Representation of the People Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

Before I respond to the amendments, I must correct a date I gave in the debate on the previous group. I said that the tabling date for amendments for the next set of Committee groups was 9 November, but it is 17 November. My apologies for that. The amendments in those groups will be tabled then.

I want to say at the start that the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote is able do so, and that they should supported and encouraged in that. The provisions we are making are designed to ensure that vulnerable people who are eligible to vote are enabled, but it is quite right that all young people must be prepared for this change to the electoral franchise. The Government are already working with the Electoral Commission, devolved Governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to raise awareness of the franchise change among young people to help prepare them to exercise their democratic rights. I will go into a bit more detail on schools provision in a moment.

I thought it might be helpful to say to noble Lords that we have carried out extensive research, both quantitative and qualitative, speaking to those aged 14 to 17. A total of 32 focus groups were conducted over two stages, followed by a nationally representative survey of more than 3,500 respondents, utilising online and offline data collection. The key headlines from that research were really interesting: most young people have a form of valid voter ID; most regard voter ID as necessary; the education system is seen by young people as a good way to learn about these topics; and the majority feel that their voice would matter more if they had the vote at 16. Those were the key headlines, but it was a big piece of research.

The other thing that slightly surprises me is that the debates on Monday and today have taken a direction that I was not expecting. It is a shame that significant doubts have been cast on teachers’ impartiality, and we now appear to have doubts being cast on the BBC and on those responsible for looked-after children.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Only two weeks ago, the Government intervened in the problem of the lack of impartiality among teachers on the Israel-Gaza-Palestine conflict. At the time, I congratulated the Government on taking a stance on the difficulties of that issue. The Government were clear that we have to be very careful. I cast no aspersions in general. The Government noted the particular issue of the rise of antisemitism and the politicisation of that war in schools, and they rightly intervened. I congratulated the Government then, and I congratulate them now. I did not think the Government were casting aspersions on all teachers; they were not, and neither were the rest of us.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

These issues have to be tackled when and as they arise. The point I was making is that making general points relating to that is not helpful.

I will now address the amendments. I understand and share the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for young people to receive impartial information, as expressed in Amendments 18 and 19. I assure him that Clauses 15 and 16 are deliberately narrow in scope. They require local authorities in Great Britain, and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland, where the system is different, to raise awareness of the registration arrangements that apply to relevant young people and to help those young people register. This is about factual and practical electoral registration information and making sure that young people who are or have been in the care system understand how they can register, and, where necessary, helping them to do so. I therefore assure the noble Lord that we fully recognise the importance of political impartiality, but I do not consider that an additional statutory requirement of this kind is needed.

I turn to Amendment 23 from the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on bringing such sartorial elegance to the Chamber this afternoon. It brings some panache to our debate at the end of the week.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I apologise; it is rather eccentric. The Parliament Choir is performing this evening, and the dress rehearsal starts at 4 pm—I have said that I will be late.

I add that there is strong scientific evidence that collective singing in schools improves social cohesion and concentration. I am not sure that the last Government accepted that scientific evidence—they did not act on it. But if we are talking about scientific evidence in schools, singing matters as well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I wish the noble Lord well for his rehearsal and look forward to coming to one of the concerts in due course.

Noble Lords may recall that a similar amendment to this one was debated in Committee in the other place. Our position remains that a statutory reporting requirement is not the right way to approach this issue. The amendment would require the report to cover three areas: raising awareness, civic education and electoral registration. I will address each in turn.

First, on raising awareness, I agree with noble Lords that young people need to be aware of their new democratic rights. The Government are already working alongside the Electoral Commission, local and devolved government, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to make sure that young people are aware of the changes. Raising awareness will be a collective effort, involving organisations with different roles and responsibilities. A report from the Government would not provide a complete picture of that work. It would also not be right for the Government to report on behalf of other organisations involved in this work, particularly the Electoral Commission, whose independence from government is so vital and which already publishes its own research and analysis on some of the areas covered by this amendment.

Secondly, on civic education, I have no hesitation in agreeing with noble Lords on the vital importance of preparing young people to exercise their democratic rights. This is an area where we will continue to work with the devolved Governments and other partners. The Department for Education leads on education policy in England, while education is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All partners will need to work together to support young people’s democratic engagement. I will say more on that when I respond to my noble friend Lady Lister’s amendment. Given these different roles and responsibilities, I do not believe that a statutory report from the UK Government is the right mechanism for assessing progress in this area.

