Lords Chamber

Monday 14th September 2026

(began 2 days, 12 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Leveson of Liverpool and Lord McTague
-

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith. To all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other subjects whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our right trusty and well beloved councillor Sir Brian Henry Leveson Knight to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Leveson of Liverpool in Liverpool, in our county of Merseyside, and for us, our heirs and successors, to appoint, give and grant unto him the same Ned said.

Name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Leveson of Liverpool, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing. And by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliament, and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and that also he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

Witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 25th day of August, in the fourth year of our sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Brian Lord Leveson of Liverpool, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs and King Charles, his heirs and successors according to law. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth. King, head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other. Our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we.

Of our Greeting. Know ye that we. Of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act, 1958, and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create, and prefer our trusty and well-beloved Martin Gerard Mctague, officer of our most excellent order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Mctague, of Harrington in our County of Durham, and for us our heirs and successors do appoint, give, and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title, and honour of Baron Mctague, to have and to hold unto him for his life willing.

And by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that he may have hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and public Assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities, and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore enjoyed and used, or as they do at present, use and enjoy in witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent.

Witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the 26th day of August, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Martin Lord McTague, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to his Majesty. King Charles, his heirs, his successors. According to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question First Oral Question Lord First Oral Question Lord Wallace of Saltaire.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Saltaire. Beg leave to ask the question. Standing by name in the Order Paper. My Lords, the UK assume the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the UK assume the presidency of the Financial Action Task Force in July and has made
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on young people in Scotland Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-

I will speak to my noble friend Baroness Anderson and my noble friend Lord Coker, regarding the point that the noble Lord raised.
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Failure of the UK air traffic control system and the resulting disruption to flights and passengers
-

of Commons on Thursday, the 10th of September, on the failure of the United Kingdom's air traffic United Kingdom's air traffic control system. My Lords, last week
15:46
15:46
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
None Portrait Legislation: Representation of the People Bill – second reading
-

Second Reading of the representation of the people. Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage.
15:56
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that >> My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time. My Lords, I am very pleased to open this Second Reading debate on the this Second Reading debate on the representation of the people. Bill. I know that noble Lords across the House bring great experience of electoral law, electoral administration and the practical operation of our democracy. I look forward to the contributions that will be made today, and to the constructive scrutiny that our House will bring to the Bill.

This bill renews our democracy for a new generation, opening up participation and strengthening the integrity of our elections. It restores confidence, reinforcing trust with stronger political finance rules and better protections against harassment and intimidation, closing down opportunities for those who would seek to undermine our democracy. But it would be wrong to introduce this debate without acknowledging and reflecting on events of recent times. My Lords, when I catch the 615 or 631 train from Stevenage into London in the mornings, I share the carriages of that train and the underground with people whose interests are at the heart of our community.

The tradespeople in their steel toe cap boots, the public sector workers, including those in blue light services heading for their early shifts. The small business owners get in an early start to prepare for their day. It's a fundamental principle of our democracy that every one of their votes is exactly equal to the votes of millionaires, crypto bros and industry magnates, and it is that which sits at the front and centre of this bill. We must put politics back under public control.

We all share concerns about the rise of big money and its ability to dominate public power. At its heart, this bill is about renewing the foundations of our electoral system so that it remains fair, secure, transparent and accessible in the years ahead. Now, I believe at the Last Night of the Proms on Saturday, the conductor Sakari Oramo referred to another version of AI, which was authenticity and integrity, and that must sit at the heart of electoral reform so that we restore the confidence of the 6 a.m.

crew, that their voice really counts. Delivering on the manifesto our manifesto commitment. This bill extends the franchise to eligible 16 and 17 year olds for UK parliamentary elections and other reserved and accepted polls. Enables more automated forms of electoral registration, broadens the forms of voter identification that may be used at polling stations, and makes a range of changes to the conduct and administration of elections, referendums and recall petitions. The bill also strengthens the rules on political donations and expenditure, including measures to reduce the risk of foreign money.

Entering our politics, improves transparency and digital campaigning material, strengthens enforcement and information sharing by the Electoral Commission, and requires tougher sentencing where offences are aggravated by hostility towards candidates, elected office holders, campaigners or electoral staff. Opportunities for those who seek to undermine or illicitly influence our democracy must and will be closed down. This bill responds directly to a changing and increasingly hostile threat environment and takes action to tackle risks by strengthening safeguards, closing loopholes and hardening defences.

Taken together, these measures will help deliver a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system. They will support public confidence, protect our democracy from those who seek to undermine it, and open participation to a new generation of voters. The bill is ambitious, but it is also practical. It addresses the everyday operation of democracy. Who can take part, how they register and vote, how campaigns are funded and conducted, and how the rules are enforced. The balance is important. The government is not seeking reform for its own sake.

The measures in the Bill respond to real changes in how people participate in politics, political campaigning and how threats to democratic confidence can arise. Some of these changes are technological, some are administrative. Some reflect the need to ensure that our democratic arrangements command confidence across generations. The bill, therefore, looks at both to the integrity of the system and to the experience of those who use it voters, candidates, parties, campaigners and electoral administrators. This bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform.

Work will continue as a first step, the first Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Mhclg have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high. We are also establishing a cross-government task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality. As noble Lords would expect, the Bill has not remained frozen in aspic since its introduction. It has continued to develop through scrutiny, engagement and the government's consideration of how best to give effect to its objectives during its common stages.

The government brought forward both substantive and technical amendments to strengthen the Bill, to respond to points raised by members and to ensure it better delivers its policy intent. For example, the government brought forward amendments to strengthen the know your donor requirements and further tighten the rules relating to donations made by unincorporated associations. Those changes were designed to improve transparency and ensure that the political finance regime keeps pace with the risks it is intended to address. My Lords, these risks cannot be overstated.

The threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding are an ever growing danger, and one which we cannot afford to delay tackling. Responding to further evidence of the threat we face, namely the conviction of Nathan Gill, as well as cases such as Christine Lee. We commissioned Philip Rycroft to review foreign financial influence and interference in politics. His report was thorough and challenging, and the government has accepted its recommendations. Safeguarding the integrity, transparency and fairness of our electoral system is a fundamental priority, and the Bill provides an important vehicle for taking that work forward.

A number of recommendations from the Rycroft Review were therefore implemented through amendments made to the Bill at Commons Report stage. Those amendments form a significant part of the government's wider response to the to the risks identified by the review. The first of those changes concerns cryptoassets. The current political donations framework does not sufficiently reflect the particular risks that cryptoassets can present, including the difficulty of identifying the true source of a donation. That creates a risk that malign actors, including state actors, could seek to obscure the origin of the funds.

The bill therefore introduces a ban on the use of crypto assets as a means of making political donations. To support that change. The government has also amended the bill to clarify the meaning of a donation under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 that will ensure that property, including crypto assets transferred to a party to meet an expense, is treated as a donation so that the law cannot be circumvented simply because value is transferred, transferred through property rather than cash.

The bill also caps donations by overseas electors to register political parties at £100,000. This also applies to individuals formally resident outside the UK who are subject to the cap for a minimum of a calendar year after arrival here that responds to concerns identified by the Rycroft Review first, that the origin of funds from overseas donors can be harder to trace, and secondly, that democratic fairness may be put at risk if individuals are able to make unlimited donations into the political system, while only having a limited connection to public life in the United Kingdom.

Further amendments changed the test for company donations. So it is based on profit rather than revenue. That change follows careful consideration of the Rycroft review and engagement with stakeholders. Profit provides a clearer indication of a company's financial position and helps ensure that donations come from companies undertaking genuine economic activity. The bill was also amended to implement the Rycroft recommendation that the Electoral Commission's information sharing powers could be extended, and this will enable the Commission to receive relevant information from relevant public authorities as defined in the Bill, supporting more effective regulation of political finance and a better understanding of emerging risks.

The government also amended the Bill to extend the Commission's powers to require disclosure of information outside of a formal investigation, allowing the commission to more proactively monitor compliance, support timely regulation during election periods and take a more proportionate and effective approach to enforcement. Beyond the Rycroft recommendations at Report stage, the government also introduced a targeted regulation making power to allow key political finance restrictions in the bill, including those relating to crypto assets, overseas elected donation caps and company donations to be extended beyond political parties via secondary legislation in the future.

This is to ensure that malign actors cannot circumvent the rules by providing to other non-party regulated donees. While much of the consideration of the bill so far has been focussed around strengthening political finance provisions, the government also brought forward further amendments at Report stage to extend the maximum duration of longer term postal and proxy proxy postal voting arrangements from three years to five, and to better align the duration of anonymous elector elector registration provisions with those changes. These changes will provide greater clarity and consistency while reducing repeated administrative burdens on people who may already be vulnerable.

The government has also amended the bill to clarify when an overseas elector may be removed from the electoral register. Overseas electors must satisfy specific eligibility requirements when they register. Although registration lasts for three years, circumstances may change during that period. These amendments ensure that an individual who no longer meets the requirements can be removed, helping electoral registers to remain accurate. Taken together, the Commons amendments strengthen the public scrutiny of political finance, reduce avoidable administrative burdens, and ensure the bill responds sensibly to modern forms of participation, campaigning and donation.

As the Bill has progressed, our desire to engage with all interested parties and our willingness to listen to opposing viewpoints has continued, following the strength of feeling expressed at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the government brought forward an amendment in committee to repeal the government's powers to designate a strategy and policy statement to which the Electoral Commission must have regard that repeal supports our manifesto commitment to strengthen democracy and uphold the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission. The government has also committed to bring forward an amendment during the bill's passage through this House to strengthen accessibility at polling stations for voters with disabilities.

We will develop that amendment in the spirit of the new clause tabled at Commons Report stage, working with interested members of both houses to ensure that any new provision is proportionate, practical and deliverable. In addition to introducing a robust regime that ensures donors contributing above the £100,000 annual cap, must demonstrate a genuine and ongoing connection to the United Kingdom. We are considering how we will strengthen the residency requirements, including ensuring the length of time spent in the UK aligns with broader government policy.

We will continue to engage with political parties bilaterally and through the Parliamentary Parties panel, and will provide the House with further details in due course. I am keen for that spirit of constructive engagement to continue as the Bill proceeds through this House. I have hosted a drop in session for all peers, and I've been pleased to meet separately with a number of noble Lords throughout the passage of this Bill. My door will remain open to those who wish to discuss any aspect of it with me.

Outside this House. We have worked and will continue to work with bodies such as the parliamentary panels, parties, panel and stakeholders across the electoral sector to ensure the bill operates effectively for political parties, electors and administrators and administrators. We have also engaged with Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, recognising that implementation will require continued close working with the devolved governments and legislative consent in those areas within the responsibility of the devolved legislatures.

I also recognise that successful implementation will matter as much as the legislation itself. Electoral administrators, returning officers and those who support the running of elections locally will be central to the making of making many of these reforms work. In practice, the government will continue to engage closely with them as the bill progresses and as the necessary secondary legislation, guidance and operational changes are developed. We want reforms that are ambitious but are also workable, clear and capable of commanding confidence on the ground.

My Lords, democracy is not sustained by institutions and legislation alone. It depends on people believing that their voice matters, that the rules are fair, and that the outcome of an election reflects the free choice of the electorate. That confidence must never be taken for granted. This is a substantial and important set of reforms to electoral law. I know that noble Lords will bring expertise, rigour and practical insight to its consideration, and I look forward to engaging with those debates in the constructive spirit in which the Bill has been developed.

With that, my Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be now read a second time. My Lords. It's an understatement to say

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's an understatement to say this is a constitutionally significant bill, particularly at a time when the political landscape time when the political landscape is so turbulent. This is where your Lordships House proves its worth. Lordships House proves its worth. With careful scrutiny to improve the government's legislation as best we can. Indeed, the motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Rooker, is driven by the need for this thorough scrutiny, and I
16:11
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Portrait Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Conservative)
-
-
thank him. I also want to thank all those who have been speaking today, as I'm sure there will be a number as I'm sure there will be a number of very important matters raised, and will be listening to them very and will be listening to them very closely. My Lords, this Bill seeks not only to give children the right to vote in all elections, but also introduces automatic voter registration reforms, political registration reforms, political finance law and tackles foreign interference, whilst potentially leaving the door open for foreign citizens to vote.

I'd also like to flag that this bill was drafted with minimal engagement with other political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that any legislative change elections should be informed by the experience and insight of the electoral community, including electoral administrators, political parties and the wider regulated community. There was no consultation with political parties on the 2025 election strategy, nor after the initial Rycroft recommendations. Why did the government not wait two months until Rycroft review was completed before proceeding to Second Reading of the bill? In the other place, if the government wanted to fast track its manifesto commitments on the voting age, why couldn't the government separate the election measures from the political finance measures, as indeed the last Labour government did with the Representation of People Act 2000 and the political Parties, Elections and Referendums Referendum Act 2000.

My Lords, this is not how election rules should be reformed. As Sir Winston Churchill said at the Second Reading of the Representation of People Bill in 1948, it's become a well-established custom that matters, affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by agreement, some of the provisions are indeed deeply troubling and risks setting dangerous precedents. Bills such as these should not be hyper partisan, particularly in complex areas such as political finance.

Even just the perception of partisan targeted legislation risks breaking down long standing political conventions and, crucially, trust in the system. We will all have heard the reports March 2026, but the calendar year of UK resident requirement may pre-date March 2026. If an elector has dual permanent residence at home and abroad, would this class the elector as an overseas contributor, it is important that laws are clear. I would be happy for the Minister to write to me if she wishes to on this matter.

