children.

What will these children use for voter ID in the polling booth? Few will have appropriate ID. For these reasons and many others, some 95% of the world’s democratic countries do not allow voting at 16; people have to wait until they are 18. Maybe it works in Nicaragua, Cuba or Ecuador, but it does not work here. We will be outliers, propelled by a Government rightly accused of attempting gerrymandering and, as I just demonstrated, abandoning all their past precedents and good practice on the altar of electoral greed—which may well backfire if those voters do not turn out to vote for Labour, as is now predicted.

In conclusion, will the Minister please tell us what research the Government have undertaken on my concerns, particularly about peer pressure on children, and whether she shares my concerns on some of the other issues I have raised? If the Government have undertaken that research, perhaps she could share it with us. If not, these amendments, which largely go to postpone the proposals, must make sense. A referendum would allow those who are closer to 16 and 17 year-olds to make this decision.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a couple of points. I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks that older people are not subject to peer pressure. I believe they are.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Scientific research has shown that younger people are more subject to peer pressure than people over the age of 18.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

What scientific evidence? We can come back to that some other time; I do not wish to waste time this afternoon.

On gerrymandering, I entirely refute that case. Recent polling suggests that young people are not more likely to vote for my party. We are doing this not to secure votes but because we believe that empowering young people is the right thing to do. I have some sympathy with the viewpoint put by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. Civic education and votes at 16 must go together, but we do not understand the depth of understanding of democracy among some young people. A couple of months ago, I went to a primary school in West Yorkshire where children between years 1 and 6 were elected to the school council. They all had to put forward a manifesto, and they patently understood democracy, voting and what everything meant. On civic education—to which we will return—this is not about influencing young people but about informing them so that they are aware of the rights they will be able to exercise.

Representation of the People Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in the debate on this Bill. I will speak to two amendments. On Amendment 24, I congratulate my noble friends Lord Farmer and Lady Meyer, who know a huge amount in this field and are experts in this area. I am very grateful to them for their contributions and their amendments today.

The area I want to focus on is peer pressure. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is right; we did discuss this two days ago. But this is a slightly different perspective. When I raised the issue of peer pressure last time, the Minister responded by saying that the Government do not go into cognitive development and do not wish to, which I accept. But this is a different issue; this is about peer pressure.

Last time, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, challenged me on the scientific evidence I cited, and my noble friend Lady O’Neill gave an answer, which was independently confirmed by my noble friend Lady Meyer. The expert in this field, Professor Laurence Steinberg of Temple University, has written extensively, both on his own and with others, about peer pressure and the inability of children to resist it. It gets better for children as they reach the age of 18 and beyond. That raises important questions. I say this in a co-operative spirit: the Government need to recognise that there is a potential problem of peer pressure for voters aged 16 and take steps to ensure that children are able to make decisions without that peer pressure.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, after he had gone into the internal machinations of the Conservative Party, which is one of his favourite subjects, made the very good point that it is vital that voters make independent decisions based on their own experiences and determination. My fear is that there will be gangs and influencers, and in certain communities extensive family pressure on people to cast their vote a certain way. The earlier response from the Front Bench—that there is always peer pressure—is fair, but we are saying that there is evidence that 16 to 18 year-olds are more susceptible to peer pressure than people over the age of 18. What steps will the Government take to ensure that they are protected?

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My noble friend has just mentioned people who are aged 16 to 18 and can vote, but the Bill throughout assumes that people aged 14 or above, as attainers, are going to prepare to vote. I wonder whether my noble friend might think a little bit about not just people who have reached 16 but also those who are under 16 and even more susceptible to peer pressure?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I could not agree more. I did not want to go down that route, because the counter argument would be, “We are only giving the vote to 16 year-olds”. But who knows? In future, it might be 14 year-olds. My noble friend Lord Fuller is absolutely spot on.

In the absence of my noble friend Lady Berridge, I want to address Amendment 44A. I am very worried about this. I have done a lot of canvassing. I have canvassed in every election since 1979—all for the same party I hasten to add—and not always with much success. Nevertheless, I have been out there regularly in a multitude of constituencies. Regularly, particularly in my own constituency of Queen’s Park and Maida Vale, which was previously Westminster North, I have found myself canvassing people who literally speak no English. When I knock on the door and try to communicate with them, they immediately pick up the phone and speak to their spouse or someone—I do not know who—and ask for instructions on what to say.