Finally, on electoral registration, substantial information is already publicly available. The register to vote performance dashboard provides aggregate data on applications to register to vote, including breakdowns by age. The Electoral Commission has also conducted studies of electoral registration trends, and the Government are separately planning to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of votes-at-16 measures, which will assess evidence related to the awareness, education and registration of young people. We do not believe that a further statutory report is necessary. I hope I have reassured your Lordships that the Government share the underlying objectives behind this amendment and are already taking forward work to support young people as the franchise is extended to 16 and 17 year-olds.

I come to Amendments 24, 280 and 287 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer. I point out to noble Lords that these amendments would prevent voting rights being extended to 16 and 17 year-olds until the assessment has been published. The noble Lord raised similar concerns about the maturity and decision-making capabilities of 16 and 17 year-olds during the Bill’s Second Reading in this House. Indeed, he quoted my response to him at the time, which I still hold to—that we do not give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities. That principle applies to 16 and 17 year-olds as it does to all other voters. I am sorry to repeat back to him what he has already quoted, but that is the case.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Can I just finish responding, then I will happily give way? Our focus is on delivering this manifesto commitment—on which this Government were elected—which recognises that 16 and 17 year-olds have views that deserve to be represented and that young people should have a say in decisions that affect them. I simply cannot agree that young people at 16 and 17 do not have the cognitive reasoning to make decisions that impact on their lives. Indeed, as I set out on Monday, we have already asked them to do so. The question is not what else you can or cannot do at 16 but whether 16 is the right age to vote.

The point of this process of engagement is to introduce the concept of critical thinking. Indeed, young people of this age now have grown up having to develop their own ability to filter a whole plethora of social media in a way that my generation certainly did not.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I was not talking about cognitive ability. That was what the Minister mentioned at Second Reading, and I was trying to say that I was not talking about that. I was talking about the maturity of young people to withstand peer pressure and to make a reasoned decision. As we have heard today, electing a Government is a very important and responsible decision. We had the evidence from Professor Laurence Steinberg that it is at 18 that young people are able to make their own judgments, withstand things such as TikTok and peer pressure at school and make a reasoned political judgment independently. It is maturity I am talking about, not cognitive ability.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

I am grateful for that last point. I must admit that, as a council leader previously, when the point about campaigning was raised with me, it sent shivers down my spine because we know how important safeguarding is. It might be worth a conversation at the all-party group, so it is put out through all the different parties and they are aware of it. I am sure many of them may not have considered it, and it is worth sharing that information.

I have another point I would like to put across the Minister’s desk. The Minister says they have had a lot of research done. Is it possible to share it with the Committee?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

To save my noble friend the Minister having to bob up and down, I have a couple of questions, which she could perhaps write to me about afterwards. One is about the teacher training and resources that will support the kind of citizenship education we have been talking about. The other is about evaluation, particularly from the perspective of disadvantaged groups and those who lack political confidence and face the greatest barriers to political participation, such as girls and young women.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, makes a good point about the political parties panel, and I will take that back. I have some brief information about research, but I will write to her on that, if that is okay.

On the comments made by my noble friend Lady Lister, we are looking at this transitional support on how we make sure we have adaptable teaching materials and support for teachers on issues such as political impartiality and misinformation, and I am happy to update her once that work has gone a bit further.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate, and I of course entirely support the comments from the Front Bench, that we understand that votes at 16 is a manifesto commitment. But what this last hour and 20 minutes has shown is how much the consequences of that manifesto commitment are going to mean for the safeguarding of children, the impacts on education and for people who have not really had to participate in economic society before. These are unintended consequences and we are going to have to iron them out, not just for the 16 year-olds but for those attainers from 14.

For all the warm words about strengthening democracy and improving transparency, which are littered throughout the impact statement, when it comes to amendments that would give effect to those noble causes, what I think I heard the Minister say was that they are prepared to leave it to chance: we are not going to cast aspersions, but we are going to address these issues—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

If the noble Lord would kindly give way for a moment, I did not say we are leaving it to chance. I said that we welcome the Speaker’s Conference recommendation to establish codes of conduct on this subject, and we have committed to work with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties to support the development of a code which is fit for purpose.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I thank the Minister, and I accept those words entirely, but earlier on in the wind-up, when referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the suggestion was made that we were casting aspersions on teachers and social workers, and that the Government would address those as they came along. I just do not think that is right. The Bill should be explicit about neutrality, particularly for schools and for looked-after children’s environments, so there is no risk. We must remove the temptation for those in positions of authority over some of the most vulnerable people without supportive natural parents to do it. If it is not a problem because there is no prejudice, then there is no problem in introducing it into the Bill.