As to the Bill's other provisions, let me be very clear. We will not stand in the way of the government's manifesto commitment to lower the voting age. The noble Lords opposite may see themselves as having a monopoly on progress, but let me gently remind your Lordships House that when the 1832 Reform Act was passed. They know the answer. The Conservatives won the general lost their lost their majority lost their majority in lost their majority in 1885 lost their majority in 1885 and lost their majority in 1885 and the Conservatives returned to power in 1886, when women finally got the vote in the following decades, they were more likely to vote conservative than men.

Very sensible. And when the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969, the Conservatives won the general election the following year. From the days of the Primrose League to our young conservatives today, we will never be afraid of making our case to the British people. Yes. However, the government's position in this bill is inconsistent with its policies elsewhere, which raises serious questions. The government must decide whether it sees 16 and 17 year olds as children, in line with the Children's Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child or not.

If not, then why not 15 year olds or younger? What exactly is the government's rationale? Will the government change other laws as a result? Children currently cannot stand for election be deployed in the armed forces, buy alcohol or cigarettes. The government has in fact raised the age for buying fireworks, vapes and knives for using sunbeds to 18 and is proposing to raise the raise the age at which 17 year olds can obtain a driving licence. Where does the government draw the line and why? My Lords, we are also concerned about the automatic voter registration.

We believe it's up to individuals to register, to be inspired, to register rather than forced, and to undergo proper checks to protect the system from fraud, which is why individual registration was introduced in the first place. Do we really trust algorithms to keep accurate registers when there may be out of date entries on other databases? For example, how will it prevent those with residence but who are ineligible from being registered, such as certain second home owners or unqualified Commonwealth and EU voters? So much for tackling foreign interference.

Voters rights are rightly based on citizenship, not residency. No EU member state allows non-national citizens from voting in their national elections. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, confirm that eligibility to vote in general elections will remain the preserve of British citizens only? What's more, this bill will water down requirements for photographic identification at polling stations. Yet we still require photo ID to drive or for under 25 buying alcohol. Again, what is the rationale? Where's the consistency? Amidst the legitimate concerns in the recent Gorton and Denton, as well as Birmingham City Council by elections around family voting? Is this really the time to water down safeguards against electoral fraud? This brings me to to the rise of sectarianism in our country.

In the other place, the government, alongside the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, voted against an amendment to ban political campaigning materials in foreign languages. Nor, of the government said if any assessment has been made of sectarianism in election, in election campaigning. My Lords, this is counterproductive to integration and brings into question whether this government is serious about social cohesion. There are, of course, some aims in this bill which we welcome. We are supportive of initiatives to safeguard candidates, campaigners and elected representatives, representatives from unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence whilst protecting the right to robust debate on strongly felt issues.

The previous government took several actions on this, and we're happy to build on this work. Similarly, we will be constructive when it comes to election advertising regulation. The Elections Act 2022 introduced imprints for digital material, and the Conservative Party already voluntarily labels digital content, which is AI generated. As I said earlier, the kinds of reforms proposed in this bill should be based on consensus and cost passing, cross-party consultation. Clearly, there are areas we agree on, but there are also areas of serious concern, not just about the proposals themselves, but about the way in which the government has introduced them.

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could address the points raised, and I look forward to hearing the valuable insights of other noble Lords on this hugely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

significant and wide ranging Bill. Yeah. My Lords, in the light of the mega donations we've heard about mega donations we've heard about reform in the last week, I'd like to start by emphasising the difference between liberal difference between liberal democracy and popular democracy, or illiberal democracy, as Viktor Orban and others have called it, liberal or constitutional democracy recognises that democratic
16:22
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
recognises that democratic processes are open to abuse and require rules and regulations to ensure that all citizens, regardless of background or income, are able to play a positive part. Transparency in campaigning and finance is vital to maintain public trust. Safeguards against foreign interference, the buying of votes or dominance of the media by the wealthy are justified to ensure acceptance of the outcome and to prevent corruption. Popular democracy dismisses all of this. Populist leaders claim that they understand what the people really want, and that regulations are there only to protect the establishment if they spend money from doubtful sources in huge amounts.

That's justified by the need to counter the weight of the mainstream media and the power of the established elite. If others question their arguments, they dismiss reasoned argument as fake news. None of us should take our democracy for granted. In the 2024 election, less than 60% of our citizens turned out, and some 6 to 8 million citizens were missing from the electoral register. Public disillusion with Westminster politics and with democracy itself is dangerously high in this country. Everything we put in this bill, the Democrats argue, must be geared to rebuilding public trust in our democratic institutions and encouraging every citizen to play an active part.

Paragraph 84 of the bill's explanatory notes declares, I quote, the government wants as many people as possible to engage in the UK's democracy. The Democrats share that executive objective and aim to amend the bill to go further in pursuing it. Thankfully, Hungary's experiment with illiberal democracy, with the massive corruption that went with it, has now been defeated. But we're watching democracy in the USA being undermined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By gerrymandering, by challenges to voting lists and attacks on the impartiality of election impartiality of election administrators, as well as by enormous flows of money. I hope enormous flows of money. I hope that most of us in this House share a deep concern over current developments in the US, and a developments in the US, and a commitment to sustain our liberal democracy against the threats it democracy against the threats it now faces. In a previous debate, the noble Lord Lord Hannan argued that the right to spend money in political campaigning was a part of free speech.

Repeating the argument that the US Supreme Court made in overthrowing congressional limits on campaign funding, the noble Lord Lord Frost, who will be speaking in this debate, dismissed the Rycroft report as absurd, which is to say fake news. Money in politics is vital to political campaigning, but large donations, millions of pounds or dollars distort and corrupt the democratic process. Commentary on this year's US congressional elections frequently starts by telling us which candidate has raised the most money as a key factor in whether they will win or lose.

We will support extending spending limits on campaigns and imposing clear conditions and limits on donations to prevent our democracy from sinking into a similar funding race. I find it striking that populists who campaigned to defend British sovereignty get so much of their money from funny places abroad. Gibraltar for the Brexit campaign. Thailand, Hong Kong, Montenegro and beyond for the Reform Party. It's gross hypocrisy to claim to represent the sovereign voice of the British people when they depend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on shady money from sunny places. Yeah. Some of the changes in this bill aim to reverse the damage inflicted aim to reverse the damage inflicted in the highly partisan 2022 in the highly partisan 2022 Elections Act. O'Neill, of Bexley, Elections Act. O'Neill, of Bexley, has repeated the argument. There is an established convention dating from from 1948 that changes from from 1948 that changes elections. Regulations must be subject to consensus among the parties involved. I was the Liberal Democrat leader in the 2022 election.

I remember no consultation from the Conservatives whatsoever. If there were such an established convention and I asked that I would see what evidence there was for parliamentary convention on that, and they told me they could find none. The Conservatives decisively broke it during the last act. I hope we will now all behave better than that. The Conservative Party must own and admit the damage done to our country's democratic institutions and to public trust under Boris Johnson's Prime Minister.

And they must own and admit their own shortcomings in allowing Russian money and influence to penetrate deeply into their party. I have just read an article by Dominic Grieve, then chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on Boris Johnson's determination to limit the investigation of major donations to the exit campaign, as well as to delay publication of the ICS report until after the 2019 elections, and to adapt much of the damaging detail. Some of those involved in promoting the Conservative Friends of Russia and cultivating Russian donors now sit in this House.

Rycroft distinguished between money that flowed directly to political parties and efforts to shape, I quote, the wider influencing environment, including, I quote, attempts to create division and mistrust among the wider public. Direct donations may seem easy to regulate, but I recommend the noble Lords Chapter six of George Cottrell's recent book, How to Launder Money, which lists a variety of ways to donate to a politician or a party without being caught from high speaking fees and book deals, to paying travelling expenses and funding associated foundations and think tanks as a fund raiser for the leave campaign.

And now for reform. He's an expert in this. Oddly, he does not include paying extraordinarily high fees for TV work in the way that the loss making GB news subsidises Nigel Farage. The wider influencing environment is a grey area in political regulation. Non-Party campaigners are hard to define. Political movements that aren't parties are not covered, and social media have become a powerful form of influence. Money from abroad is hard to trace. It's not only Russia and China that seek to influence UK campaigning.

The Hungarian government under Viktor Orban reportedly provided almost all the funding of the Roger Scruton Legacy Foundation to support James Orr's promotion for Christian nationalism. The times last week reported that Daniel Pipes Middle East Forum, a strongly anti Muslim American organisation, was funding Tommy Robinson's movement and Daniel Thomas's patriotic platform, which organised the demonstrations in Dover and Portsmouth. The significant surge of American money into British politics now also from the Trump administration itself, threatens to upset the balance of our domestic debate.

This bill may not be able to close all of these loopholes, but we must try. This unregulated flow of money into the fringes of party politics isn't entirely new. I recall many years ago, a former treasurer of the Conservative Party telling me that when potential donors wanted to remain anonymous, he would suggest they donate to a friendly think tank instead. But it's become a more contentious issue, as social media and private polling have opened up more space for unobserved funding to tip the balance of the political debate.

The Rycroft report's recommendation on think tanks is clear, and we strongly support it. I quote the government working with the Charity Commission, as appropriate, should ensure that it has the capability to monitor the think tank landscape, to take transparent the engagement of foreign funded think tanks in the policy process. I look forward to the speech from the noble Lord Young of Acton on this. Others on these benches will examine the proposals on regulation of social media, on intimidation and abuse of candidates, on moves towards automatic voter registration and other aspects of the bill.

They will also address the deficiencies of our antiquated voting system. Now that we have 5 to 6 parties competing in national and local elections. Noble Lords may not be aware of the magnificent Liberal Democrat victory in a recent Cornish by election, in which the victor won just under 19% of the vote, Liberal Democrats welcome the extension of voting to 16 year olds as a contribution to building participation and trust within the younger generation in our democratic institutions. But it will need to be supported by an expansion of civic education in our schools, well beyond the very limited space provided within our current curriculum.

I've talked to a number of secondary schools and am shocked by how little they are taught anything about democracy or about our political institutions. We will look to the Minister and others for assurances that changes are now under way. Effective regulation. I hope we all agree, is a vital part of constitutional democracy. We, on these benches, will bring forward amendments to adjust Britain's structure of regulation to the growing domestic and foreign challenges we face.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before we move on, I wanted to highlight the five minute advisory time limit for backbench advisory time limit for backbench contributions. I would ask all noble Lords to stick closely to that guidance, as it will enable that guidance, as it will enable the House to rise at around 10 p.m.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will focus my remarks on parts four and five of the Bill relating to election
16:32
16:33
Lord Evans of Weardale Portrait Lord Evans of Weardale (Crossbench)
-
-
of Election Finance. The report recommended a number of necessary, albeit modest, changes to election regulation to simplify the rules, increase transparency and reduce the risk of bad actors gaining influence through financial donations. Regrettably, the then donations. Regrettably, the then government under Boris Johnson failed to respond to the report and failed to act on the failed to act on the recommendations. The report was effectively buried. One can only speculate as to why that should have been the case. I'm therefore delighted that the current government has revisited this important issue, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the process of review by Philip Rycroft, which underpins many of the measures in the Bill as presented.

Measures in part four of the Bill go a considerable way towards meeting the recommendations that CSPL made in 2021. But if anything, as the noble Minister said, the need for change in this area is even more urgent now than it was five years ago. Public trust in our political system is under great pressure. The risk of foreign money infiltrating our election system remains. The risk of huge individual donations unbalancing the political process has grown. And hostile states, including. But by no means only Russia, are energetically seeking to influence our public life and subvert our institutions.

We must protect them for our national security and for the health of our democracy. One of the absolute cornerstones of that democracy is maintaining the integrity of our elections. So it is clear that they are fair, transparent, independent of government, and resilient against improper attempts to influence the outcome. We are fortunate to have an independent electoral commission, which, broadly speaking, has the confidence of the parties and of the public. I'm therefore delighted to see that the Bill before us would abolish the right of the government to set out a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.

The government of the day does not own the electoral system and has no business imposing its own strategy and policy objectives on the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the measures that reduce the risk of dirty or untraceable money getting into our electoral system. Given the strict demands on the banking sector with which I was very familiar. When I was a non-executive director at HSBC Holdings and on other parts of the professional services industry to ensure that they know their customers.

It's increasingly anomalous that there is so little duty on political parties to know their donors. The bill requires parties to assess the risk posed by their donors, but without expecting them to do so to such a level of detail that it would be unreasonable in terms of the resources deployed. Similarly, preventing donations being made from cryptocurrency is only prudent given the the untraceability of crypto assets. There is a reason why cyber criminals normally want their ransom payments made in crypto.

The new measures relating to unincorporated associations are also vital. Unincorporated associations currently provide a convenient route to obscure the source of funds going into the election system. That must change. On the well rehearsed and indeed now very fashionable question of a cap on individual donations other than from overseas contributors, my long held view is that there should be such a cap and that it should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

apply to companies, trade unions individuals. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the fact that companies, unions and individuals are willing to donate freely to the are willing to donate freely to the political process, but we need some degree of proportionality as to the degree of proportionality as to the influence of any particular voice, a donation cap, and I personally would set it quite a high level, would help to do that. But it is vital that such a cap should not be so designed that it penalises or advantages any one party.

