Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Sam Rushworth

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

In one of our evidence sessions, we heard clearly  from a KC who said there were almost no examples of personation prior to the introduction of mandatory ID. We also heard, quite alarmingly, that about 1.7% of people—potentially enough to swing an election—were turned away at polling stations under the current system. Clearly, this is about getting the balance right. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly feel that the balance is currently right, given the evidence we heard in that session?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman’s figures are slightly wrong. It was 0.8% of people who were not able to vote at the last general election due to being turned away without identification.

[Sam Rushworth]

The hon. Gentleman has quoted the official figures, but we heard from election volunteers that they believe that the official figures are not accurate, because that is only the people who made it to the clerk’s desk. They saw lots of evidence of people being turned away at the door because they were arriving without identification.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024.

In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful. Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.

[Sam Rushworth]

I understand the hon. Member’s point about the 0.08%, but does he accept the evidence that we heard about that figure most certainly being at the lower end? There are people who do not go out on polling day because they realise that they do not have the correct ID, and there are people who get turned away before they make it to the clerk’s desk, so that figure is certainly an underestimation.

I also accept that there is a way for people to acquire ID that does not have to cost them money. None the less, every person here has had the experience on polling day of finding people who are unhappy because they do not drive or they do not have a passport. They are normally people who are poorer and already feel more disenfranchised. Yes, they have not taken that step, but does the hon. Member at least accept that there is an administrative barrier that we are expecting people to make, which means that people who are generally more vulnerable and left behind are less likely to get a vote?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation.

I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Paul Holmes and Sam Rushworth

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.