I was very taken with the other comments about—

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord again—I do not like to do this—but I made it clear that schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality, and I gave the details of that.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

That is covered in group 6, which we will return to later.

I was taken with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about schools. This has really been a debate not so much about schools but about young people more generally. I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about the practical preparation, and the watchword of this part of the Bill, the protection of minors.

This may be something we return to on Report, and we need to catch up time, so I will beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 18. But we really need to think about some of these practical consequences before we get to Report, and I hope the Minister will meet with me and others in furtherance of that objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for tabling these amendments and giving us the opportunity to have this important discussion on the voting rights of Commonwealth citizens. I also thank my noble friends Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Coffey for their thoughtful contributions.

It is right that the right to vote in our parliamentary elections and choose our Government is restricted to British citizens, although there are some exceptions for those with close historical links to our country. I have already spoken about our concerns in relation to the consequences of devolved arrangements in Scotland and Wales. The exceptions that I mentioned and that noble Lords have discussed during the debate are long-standing provisions that were implemented to reflect the special status of Irish and Commonwealth citizens in particular. I suppose I should declare an interest here, as both my parents were Irish. I do not remember them ever voting in Irish elections, but they always voted with pride here.

The arrangement we have with the Republic of Ireland precedes the EEC and the EU. It stems from the establishment of the Irish Free State in the 1920s and the administrative agreement on the common travel area. The two countries have broad, reciprocal voting rights. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised today about Commonwealth citizens’ eligibility to vote—especially what was said earlier, which is difficult for anyone to justify. However, these matters are complex, and we should be careful about rushing into changes without wider consideration of broader government policy on citizenship and integration.

No changes to election laws should be rushed, and we will be discussing the consequences of doing so throughout this Bill. I thank noble Lords for raising this issue and look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we always welcome probing amendments; they generate interesting discussions in this House. However, it may not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that the Government will not support these amendments.

Amendments similar to these were tabled in the other place during earlier Bill stages, and the Government’s views on the topic have been made very clear. The entitlement of resident Commonwealth citizens to vote reflects our very close historical ties with Commonwealth countries. The noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to recognising the contribution from those countries. From the selfless sacrifice of Commonwealth forces who fought side by side with British troops in the two world wars, to the Windrush generation who made Britain their home and contributed to our society, community, culture and public services, the ties which bind Commonwealth citizens to the UK are inextricable. Those rights must be respected. Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights are not and have never been based on a quid pro quo. To be clear, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen who is only visiting the country and has no home here would not be eligible to vote. The Government will not be removing Commonwealth citizens’ voting rights.

On reciprocity, each Commonwealth country determines its own electoral franchise. Reciprocity is not a condition of the UK’s long-standing arrangements. As I have already set out in relation to the noble Lord’s Amendments 5, 7 and 31, the Government are also committed to maintaining and defending the devolution settlements.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Does the Minister think that Commonwealth voters aged 16 should also be voting in the elections?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The same voting rights will apply across the franchise.

[Lord Frost (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response; as she said, I am not entirely surprised by it. I thank those who have spoken in this short debate. It has been worth having, and I do not think that the issue will go away.

I apologise to my noble friend Lord Mackinlay for not mentioning that he was the only noble Lord to raise this issue on Second Reading. He has followed it for some time and, as his intervention showed, he knows a lot about it. He mentioned Australia, which has an extremely restrictive policy generally. It restricts voting and candidacy to citizens, and it prevents dual nationality entirely as a condition for being a member of the legislature. Australia may be at one end of the spectrum; we are definitely at the other. The international norm is that only citizens vote and only citizens are candidates: I find it hard to see how one can defend any other position. Of course, citizens of many other countries in the Commonwealth and outside the Commonwealth have made huge contributions to this country, but that is not how we determine voting rights.

I have one last comment, for the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I entirely understand, and in some ways sympathise with, his asking, “Why should somebody who has lived here for a long time not get to vote in local elections?” That point is worth discussing, but national elections, referenda and questions are not the same as local questions and issues. It is something worth thinking about, but if one went down that road it should be for everyone, or at least for logically defined categories, not a hangover from the Commonwealth.