So cross-party consultation on this matter is essential if we are to have a stable and credible system. And that applies to the other measures also in this Bill. Even if all the measures in the bill were passed into law, there would still be a need to reform regulation of the election system, which is complex, fragmented and subject to different statutes, as has been argued elsewhere. There is a strong case for a root and branch review of the election of election law.

This bill is not based on such a review, but it does, in my view, propose some sensible and proportionate improvements that will reduce some of the risks that the current system faces.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is an important and timely debate as any and timely debate as any opportunity to re-establish trust in politics is one that we must embrace eagerly. We are sadly embrace eagerly. We are sadly familiar with the phrase A plague on both your houses, used in a on both your houses, used in a political context. There were both, maybe rather out of date, but the sentiment expressed encapsulates the frustration that many voters feel with the entire political
16:38
Lord Bishop of Lichfield Portrait The Lord Bishop of Lichfield (Bishops)
-
-
system, thus overlooking many principled, honest, hard working principled, honest, hard working MPs, peers and their staff. My Lords, I want to mention two points Lords, I want to mention two points in particular. Firstly, in my visits to prisons, I meet many men visits to prisons, I meet many men with time to think and to think deeply. Most people come to serve deeply. Most people come to serve their sentence in prison only after a string of failures, personal failures, but also the failures of services, systems and institutions, including the church.

To have that direct and painful experience of system failure. And yet, through disenfranchisement, to have no means to participate in efforts for their correction or renewal that I believe can further erode any sense of civic engagement and belonging. I do hope that this House will consider whether votes might be extended to at least some convicted prisoners, as one dimension of the penal journey to rehabilitation. Secondly, my Lords, I stand here embodying my belief that the church has much to bring to civic engagement and the search for the common good in which all people can flourish.

But I am deeply saddened to see our faith or any faith or belief being used to divide, to exclude or to intimidate. Recently we have seen cases of pictures of church buildings being used in election campaign material without permission, and I fear we may see more images of churches, mosques, synagogues, Monday's gurdwaras, other places of worship being used improperly. I and my colleagues on these benches would like to see greater deterrence against this kind of malign misuse.

I hope that the government will see fit to work with the Electoral Commission and with faith leaders to strengthen the guidance given to candidates and to campaign managers in this area. My Lords, this is the last time that I shall address your Lordships House before I retire at the end of this month. My maiden speech here was in a debate on parliamentary democracy in the UK, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I spoke then of the contributions that faith communities can make to the flourishing of democracy in our diverse society.

An important issue to which we need constantly to return. It has been my privilege since then to make occasional contributions. Alas, more infrequent than I might have hoped to the workings of this House. And it's been an honour to be able to lead your Lordships in prayer. I thank you all for the quality, the expertise and the civility of your debates, and I thank the staff and the former and present Lord speakers and their deputies for unfailing helpfulness and courtesy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish your Lordships well in all your deliberations. Amen. My Lords, it's a pleasure.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure. And an honour to follow the right Reverend Prelate. And of course, we all wish him well in his retirement. We're going to miss him. And his views on democracy are very And his views on democracy are very well established, and I personally agree with him in relation to prisoners. But that's a personal view. My Lords, my Lords, democracy view. My Lords, my Lords, democracy is fragile and too many people have lost faith in our politicians and in our Parliament.

We must give citizens confidence that our system is fair, inclusive, transparent and
16:42
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Portrait Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-
-
accessible. I commend the government for taking action to prevent overseas money influencing prevent overseas money influencing our politics. But the influence wielded by domestic mega-donors also threatens our political system. also threatens our political system. It is a challenge to democracy and corrupts our politics. I welcome the letter from the Housing Secretary and First Secretary of State to the Electoral Commission, asking for an immediate review of asking for an immediate review of political spending caps. This is very urgent. So I ask my noble friend, will the government commit to a timeline for announcing and legislating further measures to cap donations, as well as deciding what electoral law should be? We must consider stronger penalties for breaches of the law, including confiscation of the entire donation and a substantial fine, and it would be good to have the views of my noble friend, the Minister.

One important aspect of electoral funding was not properly addressed by Rycroft and is absent from the legislation. The use of think tanks, funded by unknown sources and foreign money to influence our politics should concern us all, as it does the Liberal Democrats. Does the Minister agree that think tanks, like charities or political parties, should be required to report and publish information on their donations? I fervently believe that further work on reforming our electoral law system is crucial and must take place before the election.

The government must review electoral law swiftly and carefully to ensure that it is fit for purpose at every level, and then urgently bring forward further legislation. I would suggest that perhaps they could do this in the next session of Parliament to close loopholes to address new issues that have arisen and ensure that our elections are free from undue influence. I am delighted that this bill will lower the voting age, but this must be accompanied by education to install political, digital and media literacy.

We need this education as soon as the Bill is enacted to ensure that our young people have the information and confidence to participate in the next elections. I welcome the provision in the Bill to remove the requirement of home addresses to be published on the notice of election agents and recent changes for candidates to opt out of publishing their home addresses on ballot papers. However, home addresses should be kept private by default. Women candidates are more likely to withhold their addresses than men, which can impact on their ability to provide a local connection.

A change to prevent the publication of a candidate's home address, and instead replace geographical location with the constituency district or ward, would put all candidates on equal footing to ensure both transparency and safety. As the Electoral Commission's recent report states, the rising abuse of intimidation of electoral candidates is changing politics. This must be not be normalised and it requires a change of culture. This bill is an opportunity to change the culture, so I urge the Minister to take forward five further issues which were not voted on in the Commons.

Strengthen requirements for running for office by including domestic abuse in the list of offences and disqualification orders, as in Apsana Begum MP. Amendments which were which received cross-party support. Embed a code of conduct for political campaigning. Building on the recommendation from the speaker's conference and the ongoing work of the Electoral Commission, who are engaging parties to create a code, require the Electoral Commission to disseminate candidate safety resources. The introduction of Elections Code of practice for social media platforms, and the inclusion of an elections advocate.

Code of practice claims in Non-broadcast election advertising, including social media and targeted digital ads, are currently exempt from the code overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. Thus, no independent body is responsible for assessing whether factual claims in electoral advertising are accurate. We need to close that gap and to ensure fair and factual, robust debate and political expression. Finally, my Lords, I will be moving an amendment on compulsory voting, which is, I believe, a proven method of increasing voter turnout at elections, ensuring that citizens use their vote to influence the shape of our country and empowering them to bring about change.

I end by thanking many organisations for the excellent briefing they have provided, including the Women's Democracy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Group coalition. My Lords, may I first of all add my best wishes to the right my best wishes to the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Lichfield, on his retirement and thank him for the contributions thank him for the contributions that he has made to this House. My Lords, it has been said by other speakers, including the right reverend Prelate, that this is an reverend Prelate, that this is an important piece of legislation. If we are to restore trust in our democracy, and there are aspects of
16:47
Baroness May of Maidenhead Portrait Baroness May of Maidenhead (Conservative)
-
-
it with which I agree with the government. I must confess that I do not agree with the government on their proposals to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. I will say merely this. I think this was introduced for political motive with political motivations, but I. I would just say gently to the government, I suspect it may very well backfire on. My Lords. I also welcome the. Any attempts to tighten up the rules on electronic campaigning material, but I just say this to the government that I fear this is an area where it is going to be difficult for legislation to keep up with developments.

I worry about the ability to use AI generated material, which can put words into the mouths of any candidate or indeed anybody involved with a political party or involved with an election which are untrue and have never been said by them. Keeping up with the developments of AI in this field is going to be difficult, and I would ask the government to make sure that they continue to keep a watchful eye on this area, on this particular area. But, my Lords, the one aspect of this bill on which I particularly wanted to comment and to support the government's moves, is on the use of crypto assets.

The bill, of course, describes a crypto asset as a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically. I prefer the Bank of England statement in their primer on crypto assets, a way of storing value electronically outside of centralised systems and away from regulators. The the Bank of England goes on to say that development is underway to make cryptocurrencies easier to use, but for now, they can't really be considered a legitimate form of money.

I have to say, my Lords, that I'm generally a sceptic about crypto assets and cryptocurrency currencies. Beyond even the aspects in relation to this piece of legislation. I first came across them as Home Secretary when they were the currency of choice for those criminal for criminal gangs. They are a currency of choice for hostile state actors, as well as those organised crime gangs. And it is absolutely right. I think, that the government is moving to find ways to ensure that crypto assets cannot be used as donations to political parties.

But I simply say this to the government. I would say this to the government, and indeed, I have seen the briefing from the all party parliamentary group on Anti-Corruption and responsible Tax, which points out that there are loopholes in what the government is doing here in this piece of legislation. Loopholes because donations are banned from using crypto assets for donations to political parties, but not to candidates. There isn't a sufficient to look at an attempt to look at how exchanges can be used to turn those crypto assets, supposedly legally, into into donations.

So I think there is more that the government should be doing, and I would urge the government to look at this in particular, because crypto assets are used by people who want to avoid anybody knowing what they are doing. And in terms of our democracy and political parties, donations to parties or candidates, we actually want the transparency of knowing who is doing that donation, who is making those donations. And it is crypto assets in its in their various forms that will enable people who we do not want to see affecting our politics and affecting our democracies, who do so with evil intent in foreign intent of foreign interference.

So I welcome the fact that the government is acting. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

simply ask them to do more. My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Think Parliament at its best, when we can get up on both sides of the House and say, we agree. We. the House and say, we agree. We. Therefore, I think in that context make much, much better laws. I welcome many measures in this bill, and my thanks go to Philip Rycroft for his excellent report on for his excellent report on countering the foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics, and I'm grateful to the government for the changes already made that reflect many of his recommendations, like the proposals
16:52
Baroness Hodge of Barking Portrait Baroness Hodge of Barking (Labour)
-
-
to ban crypto asset donations, the call for company donations to be call for company donations to be assessed against profits, not revenue, and the proposal to cap revenue, and the proposal to cap foreign donations at £100,000. Similarly, strengthening the Electoral Commission's powers, improving know your donor checks and in introducing slightly tougher enforcement are welcome changes. Our Prime Minister said that this bill should be seen as the start, not the end of his ambition. In that spirit, I wish to raise concerns on which on which I would ask the government to urgently reflect, as we consider this bill.

First, the unprecedented announcement that two crypto billionaires donated an astonishing £72 million to one particular political party in 24 hours. The amount is staggering, but the fact it happened at all brings into stark focus the frightening threat to the integrity and health of our democracy, presented by the growing trend that sees our politics funded by huge donations from a wealthy, small elite. Anybody who believes that the donations were made simply to establish a level playing field is, frankly, both naive and wrong.

The truth is, large individual donations will, at best influence and at worst, control the policies and actions of political parties. Look at reform with Farage's statements on crypto saying we should unquestioningly, unquestionably embrace it, pledging to cut taxes for crypto traders, promising to lift the cap on the ownership of stablecoins. Look at Nathan Gill accepting bribes and then delivering speeches and interviews in support of Russia. It isn't just reform. Under the Conservatives, large donations bought access to the Prime Minister, meetings with Ministers and even a tennis match with Boris Johnson.

My own party also stands accused of undue influence by the trade union Baron. Barons in our policies and actions. And hovering in the wings is Elon Musk talking of investing £100 million in UK politics, who might well try to donate to the populist Extreme Right restore party. We must not, my Lords, allow money to capture and dictate our politics. We must act now. The reform donations have created urgency. We can't allow our democratic politics to be infected by the corrosive influence of money, with rich individuals often donating to secure public policies that bring them private profit.

The government should bring forward amendments to cap the donations of individuals to cap the annual campaign expenditure of parties, and to bring down the cap on what parties can spend during the election campaign. Channel Four's exposure alleged that reform would be prepared to circumvent the law law and accept donations from a foreign donor. Regrettably, other parties are guilty of similar behaviour during the 2034 election. The Conservative Party sought a donation from Mohamed Mursi, a man exposed in the Panama Papers, by an by Panorama.

The man who invented the term access capitalism. A journalist got hold of emails. The email exchanges between a mercy and the Conservatives and I have those. They contain a plea from the treasurer, then treasurer Baroness Barran Lee, for a donation. An email from a party official saying that because a mercy had not been on the electoral register for long, quote, we cannot accept a donation from yourself. The donation must come from Nadia's account. Nadia is the girlfriend. We are incredibly grateful for the magnificent pledge of support.

I also have a copy of the Swift notification confirming the transfer of £200,000 from a Mercy Swiss bank account to the Tories. And finally, an email from Baron Lee to a mercy not to his girlfriend saying thank you, Muhammad. The Conservatives evading the law to accept the donation from a foreign donor. Shockingly, when I took the evidence to the police, they refused to act. Loopholes like that must be closed. Political parties must not be able to use think tanks to evade campaign spending controls.

Know your donor provisions must be strengthened. Enforcement must be toughened with harsher sentences and a more appropriate threshold for charging. My Lords, we must clean up our politics and bring to a halt the growing, corrosive and dangerous

**** Possible New Speaker ****

influence of money in our precious democracy. Here, here, here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Stone turn. To the heated. Waters over. What, if anything, should be done about allegedly huge sums of money put into our electoral process by individual donors, or process by individual donors, or indeed by trades unions? That said, indeed by trades unions? That said, I rather wish to concentrate on the sometimes tiny numbers who actually go to vote, which is another very big issue, and which demands our attention in the context of this bill. So I've got four points to
16:58
Lord Patten Portrait Lord Patten (Conservative)
-
-
make. First, I fully support my noble friend Baroness O'Neill of noble friend Baroness O'Neill of Bexley in what she said in opening the debate from this side of the the debate from this side of the House and to repeat her words. But could I say to my noble friend that I greatly enjoyed her great historic sweep of history back to the Great Reform Act. Proving on every single occasion that anyone in the Palace of Westminster changed the voting system, the Conservatives always come out best.

