Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I look forward to discussing the finer details of this important Bill with members of the Committee.

Clause 1 extends the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, local elections in England and Northern Ireland, local referenda in England, and police and crime commissioner elections, as well as ward elections in the City of London. The Government committed in their manifesto to increasing young people’s engagement in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. That will enable young people in England and Northern Ireland to join their peers in Scotland and Wales, who can already vote in local and devolved elections. The change is aligned with the aim that the Government set out in the national youth strategy to ensure that young people are “seen and heard”, and will build the foundations for people’s lifelong participation in our electoral processes.

Furthermore, the Government’s view is that once 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. For that reason, the clause also ensures that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to sign recall petitions, as all other electors are permitted to do. The clause will support the Government in our work to deliver on our commitments to young people, meaning that approximately 1.7 million eligible 16 and 17-year-olds will have a say in all UK elections for the very first time.

Amendment 33, which was tabled by the Opposition, would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on why the voting age for UK parliamentary elections should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which provided that

“a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of eighteen”.

Under the amendment, the report would also be required to include comparisons with other age limits that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and would have to be published before voting rights could be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.

The important question is not about what else a person can or cannot do at age 16, but whether 16 is the right age at which to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer is yes: 16 is the right age for a person to be able to exercise their democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future, and will set them up for lifelong engagement in our democracy. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have views, which deserve to be represented, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.

Making decisions about the electoral franchise on the basis of comparisons to legislation made nearly 70 years ago is not, in the Government’s view, the way to build a democratic system fit for 2026 and beyond. The amendment would simply delay the delivery of a manifesto commitment that, given the response to the Opposition’s reasoned amendment on Second Reading, has already been shown to have the overwhelming support of the House. Accordingly, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it.

Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law.

At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?

Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no.

Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified.

There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience.

Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood.

Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised:

“For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.”

It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on:

“Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.”

Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I smile at the idea that it is convenient for us to pass the law; it is never convenient to pass a law.

The hon. Gentleman has set out a number of ages at which people can do different things. Most people would agree that adulthood is not the flick of switch but a continuum. We do things at different stages; many would argue that voting is at the lower end and is one of the earliest things that we should do. That was the position of the Conservative party when it came to choosing three of our recent Prime Ministers; 15-year-old Conservative party members had more say over who was the Prime Minister of this land than the rest of us. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

[Paul Holmes]

The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes.

Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient. I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true.

Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.

[Sam Rushworth]

Every political party has equal opportunity to appeal to every voter. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that Labour party politics is more attractive to younger voters?

[Paul Holmes]

If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are.

Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process.

I understand if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Member aware that the evidence submitted by the Electoral Reform Society says that research has shown that the younger people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives? What he has said about there being no evidence is not correct.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates.

The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining. It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16.

The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said:

“we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them? Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.”

He goes on:

“I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”.

The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?

[Sam Rushworth]

I am happy to share my personal view on that point with the hon. Member. As was mentioned a moment ago, growing up is not a moment that happens between one night and the next. It is a continuum, and different ages apply to different things; people have to wait until they are 21 to do some things. One vote is one grain of sand on the beach. It allows people to meaningfully participate in democracy. That is, of course, entirely different from actually being an elected representative themselves. To me, that is a fairly obvious point.

[Paul Holmes]

What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves.

I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making.

There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward.

I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so.

The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections.

Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—

[Samantha Dixon]

Which is the point.

[Paul Holmes]

Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure?

If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.

[Paul Holmes]

What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill.

If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal.

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field.

The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.

[Sam Rushworth]

I feel that, particularly in the previous intervention, the Opposition are still tying themselves up in knots around the idea that the transition from childhood to adulthood has to happen within a millisecond of someone turning a particular age, rather than under-standing that there is a process of becoming an adult and we allow people different rights and responsibilities that are appropriate for those stages.

The hon. Gentleman asked why I feel that there is a difference between voting and standing to be elected. It is the difference between someone being able to choose a person to represent them and having to listen to and represent others. They are two different jobs. The Conservatives know that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would tell me that he believes a 15-year-old should be Prime Minister, but they allowed 15-year-olds to elect who is our Prime Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing.

I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.

[David Simmonds]

I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?

[Paul Holmes]

That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition.

I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?

[Warinder Juss]

It is misguided to compare the ability to vote with being a representative. There is a huge step between someone having the right to decide who should represent them and being that representative themselves. Many people well beyond the age of 18 would be able to vote for their representative, but would not necessarily be in a position to be a representative themselves.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement.

The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise.

Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them.

When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions.

That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee.

The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16. In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that

“when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”.

We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats,

“would empower young people with full political rights at 16”,

and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto.

We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities. Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody.

To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home.

The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland.

I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society.

As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances.

Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote.

The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks.

Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation.

We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation.

I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives.

There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives.

This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government.

We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy.

Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them.

On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9.

We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making.

By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release.

Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries.

Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped

“in a cycle of disadvantage”.

The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced

“disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”.

She also found that

“children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.”

