Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Lisa Smart

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.

Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.

[Paul Holmes]

I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.

The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.

I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge.

The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Lisa Smart

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Lisa Smart

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I find it interesting that most of the people who we consider to be academics, and have made their life’s profession the integrity of the election system, are not in favour of it, but the Government are choosing to go ahead with it anyway. We will look at that further in line-by-line scrutiny. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I thank the Minister, who has been battling valiantly throughout the day to participate in our proceedings.

It is clear from all the evidence we have heard today that all the witnesses welcome a number of the steps in the Bill, but a number of them expressed disappointment that the scope had been written so narrowly and that it does not stand up to the moment of crisis and peril that our democracy faces. If the Government think that first past the post is the right system, why not have a national commission on the voting system to test that thesis?

Samantha Dixon: The Government believe that the voting systems that we use to elect our representatives are really at the heart of our democracy; they are of fundamental importance. We welcome views and feedback on how democracy can be improved. I am grateful for the interest that you have shown in this particular area, but I can confirm that we are content with the voting system that we currently use in general elections, and we have no plans to establish such a commission.

For UK parliamentary elections, we believe that the first-past-the-post system establishes a really strong link between the constituency and the representative. Although it may not be perfect, we believe it is well understood by the electorate and the communities that we represent. When a seat needs to be filled in Parliament or a council, for example, that link between the representative and those they represent is important. First past the post is appropriate for that system.

There are occasions for other voting systems for wider electorates, and this Bill will make provision for them. For example, for a mayoral election, we are in the process of bringing forward legislation to revert that system back to supplementary voting. When it is a broader constituency—a mayoral area that may cover many constituencies—we accept that that voting system is more appropriate. But at this stage, for council wards and parliamentary constituencies, we remain of the view that first past the post is the best system.

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Lisa Smart

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q Thank you, Chair; that is very kind of you.

Welcome, Ms Yule. The other witnesses would argue that the Government’s intention is to make voting easier and extend the franchise. I put to you the question I asked them earlier: do you consider that local authorities and chief executives have been consulted enough at this stage—notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has to go through its passage—about the proposals in the legislation? Are there burdens that you are not quite sure you can meet yet on behalf of your members?

Emily Yule: On behalf of Solace, I have been involved in lots of conversations around the development of the strategy and the Bill. We have really appreciated that collaboration and that ability to influence the design of the provisions. I always say that the devil is in the detail, so implementation is going to be really important. Chief executives, returning officers and electoral registration officers need to have a clear understanding of the timelines for implementation and the guidance, so that we can ensure consistent application of those new provisions.

In my view, consistency is what builds credibility and trust in the democratic process. At the moment, I do not think that there is huge concern among the sector that any of the items are undeliverable, but we would, of course, always ask for resourcing to be considered and any new burdens funded to put those implementation plans in place.

[Lisa Smart]

Q I am an unpaid honorary vice president of the Local Government Association; as a former councillor, I am delighted that we are hearing from the LGA.

I have two strands of questioning; one is around timing. The Bill proposes some changes around postal votes and bringing forward the dates for postal votes. We have seen too many people miss out on their opportunity to vote because of some of the issues relating to Royal Mail that you talked about, Mr Stanyon. That is particularly acute with those living overseas for a time, whether they are serving in the armed forces or otherwise.

We all welcome the bringing forward of the dates, but can you say a little more about how many of those issues will be addressed by changing the dates for postal votes? Are there other measures—for example, allowing people to print their own ballot papers or to submit their vote at overseas embassies or consulates—that you would see as useful in enabling more people to vote?

Peter Stanyon: In terms of the practicalities of the proposed time changes, the best evidence I can give is from the last general election—the parliamentary election a couple of years ago—when you saw significant spikes in applications towards the end of the period. The date is currently 11 working days before the poll; it is proposed to move that to 14. That has meant that there is a big pinch point—not just for the electoral registration officer, who has to process the applications, but because the Elections Act has brought in additional identity checks that now need to be done for postal voters.

Currently, there is almost a perfect storm 12 and 11 days before the election with registration applications and applications for postal votes. Moving that deadline slightly further back allows the same work to be done—checking identities and physically getting the data to the printers—so that the packs can be produced and got out three days earlier than they can now. That will not go every step of the way to solving the overseas issue, because you are still talking about 12 or 11 days for ballots to go out and back; you are relying not just on Royal Mail but on overseas postal services as well. To answer the first question, this is a positive step, but it must be seen in that light—it is moving in the right direction, but it will not solve every issue that has been identified.