I hope this will always continue and I suspect it will do this time round. Secondly, I deeply regret the often very small numbers of those who are already in the UK aged 18, who bother to vote as I equally equally regret that this bill does little to improve the picture. Unless the noble Baroness on the front bench can draw something to my attention to prove that's not the case. After all, not so long ago in this country, brave women and men were prepared to die for the right to vote, still denied in many parts of the globe.

It just seems to me so peculiar that turnout in the 2024 general election was below even that of the 2019 levels, just 35% of the vote. Yet people who cannot be bothered to vote, my Lords, can always manage to moan a lot about their lot, and that seems to continue. Thirdly, I note that the excellent, independent, always accurate Electoral Commission reports of feeling and it's their job to do this and everyone entitled should be automatically registered to vote.

I think that demands deep interrogation, and it may well be something that we need to see. Although on the other hand, I'm equally strongly against compulsory voting, believing in freedom of choice in our free society. Every time round. Fourth, it's interesting to see that compulsion is already used an awful lot in voting in free societies like Australia, where the voting age is already firmly 18 has been for a while. You have to vote. But that's prefaced by two years from age 16 onwards, which helps to develop awareness and interest in the political things to come.

A sort of democratic apprenticeship. So I'm very much in favour of looking at what the Australians have done and done well. Their solution feels about right as young people move round about 18 into earning and tax pay in this mobile frontier between age limits that the Labour Party has introduced. So I'm not in favour of starting registration here at 14. Seems rather pointless. There's no evidence adduced to suggest that will that this will get younger people to be persuaded to vote further on down the electoral line.

There's nothing to say. That's the case from all the UK turnout facts I've described. It seems highly unlikely. So I do favour a close look at the Australian model for all. Well, in many ways, not perhaps in its boisterous parliamentary language, its hard hitting personal attacks and some enjoyable bouts of fisticuffs. I don't think we would want to see this in in in our chamber or in the other place where demure behaviour is generally favoured. But I really do think it's worthwhile noting what's going on in Australia.

A highly valued Anglosphere strategic economic partner of ours that strongly supports the royal role in the Commonwealth. And I hope they'll get the chance to discuss with our representatives in the margins of the forthcoming Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The current controversy of a massive donations from crypto billionaires to the limited company known as reform, is a disaster that has been waiting to happen, and a has been waiting to happen, and a danger to democracy. In 2000, the then Labour government sought to then Labour government sought to end the party spending arms race that had been giving an unfair
17:02
Lord Rennard Portrait Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that had been giving an unfair financial advantage to the Conservative Party. It introduced a spending cap of £20 million for political parties in the 12 months before a general election. But there was no cap on the size of donations and no cap on spending. For all the years in between general elections, the cap of 20 million was higher than it needed to be, and it was a mistake to allow the Secretary of State to increase it without any form of parliamentary approval.

So the Conservatives increased this limit from £20 million to £36 million without consultation. Just before the last general election. This allowed it to receive £20 million in donations from a single source, Frank Hester. During the course of the passage of the legislation in 2000, I moved amendments providing for a maximum cap of £50,000 on the size of donations from any source to political parties. That would be around £110,000 in today's money. I also warned then that the legislation would backfire, just as it has done by introducing the concept of national spending for which could be targeted at individual constituencies.

This destroyed the concept of the level playing field in constituency campaigning that had applied since Gladstone's government introduced the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act of 1883. We have gone back 150 years. This bill must be amended to put that right. It's difficult to make rules apply retrospectively, even if actions are taken to subvert the purpose of the legislation. But we can look at the total limits of what can be spent by parties, and we could prevent the targeting of national spending at specific seats for this weekend's £72 million of donations to reform could legally be spent in 72 targeted constituencies over the course of two years, providing for £1 million of national spending in each of them.

MPs should take careful note of that. I'm not sure that they are aware in relation to donation caps. They are supporting the proposal for a cap of £100,000 on donations from overseas electors, but the logic of such a cap is that it should also be applied to UK based electors. My Lords, I support allowing young people to vote at the first election after their 16th birthday. That's not surprising because by the time I was 16, I was the secretary of the Liverpool Wavertree Constituency Liberal Association.

But I have never suggested that the first thing a 16 year old would wish to do after opening their birthday cards is to rush down to a polling station and cast a vote. But I do know from many political discussions with young people that many sixth formers are well informed, very interested and qualified to have a say in the future of their country, as very many older people. We need, however, to do much more to register young people and processes of automatic voter registration can cut costs and are clearly necessary to include more of the 6 to 8 million people missing or incorrectly registered.

The bill brings forward by three days the deadline to apply for a postal vote. Many people do not apply for one until they know the date of the election, so the timetable for the conduct of a general election must also be extended by three days. We also need to do more to assist overseas voters. At present, the time it takes, if they vote by post, effectively disenfranchises most of them, including members of our armed forces serving overseas. We cannot say that their rights as UK citizens are respected when we do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not. Will the means for them to vote? Lord Sewell. I declare.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare. An interest as a member, unpaid member. Of the Transparency International. Advisory Council. My International. Advisory Council. My Lords, as much. That's good about this bill. We've seen welcome this bill. We've seen welcome measures strengthening the election Electoral Commission and electoral law, and improving voter law, and improving voter registration processes. However, I want to focus my remarks, as many other previous speakers have done, on where I think the bill needs to go significantly further. And for me, that's on the issue of capping
17:08
Lord Wills Portrait Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
political donation. The recent news about the unprecedentedly large about the unprecedentedly large donations to the Reform Party have catapulted this into the headlines. But I hope noble Lords will not interpret my remarks as being interpret my remarks as being driven by that. My speech had already been written before the news broke, and what I'm about to news broke, and what I'm about to say should not be interpreted as referring directly to those donations. This is a matter of donations. This is a matter of fundamental principle about our democracy, individual wealth and malign state interests have been poisoning our politics for years now, and increasingly in ways that have never been seen before.

The fire hose of falsehoods on social media, apparently respectable think tanks purporting to present objective analysis of public policy while actually promoting special interests that fund them. And then there are toxic networks of lobbyists. Capping political donations is only a start to tackling these challenges to our democracy. But we have to start somewhere. And this bill offers us an opportunity to do so. Large political donations and the challenges they pose to the health of our democracy have been evident for many years.

Research by Transparency International has found that 1 in 10 political donations originate from unknown or dubious sources. And these risks are exacerbated by the absence of a cap on political donations. My Lords, in 2015, only 1% of private political donations from individuals and companies were of £1 million or more. By 2024, thus was over a third 35%. Significant donators get access to Ministers, including prime Ministers, to shadow Ministers and to party officials. They buy influence in ways that are denied to the overwhelming majority of voters in this country.

And this is not how a healthy democracy functions. As a result, the absence of a cap can only feed popular disenchantment with our democracy, and this bill offers a rare opportunity to do something about it. And the government will be judged by how and whether they seize it. Now, the government does appear to recognise the problem. In the other place, the Minister said that the government is determined to tackle the UK based issue of Mega-donors in UK politics. She announced there will be, and I quote, working at pace to find a solution without unintended consequences, and undertook again, and I quote once those solutions have been found, we will want them in force as soon as possible.

Unquote. So as the Bill progresses through your Lordships House, I intend to press the Minister to give more specific commitments to what exactly working at pace means. In other words, the time scale and deadline for this work, and what exactly the remit for this work will be. And the absence of such an explicit commitment, and I hope one might be coming forthcoming at the end of this debate. I'll submit amendments seeking to achieve it. A donation cap is not demanding in policy terms.

Other comparable democracies impose them. Canada caps donations to political parties at 1,750 CAD annually. France caps them at 7,500 annually, 4500 for presidential campaigns, and Italy's cap is 100,000 for personal company annually. The introduction of a donation cap has been recommended by various authority for many years. The Independent Hayden Phillips review the former Committee on Standards in Public Life. Anti-Corruption experts all have recommended it. And a cap is supported by a majority of voters across the political spectrum.

There is no good argument against such a cap. There's no reason, for example, why it should require additional public funding for parties, as sometimes is alleged. Transparency international has modelled the potential impact of donation caps on party political finances to demonstrate how a donation cap, for example, of 500 £0 a year, would significantly reduce the risk of the mega-rich buying political access and influence, while also allowing political parties to campaign effectively without any need for additional public funds. Nor would a cap on donations mean breaking the historic link between the Labour Party and the trade unions, as their political donations could be treated as bundled contributions from members.

Now, if the Minister believes that a cap on donations would mean either public funding for political parties or breaking that historic link between the Labour Party and the trade unions, I'd be grateful if she could explain why. So in conclusion, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure your Lordships' House that government will use this rare opportunity to do significantly more than they have already undertaken to do in cleaning up the malign influence of money on our democracy.
17:13
Lord Brady of Altrincham Portrait Lord Brady of Altrincham (Conservative)
-
-
But the question of at what point assets which are non crypto assets, but which are derived from cryptoassets become acceptable. And where the legislation will will bite in in that regard. And I don't have any clear idea of that now, and I hope we will gain some later on. The only other point I want to make about the funding of political parties in relation to the Bill is, though, to raise a concern, which is about the application of retrospective restrictions, and I think I'm echoing my noble friend Baroness O'Neill in in concern about this, especially as she said, if it might be seen to be targeting a particular political party, I might add, especially if it seems to be targeting a particular political party which enjoys building a narrative of victimhood and wanting to suggest that the establishment are constantly out to get it.

I think it's a serious danger in that approach. I'll turn now, though I do want to register my strong opposition to the extension of the vote to certain children, 16 and 17 year olds. My noble friend, earlier made the point that there is no demand, that participation is already very low amongst 18 to 25 year olds, I think about 20% lower than it is in the population as a whole. So it's not as though we've got people at these very young ages clamouring.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

To be given the vote. And my concern, though, really is about the growing inconsistency in our the growing inconsistency in our approach as a country in the government's approach of ages and government's approach of ages and ages of majority, what point people ages of majority, what point people are considered to be adult citizens, able to make their own decisions and their own choices in life? And we already think that 16 and 17 year olds are too young to be allowed to decide that they want to leave school.

They are too young to be allowed to serve in our armed forces. Perhaps the most egregious inconsistency of all came in the Tobacco and Vapes Act that we recently passed, where we even moved to the point of raising the age at which people are allowed to buy tobacco by a year, every year, which a wholly new novel approach to these matters. But it has to be said, smoking tobacco now, with the restrictions that are already in place, is mostly harmful to the smoker.

Voting can damage the interests of everyone. And the. Of course, the choice of voting age is necessarily arbitrary. But I would argue strongly it should be consistent. Wherever we do fix the age, it should be that point where people are considered able to exercise their own judgement. And of course, we have many different points where you could fix the age. We know that the human brain isn't fully developed until about the age of 25. Maybe that would be a sensible place to be, but that would be a very significant reduction, I suppose, in the existing franchise.

Certainly, I think the age of 18 has been accepted for a long time. Reasonable compromise. A point where people are likely to be able to exercise the judgement as necessary. And I fully accept the noble Lord, Lord Reynolds Point. Many of us who are quite politically engaged. At the age of 16, we were slightly odd, I suspect, but but it is a. It is a minority of people of the age of 16 or 17 who are that politically engaged, that interested and keen to exercise their Democratic franchise.

So I think it's a big mistake to go down that route. I really think we ought to be looking again to establish a single point where we consider a citizen as an adult, able to make their own choices, decide for their own future. And at the moment, we seem to be diverging in all sorts of directions on this issue, and I don't think it serves well to assault the very concept of an adult citizen. I go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Lord speaker and members across the chamber. May I begin by thanking all of you for the warmth and generosity of your welcome? and generosity of your welcome? Only today, the Electoral Commission published a warning about the increasing levels of about the increasing levels of hostility and violence in our politics. And the contrast, if I may say so, between the civility, the reasonableness, and the friendship that members from all
17:18
Lord Macintosh of Eastwood Portrait Lord Macintosh of Eastwood (Labour)
-
-
sides have offered me has been a real a real tonic to me. So I would thank all members for that and for thank all members for that and for reminding me, indeed, of the importance of practising as well as protecting our democratic values. So it gives me great pleasure to make my first contribution in this make my first contribution in this debate on the representation of the people Bill. Before I do, though, I hope members will allow me to say a hope members will allow me to say a few words of thanks, beginning with to the clerk of the Parliament, her staff Black Rod and his team.

I've only been here a few days and already I've been rescued from marching. The fellow newbie Lord Singh into their own committee room. I've been steered politely out of the palace kitchens, and I was gently prevented from walking into the commons during a division. So I will be. I will be very grateful for. That level of support will continue. I'd also like to particularly thank my two supporters, Lord Foulkes and Baroness MacLeod Ofcom Lord Darroch. I have not taken a similarly Gaelic place name, but I am a very great pleasure when occasionally I'm referred to as a skink that is someone from the Isle of Skye.