I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2.

It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.

[Paul Holmes]

I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick.

There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.

There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims.

I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.

[Dr Chowns]

As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance.

As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.

[Paul Holmes]

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intentions—or those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—in tabling the new clause. However, I put it to her again that the four-year figure is arbitrary. The core reason why so many people are concerned about this proposal is the plethora of cases that would be included under the four-year provision. She is absolutely right that many of those people who are sentenced to four years will be released after two. I disagree with that, but it is something that happens in the current justice system. The fact that they might be released early does not mean that they should be given the vote.

The hon. Lady mentioned something that I agree with: that people are entitled to use libraries, to learn, to undertake qualifications and to do other parts of rehabilitation. That is absolutely right; they should always be allowed to do that, because of the core belief in British society that they should be able to make their lives better. But they are doing that while locked away and playing no role in civic society. They are improving themselves and learning so that they can play a part in civic society once they have served their custodial term. That is the real difference between my party and hers. We believe that when someone receives a custodial sentence, they should be removed from civic society. They should be able to go through rehabilitation and make their life better, but that element of being removed from civic society and locked up is sacrosanct.

I think that new clause 9 comes from a good place, and we could have a wider discussion on greater involvement by somebody who receives a custodial sentence, but unfortunately, the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—we must consider the seriousness of the crimes that might fall under the threshold of a four-year custodial sentence—means that the victim is hugely let down and forgotten about. I apologise to the Committee, but I feel so passionate about the way in which the argument was made that I had to stand up and speak again. We will be opposing the new clause with, all right, only three Members, but if it comes back on Report, I urge Members from all parties, including that of the hon. Lady, to vote against it. It would represent a slow erosion of the punitive system that is meant to support victims. I do not believe this new clause supports victims.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.

The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.

The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 3 will give young people the ability to register from the age of 14, before they have the right to vote at 16, ensuring that they are able to exercise their right to vote as soon as they reach voting age. I am sure that Members will agree that no young person should be unable to vote for the first time because there was insufficient time for them to be correctly registered to vote. The clause will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to vote, even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday, removing the chance that time to register is a barrier to participation.

The clause’s approach is consistent with the current rules, which allow some 16-year-olds, and all 17-year-olds, to register to vote. Importantly, it simplifies the current rule considerably by removing the complex December calculation, which is hard to explain and understand, in favour of a clear right to register from an individual’s 14th birthday. The December calculation will remain in place for devolved Welsh elections in accordance with existing devolved legislation. The clause enables the slightly different rules to work side by side.

I underline that the two-year window for registration ahead of someone’s turning 16 established by the clause also allows for enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, with the option for that to begin with the act of registering to vote.

[Paul Holmes]

It would be churlish of me to criticise these proposals. We have had a detailed debate on the principle about votes at 16, with which we vehemently disagree, but there is no reason why we should be difficult about the implementation of the system if the Government get their way. If the legislation passes and people are allowed to vote at 16, there is a vital need for them to be able to register in plenty of time and for it to be as easy as possible for them to do so. Therefore, we will not oppose the clause.

I ask this question of the Minister not to be tricky but for clarification: why should the registration age be 14 and not 15? I was going to say, “What’s the difference?” Obviously, the difference is 12 months, but why does it need to be permitted two years in advance, rather than just one, when someone is 15 and, I would argue, there is a bit more stability for them in the education system, given some of the things that come with being a 15-year-old in school?

The Minister is correct that the December calculation is hard to explain and understand, and fairly outdated, so we do not think that is an issue. We will not oppose the clause, and we see that it is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding—I do not know whether Members have recognised this yet—that I absolutely oppose votes at 16.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that it is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It has been a while since I have done one of these Committees, Dr Allin-Khan, so forgive me if I do not say what I am talking to or anything like that. We are learning on the job, or I certainly am anyway.

The Minister emphasised that the Government amendments are technical, which is correct, and I will not challenge on or question her much about them. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about the clause’s aims in facilitating the inclusion of younger voters. We would argue or challenge that some of the provisions appear to be slightly inconsistent or insufficiently justified.

Allowing individuals aged 16 to act as companions to disabled voters and as proxy voters or to enter polling stations for certain purposes reflects an expansion of civic responsibility, which is another result of the principled argument about whether 16-year-olds should have the vote. I am not arguing against that principle, but about the physical manifestations of the change in direction. I would like to challenge the Minister by asking her to clarify why there is no guidance, training or clear rationale for those extra responsibilities for the volunteers working in elections departments across the country or for electoral registration officers and local authorities.

The provision raises a few concerns not only about the readiness of the person subject to the law change—the younger voter—but about whether our staff, EROs and the volunteers who sit in and do the various jobs at polling stations will be trained and given guidance in time to fully bring in the proposed changes. Will the Minister give us some clarification or reassurance that these changes will result in the people involved in the physical voting on the day at polling stations being given proper guidance, and that plenty of notice will be given to the volunteers who will have to implement the changes around the country?

[Samantha Dixon]

The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.