I will stop there. I thank noble Lords for a good discussion. We will reflect on what we will do on Report. It will probably be worth having further discussion and reflection on this. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the remaining amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Jamieson seek to strengthen the provisions in the Bill as drafted, probing what checks and processes will be in place to ensure someone is definitely of voting age before registering them. Amendment 55 also probes how individuals will be notified that they are registered, and Amendments 56 and 57 probe how electoral registration records are kept and handled once the officer responsible is no longer in post. These are important issues concerning people’s data, as well as the accurate maintenance of electoral registers. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity and reassurance on these points, and I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for tabling Amendment 32, moved by my noble friend Lady Lister, which seeks to allow sitting Members of this House to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

I remember I had a fascinating conversation with my MP, Kevin Bonavia. He was talking about voting, and I said, “I’m sorry Kevin, I’m not going to vote for you”. He was a bit horrified and stepped back. He had not realised that I could not vote because I am in here. Of course, if I had been able to vote, I would have voted for him.

I recognise that the noble Lord has raised this issue before and that he wishes to address the difference between the voting rights of sitting Members of this House and those of other electors. However, it is important to recognise the particular role that we, as Members of this House, have in Parliament. We can participate in debates, introduce and scrutinise legislation, and ask Parliamentary Questions. As such, unlike other voters, we have the opportunity to represent our views directly in Parliament, rather than relying on an elected Member of the other place to do so. This is the basis for the long-standing restriction—I think the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said it goes back to 1699—on sitting Peers voting in UK parliamentary elections, and the Government do not believe there is a case for changing these arrangements. Of course, this does not mean that Members of this House are excluded from voting altogether. We can vote in local and devolved elections, where we do not have the same direct role. I hope that explains the Government’s position on that amendment.

Amendment 37 appears to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within six months on the impact of extending voting rights to 16 and 17 year-olds on the number and boundaries of council electoral areas. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is already considering how to incorporate newly enfranchised electors into its electorate forecasts and does not anticipate that the changes will require a different approach to electoral reviews.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, asked me a question about local government reorganisation. Most of the proposals that were put forward for LGR did not involve boundary changes. Those that do will of course be subject to review by the Local Government Boundary Commission.

I know the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has raised these issues before about the variability of ward sizes, and I am happy to continue that conversation with her. But I am sure she knows that this is really a matter for the Local Government Boundary Commission, so we do not see a clear need for a separate review by the Secretary of State. I thank my—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but unfortunately, it is not the role of the Local Government Boundary Commission to make those decisions. That is the point I hope to make. The determination is made by the council. If there is no guidance to councils—as there is not—on seeking to create wards of a similar size across the country, the existing disparity will continue and get worse.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am very happy to carry on that conversation with the noble Baroness. I feel that, in the end, we are going to come up against local determination versus national determination, but we can have that conversation.

On the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, let me be clear that the Government recognise the enormous contribution made by people from other countries who choose to make the United Kingdom their home. However, the Government do not believe that lawful residence alone should confer voting rights. Citizenship restrictions, rather than residence alone, are the norm for participation in elections in most democracies. The Government have no current plans to extend voting rights to further nationalities or to introduce a residency-based franchise.

There are, of course, different choices within the United Kingdom. Scotland and Wales have chosen to extend their devolved franchises more widely. We respect their right to take that approach within their devolved competence, just as it is right for this Parliament to determine the franchise for elections for which it is responsible.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for his engagement, via Amendment 45, with the Bill’s provision for improving voter registration. Although I would never wholly dismiss his points and he has been very calm today, he needs to calm down a bit sometimes. His points on Monday suggested that democracy was in imminent danger of collapsing because the EROs and the computers that assist them could not recognise an apostrophe, and today he is worried about the duplicating Mr Smiths. Our EROs already deal with all these issues. Under long-standing rules, to be registered to vote in a general election you must be a British, Irish or qualifying Commonwealth citizen. In England, qualifying EU citizens are also able to register to vote for certain elections, such as for local councils, although not for UK parliamentary elections. The Government have no plans to change this. I do not think that it would be fair to establish an automated voter registration system in which some eligible citizens cannot be directly registered or their details directly updated. The noble Lord referred to President Zelensky and his wife having different surnames. Actually, our Prime Minister and his wife have different surnames. EROs are very used to dealing with these situations.