That is one issue, but the particular issue in Amendment 44A is about protecting children. Again, as a canvasser—I am sure that all noble Lords have done their share of canvassing—in the past, when the door is answered by a 16 year-old, one has simply said, “Can I speak to your parents?” Now, we will have to engage with 16 year-olds, which presents some challenges.

I am not particularly comfortable with the idea of having to knock on the door and engage in conversation with a 16 year-old to try to persuade them to vote for my party. I just do not want to be in that position. I am comfortable with an 18 year-old; I am not comfortable with doing that with a 16 year-old. Indeed, the Government recognise that 16 year-olds have to be protected. If I want to interact with 16 year-olds at the various schools with which I am involved, I have to be cleared to do that. I cannot just rock up at the classroom without having various checks, but as a canvasser, I can knock on the door and engage with a 16 year-old without any checks. I am not worried about me, but I am worried about other people.

Let us take this to not an absurd but a logical conclusion. What is to stop predators identifying children now on the electoral roll and going to see them, supposedly to canvass them but actually with other purposes in mind? I am very worried about this. They can justify to the authorities that they are entering into a dialogue with a 16 year-old because, they will claim, they are out canvassing, but they have an ulterior motive. I want to know from the Government what protection they plan to give in those circumstances.

It gets a lot worse if we are saying that 14 and 15 year-olds need to be educated. What happens if someone says, perhaps with some credibility, “I want to go and talk to 14 and 15 year-olds because they need to be persuaded to vote for my party”? Heaven knows what is going to happen on the doorstep. When I go canvassing, I am regularly invited in to discuss the subject over a glass of wine, a cup of tea or whatever. I always refuse because that is the guidance, but that does not mean that other people will. We are giving people the opportunity to enter vulnerable people’s homes and, if children are on their own at home, to have a discussion with them, supposedly about political matters—but who knows?

I do not have the answer to this problem, but I can see that it is a real problem, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address it now or later.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, as a young person, I was so susceptible to subversive influences such as BBC television news, Radio 4’s “World at One”, which I listened to every day, and the Guardian, which I bought daily, that by the time I was 14 I was treasurer of my branch of the Liberal Party, and by the time I was 16 I was secretary of the constituency. I do not suggest for a moment that that is normal for a teenager, but my point is that people are very different and should be treated differently.

Turning to these amendments, the most publicised aspect of this Bill is that which we debated on Monday—the principle of extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year -olds—and I do not wish to go over those arguments again. However, I do wish to say that the good intention of seeking to encourage the engagement of young people in political processes will fail unless we do much more about citizenship education. I accept that there are greater risks to our democracy, especially in the internet age, as most young people rely on information obtained online. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Political and Media Literacy, of which I am an active member, says in its briefing that foundational political and media literacy education is crucial to the health of our democracy. It warns that simply changing the voting age will not in itself encourage more civic responsibility or more sustained participation in democratic processes. I mentioned on Monday how Jersey lowered its voting age to 16 in 2008, but it was not such a successful experience because of the lack of civic education to support it.

The research compiled by the academic advisory group to our APPG reveals both an overwhelming desire among young people to engage and a troubling structural deficit in how our current school system prepares them for it. Young people rely heavily on social media. They are therefore more vulnerable to digital misinformation and less educated and equipped with critical media literacy tools that should be part of citizenship education.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, quoted the excellent research from Dr James Weinberg, who studied information from over 3,000 teachers across over half of all secondary schools. He found that at present, less than a third of secondary schools offer weekly lessons in political or citizenship education and over a quarter provide no democratic education whatsoever. The noble Baroness also drew attention to how state schools serving economically deprived communities provide significantly less political literacy education than private schools or state schools in affluent areas. Democratic confidence must not remain the preserve of the privileged. The danger of ignorance among the most disadvantaged represents a threat to the principles which should underpin a democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I have heard what the noble Lord has said. In my view, requiring such an assessment before these changes can be implemented would introduce a completely unnecessary additional step and could delay the delivery of a very important manifesto commitment on which, as I have said, we have done a good deal of research with young people.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, made some points around safeguarding and political canvassing. We have taken steps within the Bill, as he will know, to say that attainers—14 and 15 year-olds—will not be canvassed by EROs, but I understand that the point he is making is around political canvassing. I am sure that political parties will be developing their own safeguarding response to the provisions in this Bill.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

We are not talking about cognitive development or about taking tests. We are talking about what steps the Government are taking to protect people from peer pressure. So far, the answer is none, which is not very satisfactory.