So on my father's side, his family and my family come from Skye, and I'm very proud of them and that my roots are in the Highlands and Islands. But I should add that my politics mostly come from my mother, who at 90 is as sharp as principled and DLUHC as left wing as ever. So when I. Yes, indeed, when I broke the news of my appointment to the House of Lords, I think she was genuinely torn between her motherly pride and her embarrassment that her son would actually take a title.

She doesn't regard me as much as red cane as perhaps ochre or salmon pink. And without turning this into an Oscar acceptance speech. Can I also thank my wife, Claire? I'm sure members who have the support, value, the support of a partner will know how much it matters and how little you achieve without that. My thanks to her and to my children and my wider family for keeping my feet on the ground. Now, Claire and I first met actually when I was still working for the BBC, an organisation which is whose future is uncertain and which I will hope we will come back to at some point.

I went on to be elected in 1999 to the Scottish Parliament and served there. Was fortunate enough to serve there for 22 years, so members will not not be surprised to hear how much weight I put on the importance of parliamentary democracy, and of standing up for the rights of the people we serve. The bill before us today introduces a number of reforms, which I believe will strengthen those democratic rights. And I simply want to reflect from my own experience on just one proposal around which I already have heard expressions of unease.

Those members familiar with the Scottish Parliament will know that we introduced votes for 16 year olds some ten years ago now. Then, as now, we were concerned with falling participation rates amongst our young people and I, for one, hoped that such a move would encourage young people to exercise their democratic rights. The evidence collected since then would suggest that is exactly what has happened. One University of Edinburgh study, for example, shows that voter turnout amongst young people who first vote at the age of 16 and 17 is greater than amongst those who were not offered that opportunity.

Further studies which look internationally confirm that finding, and also suggest that the. The fear that young people will, for example, be drawn to populism or to electoral stupidity are not borne out. In fact, quite the reverse. What happens is young people who use their votes at the age of 16 and 17 have greater confidence that their vote will make a difference, that their vote will shape their future and our society. So it is very much to be encouraged, and I have to say, an important aspect of this particular bill.

So your Lordships, I believe that this bill will make a huge difference to our country. But in an increasingly hostile world, what matters is actually what we use, what we do with the democratic rights, the houses that we build, the social care that we transform, and the economic, economic opportunities that we offer our young people. What matters today, though, is that we demonstrate that electoral reform and using your democratic mandate does make a difference, that we don't believe in the strongman approach to politics or countering aggression with aggression, or that money can buy you power.

We need to show that understanding and empathy are actually what works, that collaboration and cooperation, cooperation make a difference. I believe this this bill will do exactly that, and I am hugely encouraged by the attitude of your Lordships across this House, which show that we can practice politics with kindness and compassion, too.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Excellent. Lord, it's a great.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, it's a great. Privilege and a real pleasure to be the first to congratulate my be the first to congratulate my noble friend on what was a powerful, eloquent and witty speech. And I shouldn't be surprised. However, shouldn't be surprised. However, I've known him for decades, and I. I came to his father, as we say in Scotland. His father was a very distinguished director of the Royal High School, as well as a great Gaelic expert, and his mother, who was here when he was introduced,
17:24
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Portrait Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour)
-
-
and I had the great privilege of discussing with her. Her politics is also a wonderful lady, and she is also a wonderful lady, and she was also head teacher of one of our schools in Edinburgh. So he comes from that great background, but also his own experience really also his own experience really qualifies him well to be a member of this House. He was a very distinguished member of the Scottish Parliament,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Scottish Parliament, And he was a really great presiding officer. That's, speaker, for those of you who don't really understand exactly how system. And he was very good at it. And I think from not just from what we've heard today, but from what I know of his path, he's going to speak again on many occasions, contribute greatly in on the floor of this House. But I also think in many other ways to this House. And we look forward very much to every part of his contribution.

Thank you very much contribution. Thank you very much indeed. Now to the Bill Lord Sewell. We've been talking a lot about these two crypto billionaires and their donations, and I don't want to go into that. But it's not new. We've been worried about this huge amount of money coming into our system from outside our political system, from outside the United Kingdom, from some for some time, particularly from the United States and particularly to people on the far right to politics, policies and parties on the far right.

And so we must be very careful. It's not new. And that's why I really endorse everything that has been said by my noble friend Baroness Royall, by the Lord Wallace, by Lord Wills and others, that we need to impose limits not just on overseas donations, but on domestic donations as well, and not just to political parties, but as the noble Lord Wallace said, to think tanks as well, which have a a subtle but invidious, insidious rather influence also.

And can I say to the Minister, I really hope that in her reply she will acknowledge that there has been a lot of views expressed by. A lot of members of this House are on all sides and say that she will discuss this with her colleagues and see if we can bring forward legislation faster and stronger, and not just to deal with the the the way in which money is being funnelled in, but also prosecuting and vigorously where it is carried out improperly.

Now, that brings me to 1 or 2 of the other provisions of this of this bill. Can I say I'm strongly in favour of automatic voter registration? I listened very carefully to the opposition spokesperson on this, and I and others, and I can find no reasonable arguments put forward for not automatic voter registration. We want to encourage as many people to vote as possible, and that's certainly the way that it will help it. I'm also in favour of votes at 16.

As my noble friend Lord McIntosh pointed out, we've had it in Scotland for ten years now, and when we first introduced it, I went to talk to the pupils at Portobello High School, 16 and 17 year olds. And, you know, they understood the political issues better than most of the adults that I've spoken to about it. And in fact, there was a 75% turnout. I think my noble friend said in the referendum, from these, the people of that generation compared with a much lower percentage from the older people as well, but also in favour.

I'm in favour also of compulsory voting. Lord Patten spoke about Australia and Australia and Belgium and a number of countries in South America have it, and I think it's astonishing that huge increase in participation that we've had from in compulsory voting. And for those who don't like any of the candidates, we could put in, as they do in Nevada and and 1 or 2 other places, an option, none of the above. And that means they can't say, OK, well, you know, I don't like any I don't like any of these candidates.

They can vote for none of the above. And then finally, can I say be very wary. I say this to the Liberal Democrats in particular about changing the voting system. I know they keep going on about proportional representation. Look at some of the examples. Look at Scotland. Look at what happened in Scotland with our the voting system we had there. It's so perverse. I got elected by mistake. I had to serve four years on the Scottish Parliament because I put my name on the list being told I would never get elected and I got elected.

I didn't put out a. I didn't have a speech. I didn't put out any. I didn't have any meetings. I didn't put out any leaflets. And I got elected. And then there's a green MSP got elected and for the. They've not had any to the list and they've not had any surgeries during the whole four period, four year period. So be very, very careful before you change the voting system and understand exactly what it's going to happen. So, my Lords, can I conclude by saying I support this bill? I would go further.

And I think and I say this to the Minister, I think there are a lot of people on this side and and indeed on some other sides as well, who would prefer the government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

go even further and to go faster. Well, my. Lord, there's always a great

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, there's always a great pleasure to follow Lord Foulkes and to hear from him today. And can I join him in congratulating Lord McIntosh on his maiden speech and McIntosh on his maiden speech and thank him for the research that he put into it, and indeed, the way in which it was delivered. I also want which it was delivered. I also want to welcome this important piece of legislation with some caveats. I do not support lowering the age of voting to 16 for various reasons, not least that I am not so old that I don't remember what I was like when I was 16.

But I do have to accept that this is going to become a reality, because it is a commitment in the last Labour manifesto, but I would associate myself with the comments of Baroness O'Neill and Lord Brady in relation to the inconsistency around the age of a child when as a child, not a child. When it comes to voting apparently. But in the short time available to me during this debate, I want to focus on those elements I do agree with, and those which I feel need augmented.

I welcome the elements of this bill, which deal with the Northern Ireland canvas as the current regime requires a register to be recreated from scratch every ten years, and specifies that electors
17:32
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
must reregister as part of that canvas to remain on the register. And those who do not respond to the And those who do not respond to the canvas, sometimes for entirely understandable reasons. It has to be said, despite the fact that the be said, despite the fact that the Chief Electoral officer holds data to show they remain eligible, they are removed from the register and therefore significant numbers can be lost on the register for no good reason. Reason. And so the changes reason.

Reason. And so the changes in this Bill allow the Chief Electoral Officer in Northern Ireland to retain those electors if they are satisfied that they are still resident, and that protects the integrity of the register. And it also brings Northern Ireland into closer alignment with Great Britain. There are also changes on late registration, which I know, as a former elected MLA, is a very frustrating process because it was often a case of computer says no. People were left without a vote for no obvious reason.

So I do welcome those changes as well. I do understand the reasons behind the strictness, as there were some political parties who were very adept at registering 16 people at one address for voting. But the measures which were introduced actually also hit genuine voters who, for a myriad of reasons, were registering late. Having moved House, for example. The bill also amends requirements, which were very onerous so that the Chief Electoral officer would only ask for additional supporting documentation. If routine data checks do not provide a clear identity match and clear address.

I do welcome the change to electoral ID cards in Northern Ireland, but I am concerned about the widening of IDs accepted at polling stations in Great Britain. I am worried that the use of bank cards for ID purposes will lead to abuse, but no doubt we will discuss that in committee. I know it doesn't apply to Northern Ireland. I'm very relieved it does not apply to Northern Ireland, but no doubt we'll touch on that in committee. Finally, in relation to calling out of electors names of polling stations in Northern Ireland, I very much welcome this development.

I agree with government that this is an unnecessary practice, and I'm glad that we're moving into line with the rest of the UK. It would also be a great relief to those in Northern Ireland with embarrassing second names, which used to reverberate around the polling station. I do want to also join with government in condemning the harassment and intimidation of candidates, and removing the requirements for candidates having to publish their home address. I welcome any move which supports wider participation in our political process and well remember when I approached various talented and intelligent women in Northern Ireland to run for office, they would say to me, but I couldn't put up with the amount of abuse that you have to endure.

It is incumbent on those of us who have been involved in elected politics to enable those who come after us to do the same. Finally, I want to say a few words about foreign interference in our democratic system. After the weekend that we've had, when we had an attempted interference by the leader of the United States trying to overrule the undoubtedly override the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and our self-determination, which is protected by domestic and international law. Now, there are many ways in which malign influences can come to bear, and we've seen an effort at it at the weekend, which we fear has limited impact, or by channelling money through different mechanisms.

And for years Sinn Féin have used the United States as a place that they can go to, to raise money to distort politics. In my part of the United Kingdom, that should be of concern to everybody in this chamber. The money comes through friends of Sinn Féin. It's used to advocate for the destruction of the United Kingdom, and I hope to put down an amendment to deal with that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issue in Committee stage. Yes. My Lords. I welcome the representation of the people's.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the people's. Bill, as we discussed today. And the. Government's determination to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government's determination to protect British democracy from any foreign or interference. I support the bill's ambition to extend the the bill's ambition to extend the vote to 16 to 17 year olds, having joined the Wembley South Young joined the Wembley South Young Socialists when I was 17, I'm particularly support the moderation of the voter registration system so
17:36
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
that eligible citizens are not left off the electoral register due to off the electoral register due to mere administrative oversight. My Lords, alongside with the strengthening of the Electoral Commission's enforcement powers, Commission's enforcement powers, these measures will make our elections much more secure and much more inclusive. I particularly more inclusive. I particularly welcome the prison, the provisions on political donations, the cap of 100 zero zero £0 a year on donations from overseas electors, and moratorium on donations via crypto assets, which I have very, very few, few.

I just worry about this all the time. Therefore, it is vital and respond directly to asks identified by the Rycroft Review. I'm welcome. All the points in the Rycroft Review. These tackle the practical difficulties of tracing true ownership of crypto assets, donations and the routes through which foreign money might otherwise reach our political system and without proper scrutiny, influencing our country. Together with tighter scrutiny of company donations, company donations of whichever size a company is should go to the board.

They have to be agreed by the board and the chair of the task of the chair of the risk committee should also be involved in looking at these donations. We should look in particular at boards which are global boards, and seeing whether the money is coming from Britain PLC or is it coming from the other countries? They're global. I think we need to look at that much tighter, much, much tighter. On scrutiny company donations. When I now would like to turn to to the situation of think tanks and campaigning organisations, both of which I have been involved in over the years, think tanks that seek to influence and develop public policy and campaign for changes in the law should be required to record and publish the source of the amount and of all the donations received on the same basis as political parties.

I think this is absolutely vital because money comes in and I know to think tanks from various sources. We're always so grateful for those individual donors and foundation donors. But at the same time now we have to be much, much tougher about that. Single source donations of more than 11,180 per calendar year to a think tank should be reported to the Electoral Commission, which will then be published published on their website. Also, I think we need to look more clearly at campaigning organisations, which all of us in this chamber have worked in and will continue to work in, where you're not required necessarily to show your accounts or to where your funding comes from.

You're just running a short campaign, you say, but where does the funds come to keep us all working? Even if you don't employ anybody, where does the funds come from? The telephones for the media, for everything. So I think we need to look at campaigning organisations as well. This is one aspect of the electoral funding left ultimately under-addressed by the Rycroft and by this legislation, the use of think tanks funded, as I've said, by unknown sources and foreign money to influence our politics, should concern all of us.

Does the Minister agree with me that think tanks, like charities of political parties, should be required to report and publish information on their donations? And I would like to add campaigning organisations to that. I would also add the provision making hostility towards candidates and election staff, and aggravating factor of sentencing of are particularly welcome. Women in public life continue to face disproportionate abuse and intimidation, intimidation online and in person, which deters many talented women from standing at all.