I turn to Amendments 46, 53, 54 and 55, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. The Government agree that direct registration must operate accurately and with appropriate safeguards. Clause 17 already secures those outcomes. New Section 12A requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both of voting age and entitled to be registered before a person is directly registered. New Section 12B also requires a person to appear to the registration officer to be both of voting age and entitled to be registered before the notice is sent. This requires the officer to assess the available information and reach a view on whether those conditions are met.

As well as making the point in the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, raised the phrase “appears to the officer”. This is established language in electoral registration law. Section 10ZC of the Representation of the People Act 1983 uses the same formulation for registration following an application. This clause preserves that test with respect to direct registration. Schedule 2 to the Bill will preserve that test while distinguishing the existing application-based process from the new process without an application. As now, registration officers will remain under a statutory duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that everyone entitled to be registered is registered and no others.

Finally, new Section 12B(3) already expressly requires a notice to be given in writing to a person before they are directly registered. The power concerning how it may be given relates only to the method of delivery—for example, by post, by hand or electronically. Therefore, the amendments would add no further protection to the safeguards already contained in the Bill.

On Amendments 56 and 57, Amendment 56 raises an important consideration that is already envisaged by the Bill. If an electoral registration officer leaves their role, their successor in the job would hold the records until the end of the retention period. This helps to ensure that people who have opted out of direct registration during the response period do not receive further notices, even if their electoral registration officer changes. I can also clarify that retention of direct registration notice records for five years will ensure that those people who have responded to a notice and subsequently claimed an exemption will then not receive another notice during that time. However, they will be liable to be invited to register by an electoral registration officer. If they remain unregistered after five years and still appear to be eligible, they will be sent another notice. The Government believe this to be an appropriate length of time and it is consistent with the period the Electoral Commission holds copies of a register, which in turn aligns with the maximum length of a Parliament. I hope this provides sufficient reassurance on these points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Could the Minister further consider her comments on the point I raised? The Minister referred quite rightly to legislation that is now in effect that is some 40 or 50 years old. In those days, the vast majority of people did not have a passport, a driving licence with a picture on it or virtually any other form of proof of identity. Therefore “appearing to be” was a judgment that one made in those days. We have introduced voter ID and all the associated requirements with it. Given that this legislation intends to modernise and bring up to date our election law, could I please ask that the Minister give that further consideration?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I am always happy to give things further consideration. Under new Section 12B, the registration officer has to be certain that a person appears to be of voting age and entitled to be registered before they send the notice. Voter ID is another reassurance once they get to the polling station. I will reflect on his comments.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate on this rather eclectic group of amendments, and I do so on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett —who I sense has got the bit between his teeth on this, so I think we have probably not heard the last of it.

I must admit I was not convinced by the arguments against the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, pointed out, we have rather changed since 1699. We are a very different House than we were then. It did strike me that the argument used by my noble friend could just as well be used to say that the Members of the other House would not have the vote—they have got all that influence.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way. The point is that MPs stand down when the election is called, so they are technically not MPs when they go to vote.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that correction. However, I suspect my noble friend Lord Blunkett will not be convinced and will be back with much stronger arguments than I have at present.

I accept the arguments that have been put on my own amendments. It is a shame that we cannot follow Scotland and Wales. It may be that, in time, the evidence from there will show that citizenship is still taken seriously even if the franchise is extended in that way, but I will not go into that now. I shall not try to cover all the points that were made in what was an eclectic debate, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments in this group raise crucial questions about how we prepare young people to participate in our democracy. If the Government are determined to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds, they must ensure that those young people have meaningful access to accurate information, a balanced political education and the opportunity to hear competing political views. Political neutrality in schools must be protected but cannot be a barrier to open discussion. I also agree with the point made by both the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and my noble friend Lord Fuller about online age verification. Being on the electoral register could be a helpful mechanism. I hope the Minister will address the practical concerns raised in this group and explain how the Government intend to ensure that younger voters can exercise their democratic rights independently and with confidence.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, seeks to require extra steps to be taken to publish impartial, age-appropriate election information on social media suitable for young people who may be subject to restrictions on social media access. The Government agree that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds must go hand in hand with ensuring that young people have access to reliable information and the knowledge they need to participate confidently in elections.

We are also clear that that the social media ban must not inadvertently cut young people off from valuable information that is essential for their democratic participation. While the Government’s proposed social media restrictions will apply to young people under 16, they will still have access to many websites, including news sites, and to political information from a wide range of trusted sources, including schools, colleges and the Electoral Commission.