Secondly, in respect of what happens on the doorstep, the Government cannot rely on political parties. My whole point is that there will be individuals who claim to be canvassers and will knock on doors and get entry into doors and into conversation with 16 year-olds under the pretext of being political campaigners. They will identify such people from the electoral roll. One cannot expect political parties to vet every single canvasser. It is up to the Government, if they are going to introduce eligibility for 16 year-olds to vote and to receive canvassers, to take steps to protect them.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

There are all sorts of people who knock on our doors. I understand what the noble Lord is saying and I will take those points away, but I seriously think that the point of the education process is to teach young people to have that critical thinking capacity to make their own decisions about things. I am more than confident that our young people at 16 and 17 have the faculties to do that.

I will now talk a little more about the education process, which is important in this.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

When the Minister says that she is more than confident, is she refuting the evidence of Professor Steinberg?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I hope I will have an opportunity to speak to Professor Steinberg at some point, but I think we need to move on and talk about what we are going to do in terms of education.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for tabling Amendment 43 and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is not in her place today, for Amendment 44. I recognise the motivations of these amendments and I share the ambition to ensure that young people are supported to exercise their democratic rights and build lifelong engagement with our democracy. A fundamental point in all this is that we know that engaging young people at a much earlier age encourages that lifelong engagement with the democratic process.

This is a priority for the Government. We are already working to strengthen democratic education and engagement, including in response to the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review. Citizenship is already a statutory national curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4 in maintained schools, covering parliamentary democracy, electoral systems and how citizens can influence decisions. The Government’s wider curriculum reforms will strengthen this further, including through clearer teaching of democracy, media literacy and active citizenship. We are considering what transitional support may be needed before those reforms take effect, including practical, non-partisan voter information, adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues such as political impartiality and misinformation.

Alongside this, the Electoral Commission is undertaking important work to support young people’s democratic education. It is developing a democratic education framework in partnership with organisations across the education and youth sectors, providing practical resources to help educators and young people understand and participate in democracy. This is currently being piloted, and a formal launch is planned for March 2027, which I hope answers my noble friend Lady Royall’s question. The commission also runs Welcome to Your Vote Week, an annual campaign which provides schools, colleges and youth organisations with opportunities to help people understand elections and build confidence in participating.

Further, my department has established the democratic engagement fund to support politically neutral projects that help people understand, engage with and participate in democracy. I recognise my noble friend’s concern about young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and politically underrepresented groups, including girls and young women. The fund provides an opportunity to support projects that help break down barriers to democratic participation and ensure that more young people have the opportunity to make their voices heard.

I will comment on some of the points made about political impartiality in schools. Schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality. They must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take reasonably practical steps to ensure that, where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention, opposing views are presented in a balanced way. The existing Political Impartiality in Schools guidance makes it clear that these duties apply to public displays, including banners and posters, as well as school communications.

We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission, devolved Governments and civil society organisations to consider what additional measures can support schools, colleges and youth groups to deliver practical voter and civic education. I hope I have given my noble friend reassurance on these points, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on the role of the Electoral Commission. I entirely recognise the importance of education and engagement in making votes at 16 a success, but I do not believe that further legislation is needed.

Finally, on Amendment 44, the Government recognise the importance of safeguarding young people, and the Bill provides strong protections where those are needed—for example, on data protection. In addition, 16 and 17-year-olds, and those who will turn 16 before polling day, should have the same opportunity as any other voter to hear from candidates and political parties to form an opinion before casting their vote.

We completely agree with the importance of appropriate conduct during campaigning. We welcome the Speaker’s Conference recommendation to establish a code of conduct for campaigning and have committed to work with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties to support the development of a code which is fit for purpose. I hope this responds further to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. As part of this work, we have the opportunity to consider the specific issue raised in this amendment, regarding the safeguarding of young people in campaigning. We therefore do not consider this amendment is likely to be necessary.