Any strengthening of protection here is strengthening our democracy. This is absolutely violent. This is absolutely vital. Also, what is it people are scared of women for? I really find this terrible and I hope to one day we really find out what their fear is about us. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. My Lords. I declare an interest. Since I've been advising the charity I've been advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption on these issues. This is a good bill in my view, and the government deserve view, and the government deserve credit for it. But as ever, the question is whether it goes far enough. The noble Lord, Lord enough. The noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, in an excellent maiden speech, said that money can't buy you power. But the question in my you power.

But the question in my mind is whether actually there's a risk it currently can. A central objective in this bill for me, therefore, must be protecting the integrity of our electoral system against wealthy individuals, whether here or abroad, donating vast sums to a political party and
17:41
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
giving them a game changing advantage during elections. It's a particular problem. In the case of particular problem. In the case of illicit foreign money, electoral success should not be significantly success should not be significantly determined by financial power, since that is, our democracy enables a handful of individuals to enables a handful of individuals to subvert political discourse and policy making. In the case of money from abroad, the government have from abroad, the government have proposed a cap on donations from overseas donors because they recognise, in their words, the inherent complexity in tracing the true source of political donations made by overseas electors due to the very nature of their overseas residence.

And yet they're doing nothing to mitigate the risks of money from impermissible donors abroad, i.e. people abroad who are not electors, but who make ostensibly legitimate donations via permissible donors in the United Kingdom. In other words, they're dealing with only one part of the foreign money problem and not the main one at that. Although it is currently an offence to make a donation on behalf of an unlawful donor, like a foreign national overseas, for the offence to apply, the money needs to be given to the donor with an agreement it will be donated.

Crucially, without evidence of that agreement. It's not possible to prove that the donor was just a conduit and in breach of the law. There rarely is such evidence the government will no doubt point to the commencement of section 54 A in the 2000 act, which was has has never been commenced as dealing with this problem. This will require donors to declare if they've received money from another individual in connection with their donation, and parties will be prohibited from accepting any donation without such a declaration.

But its wording is vague and too easy to circumvent. In 2026, it prohibits money given to the UK donor quote with a view to or otherwise in connection with the making of a donation. However, the UK donor might have received the money from a person abroad who was not on the electoral roll and who purported to give it for a different purpose in circumstances where it was obvious to each of them, but no one else, that it was intended as a political donation.

The clearest way of addressing this loophole, as well as mitigate the influence of wealthy donors based in the UK, is a wide, wider donation cap than the one currently proposed only for overseas electors. It's a point made by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Evans, Lord Rennard and Lord Wills. It's a proposal which was the subject of at least eight amendments in the other place, none of which were accepted. The government instead proposes a cross-government task and finishing group, which would work at pace to look at this issue, but it's unclear how it could finish anything if it reports after this bill has been enacted.

So wouldn't it be sensible to insert a wide, enabling power in the bill so that there's no need for more primary legislation in order to create a wider donation cap? If that is what the group recommends. Finally, I would, in addition or alternatively impose a tighter cap on campaign spending after the 80% increase in the spending limit in 2023, both of the main parties increased their campaign campaign spending by tens of millions. Set at the right level, spending limits promote fairness by preventing wealthier parties massively outspending others.

I'm encouraged by the government's letter to the Electoral Commission of the 29th of August, seeking their views on limiting the spend on campaigning. But why has the Commission been given a July 2027 deadline? Surely it doesn't take that long to consider what lower level of spending is appropriate to conclude. Election bills don't come around much. The government are addressing some issues in their bill, but not going far enough. They need to take this rare opportunity to finish the job with a wider donation cap and spending limits.

Since these two measures combined would create a more level playing field and prevent the abuses currently taking place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I first begin by congratulating Lord McIntosh of Eastwood for his excellent maiden speech, and to reassure you, I continue to get reassure you, I continue to get lost after four years, and I think most members of this House do. The doorkeepers at the other place are doorkeepers at the other place are very keen to tell us where we go when we're in the wrong place at the wrong time. I should also the wrong time. I should also declare an interest. I spent far too much of my adult life raising money for the Conservative Party.

I money for the Conservative Party. I do a lot less of it now, so I don't think I'm conflicted. I found I ran out of friends and people were crossing the road to avoid me when I asked them for cash. But when I look at this bill, I'm afraid I see very little to celebrate. At best, it is performative politics, and at worst, I'm afraid. And I say this with sensitivity from some of the excellent speeches we've heard from the benches opposite old fashioned, grubby party political gerrymandering, the idea of giving 16 year olds the vote is a
17:46
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
fantastic idea. But I think, as my noble friend Baroness May said, this has been done as far as I can see for political reasons. Well, when I talk to my children, who will be given the vote for the will be given the vote for the first time as under 18 year olds, probably the next election, I can assure you this will probably almost certainly backfire. And as almost certainly backfire. And as noble Baroness said in her introduction, we won every election after the franchise was extended after the franchise was extended and I'm sure we will do the same again.

I'm delighted that we're seeing a more rational approach to civil penalties when it comes to people trying to raise money for the local village, tombola or whatever it is. This is proportionate, and I congratulate the Electoral Commission for the work that they've done there. However, in other areas such as social media, I think we're being left far behind. And I think another of my noble friends rightly raised the issue that AI will allow videos to be created, which will allow deepfakes, which will confuse the electorate significantly.

There's nothing really in this bill to cover that. There's a lot of complicated legislation being proposed around watermarks. Well, as a politician who posts on social media, whether you like it or not, you're welcome to follow me at Lord Johnson of Lainston then I know how complicated it can be. Maybe the Minister could address this in a bit more detail. If you repost something, will you have to put a watermark on who will be responsible for putting their own watermark on? How will we make sure we don't limit the free speech of the individuals? I would have like to draw attention and caution to the extra checks that are proposed, and what I think is quite a complex and overbearing regime when it comes to corporate and personal donations.

The fact is, we're all very fearful as treasurers of any political party, about raising money in an inappropriate fashion. I think it denigrates politics and it reduces the reputation of the Conservative Party. If we get the wrong type of donor in the wrong way, and we go to great lengths to make sure that we follow the law, all these laws are already here. They're already in place. And I think what this does, and I'm worried that there is an ulterior motive, is to make it harder for the conservative parties and other parties to raise money legitimately from their existing traditional donor base.

I think it's been raised many times in this debate trying to be too cute with electoral law, with party fundraising or other systems always backfires. And I'm concerned this talk on donor caps will add fuel to a potential future government playing even more dirty politics. With electoral reform, there must be a consensus that we should all do the right thing, and it behoves this government to make sure that they do. And I'm slightly surprised that no one has mentioned in enough detail the unions, because the biggest donor in British history is not some crypto billionaire living in Thailand.

It is unite the union that so far since 2001, given £52 million to the Labour Party. So it appears that the government doesn't mind large donations. They just don't like large donations to insurgent parties that challenge their world view. I would also say that in the workers rights legislation, which I read with interest ahead of this debate, if you are a member of a union, you now have you now have to opt. You used to be able to have to opt in to give to a political party, and now you have to opt out.

But it's not as simple as that. You can't just opt out whenever you like. You can only opt out in January on January the 1st. It's the most bizarre Byzantine system to ensure that people effectively who are members of unions have to donate to the union. And can you. Does anyone know? Well, Lord know how many years it is that the Union has to remind this kind donor that they're giving to the Labour Party? I think the Prime Minister's first act was to complain about Netflix or subscriber subscriptions for streaming, for streaming media.

You have to remind them every six months, I think this legislation is not one year. It's not five years. It's ten years that the union has to remind that it's poor sucker is giving money to the to the Labour Party year after year. Is the Minister going to look at that, considering it's the Prime Minister's most important priority? The last point I'll mention, and it's been raised before, there isn't enough at all about voter fraud. In fact, we're going to make it worse.

We're switching photo ID for an old credit card. There's nothing on family voting. There's nothing on sectarian voting, which is a terrifying cancer in our democracy. There's nothing on the issue of Commonwealth voters in this country. We talk about overseas voters. We should also address that. And there is nothing really, in my view, to address the appalling violence that our candidates and representatives face, culminating in the tragic bludgeoning to death of an 80 year old woman over the summer simply because she was a member of a legitimate political party.

And I hope the government will answer

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those questions in their response. Yes. My Lord, I want to make one rather simple point about this bill, which is that we should keep big money out of politics. Yeah. Over money out of politics. Yeah. Over the weekend we learnt of formerly Thai based Christopher Hoban's £36 Thai based Christopher Hoban's £36 million, plus another 36 million from the state of Hong Kong. Ben from the state of Hong Kong. Ben Delo, a man convicted over AML but pardoned by Trump.

That's £72
17:51
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
million made abroad, donated to reform, which actually makes their reform, which actually makes their 5 million issue seem rather small fry. That money apparently was fry. That money apparently was legal, but it was to me distasteful because we have rich men, plus because we have rich men, plus Fiona Cuttle enabling one party to out campaign all others, a couple out campaign all others, a couple of individuals owning a party. But more than that, even if we cap, as people have called for, the amount of UK residents can donate, even if we put checks on the source of such money, this would be near impossible to enforce.

In the case of expat voters who are not registered here, who don't pay, are not registered here for tax, and who may not have lived here for many, many years, for decades, or have any intention of returning here. They pay no council tax or VAT. They use none of our services walk down, none of our streets, suffer, not one jot of our police services cut if the NHS is underfunded, if education is poor or if our rivers are polluted. Taxation without representation did I believe, cause a revolution.

But we should now say no representation without taxation. Now, even if my noble friend the Minister disagrees with that, I do ask whether the government has considered the challenge of trying to verify the bona fides of those living, for example, in China or in Russia, or in some war torn country. They might indeed be absconders from our jails, or simply on the run from justice. Overseas registered voters, and therefore permitted donors could have another country's citizenship, as I'm sure George Blake had after he left scrubs.

They could even sit in another country's parliament, but still be able to channel serious money to UK party. They could be employed by that host government or even one of its agencies. They could be money launderers, they could be in prison, could even be dead. We only ask them to verify they're alive. Over three years in this country, we asked for ID at voting stations. Even there are only a quarter of a mile from our house, and we're probably well known.

But a voter in broad abroad has no need to prove to anybody that they're alive and voting freely. And as to the source of that donation, well, it might be their own, but how would it have been attained? Obtained if that country has no checks on such things? Or it could, of course, if not their own, be passed over from a friend or a company or a foreign government or anyone else. And I welcome very much what the Lord.

I know the noble Lord Carter has been saying about this. He's on the money there. Wrong phrase, my Lords. Pretending that British receiving party could actually undertake. Know your donor due diligence of overseas voters is as fanciful as thinking that money buys no favours. Rycroft did, I'm glad to say, propose a cap on overseas donations, which I think means he accepted the arguments I'm making. But frankly, £100,000 a year. That's £1 million in a parliament for a couple that really doesn't hit the target.

And anyway, why on earth should somebody with no skin in the game be allowed to advantage one of our political parties with no scrutiny by party police or the press actually being realistically possible? I hope the Minister will agree to look again at the proposed cap. Half a million per person per Parliament, and consider my amendments that I'll be tabling to restrict donations from those registered, those from overseas, unless they're registered for tax here, to a limit of £10,000 a year.

Without such changes, donors in tax havens could bankroll political parties indefinitely. I doubt that's really what we want.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a very wide ranging bill, almost two wide ranging, I think, but it has some very sensible proposals in it. In terms of electoral administration. It's also electoral administration. It's also got, I think, a number of proposals, as other noble Lords have said, there are probably going to be unintended consequences, and we unintended consequences, and we need to really go into the detail. But I want to deal with what the government itself said, that this
17:56
Baroness Hoey Portrait Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
bill was all about restoring trust in our democracy, and I think there's never been time, as we all know, when we need to restore trust in our democracy. And until 2020, UK democracy was very stable and secure in that it didn't matter actually where you lived in the United Kingdom because everyone had an equal vote. But since January 2021, and we had an assault on the core of universal suffrage, because before that date, it didn't matter where you lived. Everyone had the same basic democratic right to elect a fellow citizen, to make all the laws to which they were subject, or to stand for election for themselves, and devolution to MLAs or to MPs.

But the imposition, my Lords, of the Protocol Windsor framework meant that while UK citizens can still stand for election to make all the laws to which they are subject in England, Wales and Scotland, UK citizens in Northern Ireland have had their democratic rights truncated such that in 300 areas of law, not just 300 laws, 300 areas of law, they are simply imposed on us by a foreign administration. In the context of the political union that is the United Kingdom. This is not just an attack of democracy in one part of the country, but surely an attack on the integrity of democracy across the whole country.

And what is more important is also constituted a very specific and insensitive attack on the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, because the agreement was for the purpose of trying to persuade terrorists to give up the bomb for the ballot box, and so special stress was placed in that agreement on protecting democracy. And specifically, it contained the unique commitment that the people of Northern Ireland, quote, should have their right to protect, pursue democratically national and political aspirations. Far from being upheld by the Windsor framework, this has been subject to a full frontal assault in that the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations in relation to all the laws to which they are subject, was taken from them.

My Lords, there can never before have been a better example of a Bill whose purpose is to restore democracy, being in complete denial about the existential threat to democracy that the country faces, rather than giving votes to 16 and 17 year olds, the government had the opportunity to restore the full value of the vote to all UK citizens. And yet this bill does precisely nothing to put that right. This was an opportunity. Indeed. It actually makes things worse by introducing discrimination where it currently does not exist.