We have committed to working with regulators, industry, civil society and subject matter experts to ensure this information is accessible and easy to find for young people affected by the ban. We are also working across government to strengthen democratic education and media literacy, helping young people to develop the knowledge and skills they need to engage confidently with our democracy. For those reasons, I do not believe that an additional statutory duty to publish election information on social media is necessary.

Turning to Amendments 35, 36 and 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, on political impartiality in schools and educational settings, I of course recognise the importance of ensuring young people receive politically balanced information and can make informed decisions about their vote. However, we do not consider these amendments to be necessary. As I mentioned in response to amendments in group 3, schools are already subject to clear legal duties on political impartiality. They must prohibit the promotion of partisan political views and take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that, where political issues are brought to pupils’ attention, opposing views are presented in a balanced way.

Existing Department for Education guidance makes it clear that these duties apply not only to classroom teaching but to public displays and school communications. This picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. There are also specific safeguards during election periods to prevent schools being used to promote a particular party or candidate. In relation to hustings, on one occasion when I was a parliamentary candidate, I was invited to attend hustings which were then cancelled because other candidates were not available to attend. I can verify that schools take this very seriously.

At the same time, schools have an important role in helping young people understand democracy and the electoral process. Schools can harness the interest generated around election periods to raise political awareness through activities such as mock elections. Of course, it is true to say that teachers have been educating voters since 1969, when votes at 18 were introduced, and before that teachers in colleges and universities. For many years, primary schools have organised mock elections of the kind I just referred to; I have participated in those myself. The Government therefore consider that the existing framework already provides an appropriate, judgment-based approach which protects political impartiality without unnecessarily restricting or proscribing legitimate educational activities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for tabling Amendment 39 and so raising the important question of how we ensure that young people who have registered to vote have access to information to inform their voting decision and learn how elections operate. We agree that extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds must go hand in hand with ensuring access to reliable information.

Earlier this year, we announced our intention to ban social media companies from offering their services to under-16s, alongside a package of other measures to improve their safety and well-being online. I understand the references made by the noble Lord, Lord Pack, to the Online Safety Act and making sure that these two things are working together. The Government must act where they see real evidence of harm. These changes seek to reset the rules so that children are protected from the platforms and online features that create the most harm. We are also clear that the social media ban must not inadvertently cut young people off from that valuable information which is essential for their democratic participation.

The Electoral Commission already provides a wide range of information, including resources specifically designed for young people. As I set out earlier, we are working across government to strengthen democratic education and media literacy. We also accept the issues around citizenship education and democracy—the very issue that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, referred to. It is important that young people understand, for example, that we value democracy, but they need to know the difference between that and a dictatorship, and some even worse methods of government.

For these reasons, we do not believe that an additional statutory duty is necessary. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have put provisions in step for political education.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Before the Minister sits down, I want to query two things. First, the social media ban will apparently not prohibit young people accessing trusted news sources. Trusted by whom? Who makes that call? That was partly my point. I would have thought that you could trust the Home Office to bring out an interactive game without getting it so badly wrong. That might be something to consider.

Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Pack, is absolutely right: we have to look at this. When discussions came out about drilling for oil in the North Sea, searches on that were age-gated, and anybody under 16 could not get through. You had to prove who you were, prove your age and so on. That was quite a big discussion. Will the Minister at least take back to the Government the possibility of thinking this through a bit more, rather than just saying that it is all going to be all right? I do not agree with the ban on social media for under-16s. I had to listen to practically everybody in this House lecture me about how you cannot let under-16s anywhere near this stuff, how everything will lead to suicide, mayhem, bedlam and all the rest of it, and how we have to stop them getting access to it. Suddenly, it is okay if it is news—and that is news to me. We therefore need a bit more detail.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I want a bit more clarity. I understand that schools are obliged to be politically neutral. In this country we have tens of thousands, if not millions, of teachers—I do not know the number. If we are to have 16 and 17 year-olds voting and want politically neutral education on the political landscape for them, it will be a lot easier, and we will have much more consistency, if there are clear guidelines that can be reviewed and seen by others. Is that the intention?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, social media is not the only source of high-quality news content, nor always the most reliable, as we all know only too well. It is important that young people continue to have access to a wide range of trusted sources on political information. There will also be a defined list of exemptions including, for example, educational services. The noble Baroness is right to flag up the point that we are in a new area here. We need to continue to think about how we make sure there is access to the information needed to make the decisions that these young people will be making, while also protecting them from some of the terrible online harms we have seen.