As far as overseas electors are concerned, this has been an age-old issue. I was thinking the other day that I have been in the industry for over 40 years—that is scary—and I have seen significant change in that time. Overseas electors have always been an issue because you are physically getting the ballot paper to them and back. It is an area that can be investigated, but we need to be careful about it. Could you have things such as printing your own ballot papers? Could you have an overseas electors constituency, which would make things slightly different? Could you have online voting, for example? I am not proposing any of those. It is an area that needs to be really thought through: what is beneficial to the elector or the voter, but also what is suitable for the system we are trying to maintain?

At the moment, the system is very paper-based and secure, but we already know it has those issues. This is not a new thing; it is just that there are far more postal voters than there used to be. The issue has been here for the whole of my career.

Councillor Bentley: All I would add to that is timetabling and making sure there is enough time for local authorities to do the printing. I am reminded that the cancellation of a whole slew of elections was proposed and then suddenly they were not, and everyone is on catch-up to make sure it all happens. They will do it, because we have brilliant staff in local government, but it is not always about them—it is about the suppliers for the printing, the paper and all the rest of it.

Provided that time is built in to make that happen, then this is a good thing. Anything that makes it easier for people to vote and participate in elections has to be a good thing. Postal voting is increasing, but we must build in the correct timetable so that authorities can get the printing done.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Debate between Paul Holmes and Lisa Smart

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

I think that is a relatively lazy argument about the internal machinations of the Conservative party and is not concerned with our electoral system. I give the hon. Lady the point that it was not a good time within my party, within this country and that period of office, but it concerns the way parties elect leaders and not the electoral system for the public.

In relation to proportional representation not allowing parties from different wings to be elected, if we look at an example from 2009, in European elections under the PR system, the British National party won two European Parliament seats with 6% of the vote. In the rare cases in which the BNP won local government seats, such as in Barking and Dagenham in 2006, its support represented 35% to 50% of the popular vote in the winning wards. First past the post, by contrast, acts as a safeguard against extremism in ensuring that only candidates with broad support can win. That helps preserve the political stability and moderation that are hallmarks of our parliamentary democracy.

When coalition Governments are formed, it becomes difficult for voters to hold any one party accountable for their decisions. Blame for unpopular policies can easily be shifted between coalition partners, which, given how things are going for them, I know might be appealing for Labour Members. However, that erodes trust in politics, whereas first past the post provides clarity. Voters know exactly which party is in charge and can hold it to account at the next election.

It is also the case that under a party-list PR system, which was previously the European Parliament’s system in Great Britain, there was no direct accountability, with representatives dependent on a party patronage system. How many voters actually knew the name of their European Parliament Members when we were in the European Union? I would hazard that there were only one or two well known MEPs and one of them is still close by.

I think the choice for us is clear, although I know that I am undoubtedly in the minority this afternoon. First past the post ensures strong and stable governance, clear accountability and an electoral system that is easily understood by the public. It prevents small, unrepresentative parties from wielding disproportionate influence and upholds the direct link between MPs and their constituents. The British people have spoken in favour of first past the post and we should respect that decision. Members in other Opposition parties should learn and take it from us: we know that you cannot keep asking the same question over and over and expect a different response. The first-past-the-post system has served the UK well for generations. It delivers clear outcomes, stable Governments and a direct link between voters and their representatives. If we were to move to a PR regional-based system, that link would be lost and MPs would be scrambling and fighting to take on their constituents’ casework. We can just imagine the mafioso-style turf wars such a system would generate. To scrap those sensible and time-honoured demarcations would be terrifically reckless and fundamentally unnecessary and would do our electors a disservice.

We should not trade a proven system for one that prioritises theoretical fairness over practical effectiveness. The challenges we face as a country demand strong leadership, clear accountability and a system that works for the people. Even though I do not like the result, the Labour Government won that mandate under the system we have. First past the post has provided that Government and we should stick to that, allowing the British people to have a system they fundamentally understand and fundamentally believe in.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in his wide-ranging comments talked about the vote that was held on 3 December 2024 relating to the Elections (Proportional Representation) ten-minute rule motion. He mentioned rightly that the ayes won by two votes, but in fact, the number of votes cast were 138 ayes and 136 noes. He mentioned that only 62 votes were cast and I am sure he would like to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order. I call the shadow Minister.