The law at present treats 16 and 17 year olds the same way across the whole country. Except, of course, we have a in Scotland votes at 16 and 17. However, the Bill proposes it. Going forward, it's going to tell 16 and 17 year olds in England, Wales and Scotland that they're worthy of the right to elect a fellow citizen, to make all their laws that tell 16 and 17 year olds in Northern Ireland that they're only worthy of the right to elect a fellow citizen, to make some of the laws to which they are subject.

They are to be denied this right. This bill extends to their peers in GB, and we are seeing this, of course, at the moment with the number of Statutory Instruments that are coming through this House. No consultation on them, no say, just a dictated imposition. And can you imagine, noble Lords, if this was being done to Cornwall or to Yorkshire? It also creates the absurd situation that a 16 year old in Great Britain, who's never paid any tax or put their life on the line for their country, will be afforded more rights when it comes to electing a fellow citizen than a Falklands or Gulf War veteran living in Northern Ireland, who has paid tax all their lives and put their life on the line for their country.

My Lords, that just cannot be right. And this was an opportunity in this Bill to look at it now. The noble Lady, the Minister, said that, you know, it was really important that people had to believe that their vote mattered and could be counted. I'm afraid that is not happening to people in Northern Ireland. And if I could just add one further thing that I know noble Lords will not like, if we really care about democracy, and we've gone on so much today about an attack reform UK, we should be having reform UK Lords in this place.

If we cared about genuine democracy with a party that is actually has a possibility, who knows of being in government and there's not a single member of reform UK in this House, in this place. And I think that is wrong.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here we are. My Lords, I'd like to add my congratulations to Lord, Lord congratulations to Lord, Lord Macintosh Eastwood on his maiden speech and welcome him to his place. And I'd like to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for opening Baroness, the Minister, for opening this debate. I'm glad to speak in support of the principles behind this bill today. This is a significant piece of legislation and on the whole, a very welcome one, extending the franchise to 16 one, extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds is a long held Liberal Democrat ambition, and I'm pleased to see it finally becoming law, modernising our creaking registration system, tightening the rules around political donations and strengthening protections for candidates and campaigners against intimidation are all reforms.

These benches have long called for. I also welcome the government's decision to give up its power to direct the Electoral Commission through a strategy and policy statement. It's a small clause, but
18:01
Baroness Leaman Portrait Baroness Leaman (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
an important signal that the referee of our election should remain independent of the players. My Lords, my own daughter is 13 years old. If this Parliament runs years old. If this Parliament runs its full course, she'll be old enough to vote at the next general election. I asked her what she made election. I asked her what she made of the argument that she can't be trusted with the ballot paper until she can be trusted with a beer, and she can be trusted with a beer, and she said she'd never needed a pint to form an opinion, and doesn't see why anyone would think she would.

But more but more seriously though, her enfranchisement brings home something I first learned working for Save the Children. And that's how early young people grasp the stakes of decisions made or not made on their behalf, giving 16 and 17 year olds a vote is a recognition that young people already live with the consequences of what this Parliament decides, and it is right that they should have a say in it. But my principal purpose today is to speak about who gets to stand for office, not only who gets to vote in the House of Commons.

My hon. Friend Zoe Franklin has argued tirelessly for the reinstatement of the access to elected Office fund for England, and I want to put on the record my strong support for that work and my hope that this House will help finish what she has started. The facts are stark around a quarter of the population is disabled, yet fewer than 1 in 50 MPs declare disability, and local government is estimated to be around 700 councillors short of fair representation. A fund of exactly this kind existed in England until it was scrapped in 2020, and equivalent schemes continue to operate today in both Wales and Scotland, so we're not being asked to invent something new.

We're being asked to restore something that worked and that England, alone among the UK nations, now lacks. My Lords, in six years as Chief of Staff to Ed Davey, I met a great many people with real ability and commitment to public service who were held back from standing for elected office, not by lack of talent, but by the practical cost of disability, transport, communication support, personal assistance, to name a few. Warm words by inclusion do not meet these costs. My Lords, a statutory fund does.

I hope the Minister will use this bill to close that gap once and for all, rather than leaving disabled candidates to wait on a working group that has already run for well over a year now. The scale of the barriers facing disabled candidates has been underlined again today. When the Electoral Commission published its review this morning of May's mayoral and local elections and found abuse of candidates rising sharply, 40% of those who stood reported harassment, intimidation or threats, up from 34% last year.

And my Lords disabled candidates were hit hardest of all, with almost half of them reporting personal abuse and a third of all candidates saying it had made them consider not standing again. So the barrier to standing is not only financial. A second, uglier obstacle sits behind it, falling disproportionately on the people that access to elected office fund would bring in. It is also why bringing section 106 of the Equality Act into force matters so much. At present, we can't say whether the people who put themselves forward for office reflect the country they seek to represent less still, whether that is improving, requiring political parties to publish transparent, comparable data on the diversity of their candidates would let us see whether measures, including the ones in this bill, are working or not.

For today, though, I simply welcome this bill, and I look forward to working with the noble Baroness Mone Minister and colleagues across this place as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill moves through this House. Good. My Lords. There's so much in this. Bill. To debate and take issue with.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To debate and take issue with. So it is a little disappointing to have so little time for Second Reading for each of us. But rest Reading for each of us. But rest assured this bill needs and will receive detailed scrutiny from us all at later stages. And although it isn't a disclosable interest, I remind the House that unlike Lord Johnson of Lansdowne, who seems to Johnson of Lansdowne, who seems to have escaped, I am still a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party.

Yes, it's a very disappointing bill
18:06
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
and frankly follows much of the direction of travel established in Employment Rights Act, which itself Employment Rights Act, which itself interferes with the established system of politics in the UK. As my noble friend has said, the act noble friend has said, the act enabled trade unions to take money from its members in a way which would be considered completely unethical and breaches best consumer practices in terms of fundraising and, even more fundraising and, even more importantly, allows unions not to publish the accounts of the political fund.

So we do not know how their donations are made. It's disappointing that in respect of this bill, there was no consultation after the general election, despite Labour Ministers promising to do this. They did have the grace to admit this in the Commons on the 3rd of March 2025. This government has clearly risked breaking long standing convention that the government of the day does not unilaterally impose measures directly affecting political parties. By contrast, the previous conservative government and the previous Labour government before that consulted the parliamentary parties panel for major parties.

I'm sorry if Lord Wallace wasn't a member, but that is recognised on the Electoral Commission website. The. I will be spending most of my time on this in this. In my remarks focusing on donations, Lord Wallace forgot to mention Michael Brown, who didn't make a donation but did his company because he wasn't permissible. But his company, Fifth Avenue Partners, did a £2.4 million and the creditors are still waiting for a refund.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Don't forget Lloyd George. In the fine tradition. Before I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the fine tradition. Before I carry on talking about donations, I must address Baroness Hodgson remarks. It is disappointing she did not have the courtesy to did not have the courtesy to discuss with me in advance what she planned to say. If she had done so, I would have pointed out to her that both Mr. Murphy and his partner had been on the electoral partner had been on the electoral roll since 2017. She selectively quotes from emails that he must have given her, and it's disappointing she chooses to rely on Mr.

Amersi, who has been extensively discussed in the other place. Can I categorically state that neither I nor any member of the Conservative Party canvassed funds from Mr. Murphy in respect of the 2024 election? I look forward to that. Those remarks being withdrawn in due course, and perhaps you'd like to disclose fully to the House that my family helped finance her elections in barking to defeat the BNP. Yeah, yeah yeah yeah. As it happens, most donations to parties are from individuals.

But some companies do donate and the rules proposed are simply just not manageable by a regular volunteer treasurer of a local association. The pages and pages of risk assessment requirements. I don't know where the overlords have read them yet, are just not practical and are a classic example of red tape imposed on people wanting to help society by those who simply don't have the simple experience. In particular, the real time aggregation rules in respect of pre-donation checking will be impossible to put into effect.

Too little thought has gone into this. In the rush to produce 250 pages of legislation, these proposals have clearly been made by someone who has never actually been involved in local or national political fundraising, and hasn't had the courtesy to talk to those who have. And then there is the profits test for corporate donations. However well intentioned, they are a nonsense. They fail to understand that companies can be in a loss in accounting terms for very many years, but can still be cash generative.

If a company loses money for years and then subsequently makes a one off profit, it would seem not to be caught. And what. So what is the purpose of this? I would remind the Minister that Ecotricity is one of Labour's biggest donors. In 2324, the group made a loss of £5.6 million. The same year it gave £2.8 million to the Labour Party. One would hope the party does the decent thing and returns the money. Yes, yeah. There are much better ways to achieve the objectives of the Bill and we will be spending considerable time exploring them in later stages.

Why are foreign owned companies being denied the right to sponsor conferences and the like? In the UK they employ large numbers, huge numbers of people in the UK and should not be denied the same rights as British companies to openly advertise and market. I haven't had time to remark on the plan to give children the vote. Yes, they are children by any and every definition. Weirdly, if the party they vote for is successful, they are not allowed to go out celebrating in the pub with the rest of us.

And Labour Ministers have refused to lower the drinking age to 16 on the grounds of, I quote, protecting children. I thank the noble Lady of the Minister for her letter to me, seeking to answer my concerns that teachers will have undue influence on children with whom they interact daily at the time of elections. I note her points, but I don't see how this is going to be monitored. And what guarantees are there in place that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

no abuse will happen? My Lords. I strongly. Support this Bill and many of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support this Bill and many of the powerful contributions noble Lords have made, which I do not propose to repeat, not least those propose to repeat, not least those of Lord Mackintosh. I look forward to Lord Mackintosh's observations about the procedures of this House about the procedures of this House and how they compare with those of the Scottish Parliament. So I'm not going to repeat what's already been going to repeat what's already been said. I'm going to do something a little bit different.

I want to address the larger question behind the bill why it's not enough, and why we must look to ourselves to do more and to do better. Parliamentary democracy faces an existential threat from populism of
18:11
Lord Evans of Sealand Portrait Lord Evans of Sealand (Labour)
-
-
the left and the right. I spent much of my working life in the Labour Party, including as its Labour Party, including as its general secretary. So let me make an unfashionable defence of mainstream political parties. mainstream political parties. Democracies cannot function without them. Parties provide essential them. Parties provide essential choice for democracy, but their expertise is sometimes viewed with scepticism, even suspicion. But that expertise is essential to the fabric of our democracy, and we need to speak up for ourselves more than we do.

Of course we should regulate parties. We should insist on transparency and punish cheating, but we should not regard political parties themselves as the problem. In fact, they need a helping hand because we are far from perfect. When people stop believing democratic politics can improve their lives, simple answers to complex problems become attractive, and we should be careful who we blame for that. When voters abandon mainstream parties, our first question should not be what is wrong with them? As it often is, it should be what did we do or fail to do that has caused them to lose faith in us? Because politics is the art of competitive storytelling, and we must confront an uncomfortable truth.

For many voters, the populists are currently telling a more compelling story than we are. Former MP Shaun Woodward, who served on both sides of the Other place, was a good storyteller. He'd been a producer on the That's Life programme, highly successful consumer programme. He once told me that pinned up in the production office was the slogan always assume minimum information and maximum intelligence. That should be a watchword for political parties. People may not know the detail of policy, but they know whether they can pay their bills, whether they feel safe and whether their children have opportunities.

And I do, of course, applaud the work of the Electoral commission. But I worry that their centre of gravity generated by us is more about stopping political parties cheating than maximising participation in our civic life. Stopping cheats is essential, but registration is not participation and participation is not trust. For that reason, I believe removing the strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission is a backward step, not an improvement. I strongly support operational independence, but independence should not mean isolation.

Parliament should be able to transparently identify priorities for our democratic system, not least increasing participation. An example when I was interrailing nearly 50 years ago, as an 18 year old, I was the only person in my school year to be a member of a political party. I was stunned to meet a group of young Swedes who were all members of different political parties. The reason they were encouraged and rewarded with points towards university entry for joining a party. Simple. We need creativity and entrepreneurial spirit like that to strengthen our democracy.

I would also just like to join with others in asking my noble friend the Minister, to consider requiring think tanks to be required to report and publish information about their donations. It does seem an obvious loophole, and of course, the recent £72 million donation to reform should concern us. And it has been mentioned. But we must not mistake the symptom for the disease. Money can amplify populism, social media can accelerate it, but neither creates the original grievance. Like Baroness O'Neill, I would like to quote Churchill.

He famously described democracy as the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time. The deeper threat to democracy is the distance mainstream parties have allowed to grow between ourselves and the people we represent. If politics is competitive storytelling, we must tell a better story and make that story true in people's lives. Just as we need a national conversation about defence, we need one about democracy. It's that serious. Like the Prime Minister, I hope this bill can be the start of it.

We can't regulate our way out of a trust crisis. The responsibility for restoring that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

trust doesn't lie with voters. It belongs to us. Well done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. My Lords. I first would like to declare my interest as a trustee of democracy as a charity focussed on democracy as a charity focussed on educating the public about threats to our democracy. There are three particular areas of this bill that particular areas of this bill that I want to focus on in the short time available, the first being votes at 16, which is one of those votes at 16, which is one of those changes that have been a long time coming and I think was absolutely inevitable.