The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, referred to impartiality in schools. Existing guidance expressly allows schools to use election periods to raise political awareness and all those issues. I am not sure whether I am quite addressing his question. The existing guidance makes sure that, if there are mock elections, hustings or visits from candidates or party representatives, schools have to maintain a political balance. Schools already do this, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I think that would be characterised as the downpayment, but there we are.

So much is to be done by secondary legislation. I am not going to trespass too greatly on a future group, but when it comes to identification and bank cards, there are all sorts of unintended consequences. There are going to have to be huge changes in bank card systems if they are to be fit for purpose.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, who is not in her place, posited earlier that automatic registration and the duplicates may lead to more frequent boundary reviews. One thing is absolutely for sure: given the way the legislation is today, we are going to need duplicate and parallel IT systems, which will have to be reconciled, and that is going to be expensive. My focus has been on the 1.4 million attainers, but there are a further 1.4 million 16 to 18 year-olds, many of whom will also not have the documentary evidence.

I know that democracy has a cost. We live in a free society, and that costs money. But what we have not worked out are the costs in this impact assessment. The figure the noble Lord has referred to is just a downpayment; it is a drop in the ocean. Chances are, it is probably four times greater than that, and we should be told.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

Front Bench.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

That was an enthusiastic heckle, there.

I think it fair to say that the impact assessment, weighing in at 130 pages, is very on brand for election law, especially given our comments earlier about how voluminous election law is. I was struck, though, on looking through it, by how little there is about police time and resources. As the Minister will know well from previous questions and debates, councillors, MPs and members of political parties are already often quite frustrated, when they raise issues with the police—perhaps fears for personal safety due to harassment—by how often police resources are not really available to properly follow up such concerns.

In the parts of the Bill to do with political finance, which we will come to on future days rather than this evening, some of the issues we are looking at there, around, for example, crypto transfers, will require quite sophisticated and advanced investigatory techniques. It will not simply be a matter of whether the local police team has the resources to take seriously issues raised with it to do with election law; I am sure there will be quite a lot of pressure on many specialised parts of the police service, the National Crime Agency and so on.

It is striking that the impact assessment seems to be just about completely silent—I say that in case I missed something in my reading of it, but I did not spot any reference at all—on the potential costs to the police and the associated law enforcement apparatus of the range of offences that the Bill will create, toughen up or put a greater focus on. I hope the Minister can tell us a little about what assessments have been made of the potential costs to the law enforcement apparatus and what reassurance we have that, whatever form this Bill takes when it is passed—and then, we hope, commenced by the Government—the necessary resources will be available to actually enforce it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the provisions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, are important to ensure that we encourage as many eligible young people as possible to participate in our democracy.

I will come on to the monitoring and evaluation in a moment, but will respond first to the noble Lord’s points about the impact assessment. All impact assessments produced by the Government are produced by departments in line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s investment guidance in the Green Book. We follow the rules set out in it. However, there have been a number of detailed questions raised about this impact assessment, so what would be most helpful at this stage of our debate is for me to write to noble Lords in response.

On local authority costs, as the noble Baroness will know only too well, and has probably lobbied on, as I have, where there are new burdens on local government then government has to respond by providing funding for those new burdens.

On the monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, our approach will comply with our published evaluation strategy, which is what we were referring to in the impact assessment. We will publish evaluation findings in a timely manner, consistent with our policy for the publication of research and government social research guidelines. That evaluation will include an assessment of the impacts of the reforms on electors, local authorities and others responsible for delivering elections; a process evaluation that will seek to examine how the reforms are implemented; and, as I referred to earlier, an economic evaluation to assess whether the benefits of the policies outweigh their costs.

These are difficult areas to address. Anyone who has tried to do it will know that net present social value is quite a difficult concept to evaluate in financial terms or to monetise, which is where some of the difficulty occurs. The appraisal of policies in the impact assessment relies heavily on qualitative evidence and non-monetised impacts, which do not get reflected in net present social value calculations. It is important that we get a clear picture and continue to look at the economic evaluation, which we will do.

The areas highlighted by the noble Lord will be covered by this monitoring work. I commit to write to Members on the specific financial questions they have raised this afternoon.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her open response. One thing she referred to earlier that time did not allow me to comment on in my opening remarks was the fund; it is not referred to in the impact assessment, but she referred to it earlier. On that basis, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.