Once 16 and 17 year
18:16
Baroness Morgan of Cotes Portrait Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-affiliated)
-
-
olds gained the vote in Scotland and Wales. I note that the comments from the excellent maiden speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh, about the seriousness with which 1617 year olds in Scotland approached the vote. And I Scotland approached the vote. And I think we would see that elsewhere. The second issue is online abuse in elections. The bill currently does not mention online abuse. Once elections are high risk periods for elections are high risk periods for our democracy, and the speaker's conference inquiry into security of MPs concluded that online abuse presents a serious threat to democratic participation and has already been mentioned.

The Electoral Commission report today on this year's local and mayoral elections showed that such abuse is absolutely rife. And of course, that is before we get to the threat posed by deepfake technology, which is also a rapidly growing threat to our elections. So I fully support, as others have already mentioned, called by the Women's Democracy Group and the Online Safety Network for a code of practice in relation to making tech firms accountable for taking steps during election periods to address the risks of online abuse of candidates, particularly women.

I speak obviously from some limited experience because it has unfortunately gone a lot worse for those standing in elections now. So I would say to the noble Lady, the Minister, that she should certainly expect an amendment on that issue, but I really wanted to focus, particularly in these remarks on the issue of crypto asset donations. I note that the government introduced clause 61 in the House of Commons, but it is not clear. Is it a moratorium or is it a ban? The explanatory notes carefully say that it is a restriction.

At the moment, the clause is unclear as to what it is truly trying to achieve, which should be, as we have heard, a safer, more resilient democracy free of foreign interference. And there are three key points why I would argue that a moratorium would do the job that I think the majority of this House seems to want. Firstly, without a clear route to a workable system, we are left with a ban which simply pushes the risk upstream rather than addressing it.

Crypto donations would not be made safer or more traceable, and the Electoral Commission and other bodies would still let the powers and skills needed to supervise the system properly. And of course, a future government could reverse a ban by building a trusted functioning system makes it harder to dismantle than a simple ban. Second, the tools to build a workable system exist. There is, of course, the incoming regime for crypto service providers, which the financial providers, which would offer the opportunity to align that with political financial regime so that third party providers could conduct anti-money laundering and know your donor checks on behalf of political parties.

Thirdly, there should be a role enshrined for the Electoral Commission and most importantly, both Houses of Parliament in lifting that that moratorium, so that when we are confident that such donations could be permissible. So Philip Rycroft recommended that this bill legislates for a moratorium. And he said, my, quote, the power to end it only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective. The government accepted this recommendation, but the new clause currently lacks clarity on the conditions and process for ending it.

And that leaves a gap between what has been said and what has been drafted. If the government does not revise its clause, then amendments will be made to ensure that foreign interference in our democracy via crypto donations or any similar thing meme coins are included as well, is properly identified and stamped out. So let me leave the Minister, the noble Lady Minister, with three questions which I hope that she might answer today. But if not, I would be delighted if she would write to me.

Firstly, what is the government's plans for developing and testing the future regulatory system on crypto asset and other kinds of related donations? Secondly, what additional resources, expertise and enforcement powers will be provided to the Electoral Commission and how will they be provided? And thirdly, will she commit that both Houses of Parliament would be required to approve any decision to lift such a prohibition? My Lords, like others in this chamber. I've had the honour of acting as an agent in both local and parliamentary elections.

Anyone who has had the opportunity to carry out this task will know that it leaves you with a lifelong, slightly nerdish interest in how to run elections. And I want to do something unfashionable in this debate and speak in favour of our system. Not because I'm some kind of parliamentary Pollyanna, but because talking it down plays into the hands of those who seek to undermine political trust in our country. Those who say that the system is corrupt, that we're all the same, that voting doesn't change anything, and the system is rigged for one particular outcome or another.

This is the kind of
18:21
Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush Portrait Baroness Paul of Shepherd's Bush (Labour)
-
-
talk that's a prerequisite for breeding unrest and for undermining breeding unrest and for undermining our way of life. It's dangerous. It isn't true. And we should make it very difficult for others to say so. very difficult for others to say so. So I seek to draw attention. Indeed. Praise how almost every Thursday, somewhere across the United Kingdom, small but significant elections small but significant elections take place. They are professionally administered, supported by dedicated officials and fuelled by party activists who care deeply about the places they live and the direction of travel for our country.

It is a system that works quietly, reliably and with an ease that is too easy to overlook precisely because it functions so well. We enjoy a level of public trust that we should seek to build upon and not diminish in our conversations and our actions. Now, of course, change is important and we need to keep abreast of change and those in particular who seek to undermine us. But we must also defend what is good about our system. And so I approach this bill with an open question.

Did the measures before us strengthen and build on that trust, and are they really fit for the challenges of our modern age? It's a large bill, so I'm going to focus on those measures that are intended to increase participation and bring people into democratic processes, because this is the key to democratic confidence. I note the commitment to votes at 16, and that this has been accompanied by an amplified emphasis on citizenship and democratic education. Intergenerational fairness is an issue for our times, and so this is important.

I also welcome the introduction of automated registration updates. This is an important and sensible reform. Public expectations have changed and people rightly expect government bodies to make better use of information that they share with us, rather than repeatedly requiring the same information to be provided over and over again. And this is particularly important for those who experience the greatest churn in their personal circumstances. Anything that helps people connected to the democratic process should be welcomed. But let's make it clear making it onto an electoral register does not mean that all other rules and and eligibility criteria have been ignored.

It's that we've worked smartly to improve participation, which is the same principle applied to the expansion of acceptable forms of voter ID, including the use of bank cards. The purpose of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this change is straightforward. The current list of Accepted identification excludes. Some voters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Some voters. Who do not hold passports or driving license, and we know that those that are affected are disproportionately younger, disproportionately younger, disabled and those whose circumstances are less secure. But I also might add, from my I also might add, from my experience, and to my surprise on the doorstep, I've come across many older voters who don't have access older voters who don't have access to these forms of ID either, and who are rightly distressed that they've been excluded from elections. And when you think about where they are in their time of life, this actually makes sense.

I therefore support the decision to add bank cards to the list of acceptable voter ID as a way of seriously widening participation. And I think with appropriate safeguards and clear guidance for polling staff, this is practical and a proportionate way of reducing barriers to voting. The introduction of voter identification requirements by the previous government was, in my view, a heavy handed response to a problem that was never shown to be significant or widespread. And where it does exist, it is illegal and there are measures in place to deal with it.

This very idea, I believe, was borrowed from America, and the americanisation of our politics is something that I think we must resist, particularly in the way our elections are governed. Electoral integrity matters enormously, but we must be careful that measures introduced in its name do not have the unintended consequence of excluding legitimate voters from the democratic process. We should also be very clear about where some of the more serious challenges to our democracy now lie. They do not come from ordinary voters turning up at polling stations to exercise their democratic rights, but from deliberate foreign interference, disinformation, deep fakes, inappropriate candidate selection, lack of compliance or intentional disregard by some of electoral law and practice.

And, of course, the very real potential for the exercise of undue influence through large or foreign political donations. This is the challenge of this bill to take on the vested and foreign interests that seek to undermine our democracy, and the voices that want to amplify that, while increasing the participation of our everyday citizens who have the right to take part. And I think we together have got the capacity to make these changes that is required as this bill goes through the House to balance those two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

requirements. This bill asks. Us to strengthen public confidence in democracy and tighten confidence in democracy and tighten the rules governing political donations, particularly money coming from overseas. Those are coming from overseas. Those are worthy objectives. But in. But in principle, that is a lot. These are worthy objectives. But if that's worthy objectives. But if that's the principle, large donations may purchase political influence. Why does the government. Why does the government scrutiny appear to stop at the water. In the run up to the 24 general election? Trade unions contributed approximately £5.6
18:27
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
million to the Labour Party. Separately, the Labour Party's own Separately, the Labour Party's own records show that £4.9 million in affiliation income in 2020 for affiliation income in 2020 for Labour itself lists 11 affiliated unions. This financial relationship isn't one way. The latest Cabinet Office returns recorded nearly 90 million in public sector facility million in public sector facility time costs during 2425. That is the cost of public employees receiving paid time to undertake trade union activities. It is not a direct government grant to the unions, as much of the work may well be legitimate and constructive.

Nevertheless, it represents a substantial taxpayer funded resource and belongs in the transparency debate. We therefore have a curious circle. The trade unions help finance the Labour Party. The Labour Party forms a government. The government negotiates public sector pay and employment rights with those unions and public bodies. Fund the facility time supporting those unions activity. What safeguards govern this relationship? What access to affiliated unions receive to Ministers and officials? Are there meetings, representations and policy demands disclosed? Why should overseas donors, individuals face a hundred zero zero £0 limit, while a domestic institutional donor can contribute millions and occupy a formal place within the governing party structure.

Unions represent millions of workers and should be heard. But a bill claiming to defend democratic integrity must apply. One consistent principle money must not buy privileged access. Whoever provides the money. I want to move provides the money. I want to move on to votes on the 16th. 16 year olds are a point in Expectations, school expectations. They tried to form a life, tried to form a personality. So to put on top of them the fact they should now be voting.

I think we need to think about very carefully. NHS figures show that almost a quarter of 17 and 18 year olds have some kind of mental capacity, that they're dealing with some kind of mental distress that they're dealing with. Now, of course, being allowed to vote doesn't cause you to have mental distress. I wouldn't I wouldn't try to suggest that that would be irresponsible. But putting our children in a politically charged schooling system could be. It will add to that pressure.

Teachers for a very long time have been reluctant to teach civic and political gains on. For fear of being accused of indoctrinating young people. Well, if that happens now, where every single political party has a stake in the outcome of that conversation, you'll turn that professional anxiety into a full on electoral scandal. They will be they will be lots of complaining from all sides of this House as to what goes on in school. We have to bear in mind as well, that those young people will now be in an educational system that will be asking their teachers to ask, ask questions, answer questions.

Excuse me about politics. It'll give them pressure to not say the wrong thing, peer pressure to make sure that they're in the right group. It could pull teachers into conversations that they don't really want to be having, because there's no way of answering that without coming down on somebody's side politically. So before we rush to change the rules to vote at 16, telling ourselves, we know that young people can have a political view. Of course they have. I been a youth and community worker for over 35 years.

I've worked with many young people who definitely have the wherewithal to have a political view that is not that is not the question. The question here is, is it right to pass on a solemn civic duty to children at a time when they are desperately trying to form who they will be going forward? I think it's the wrong thing to do. The evidence international is very weak to suggest it boosts participation anyway. So before we leap to that, we should probably have a check the government.

If this is going to happen, we need to make sure that whoever provides the education has strong safeguards, visible safeguards. There is a consensus about the civic education we give to those young people, or we will just make sure that any organisation involved in that conversation will now be exposed to the full force of our politics. And I don't know if you've met anybody in politics. Yeah, there can be rather insistent about the fact that they're right.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to concentrate on two issues. One, the importance of issues. One, the importance of civic and democratic education, particularly for those who will acquire franchise at the age of 16. acquire franchise at the age of 16. And of course, the ease of voter registration. In his review, Philip registration. In his review, Philip Rycroft said, and I quote many of those I spoke, I have spoken to
18:32
Baroness Prashar Portrait Baroness Prashar (Crossbench)
-
-
those I spoke, I have spoken to during this review, have emphasized the importance of voter education as a way of diminishing the influence of mis and disinformation, he said. The public must be allowed to make their own judgments about what they see online. Online, however, there is a role for the state in supporting them to do so effectively. He further noted that the government's recent policy proposals on improving media literacy, as set out in the recent publication, Protecting What Matters, and he argued that these should be implemented as soon as possible.

Indeed, the government have said that they will mandate citizenship is taught in both primary and secondary schools to highlight the relevance of the democratic process and constitutional principles, so it will be helpful to know what progress has the government made in this regard. My Lords, while the Bill has the potential to significantly improve the electoral system, the broader role of civic education, ability to skillfully navigate social media and AI is fundamental. If we are to realise the full potential of what is proposed in this bill.

If. If it is not done, I think we will get greater clamour for more regulations and codes. And if we want to avoid regulation creep, then we need to embrace civic and media literacy education urgently to empower citizens. The government's proposal to lower the voting age to 16, which will also bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the UK, is welcome. However, this raises two issues for me. One, the need to ensure that all those who are eligible to vote in elections should be able to do so freely and without barriers.

The priority, therefore, should be to ensure that all newly enfranchised voters know how to register and exercise the right to vote. According to the Electoral Commission, voter registration rates of 16 and 17 year olds have fallen steadily since the current system of individual electoral registration was introduced in 2014, and the research from Manchester University shows that Britain has one of the most difficult voter registration processes among the liberal democracies. Automated voter registration is now the norm and has been proven to lead to more accurate and complete electoral registers.

It is also cheaper, simpler for voters and simpler for election administrators to use. So will the government commit to a timeline which sees automated voter registration introduced to support voters by the next general election? The second issues, my Lord, is the need for access to educational material through schools, colleges and communities to support the electoral community to deliver these franchise changes. The importance of equipping young people with the confidence to participate in elections and equip them with skills and knowledge, so they are not manipulated by fake news, and disinformation is crucial.

Everything must be done to equip all young people with civic and democratic knowledge, and the specific media skills required in the digital age. So for the purposes of this bill, we need a provision which which requires the Electoral Commission to run education programmes for young people ahead of being eligible to vote, and training for educators for providing such information. Finally, my Lords, I am pleased that the government have accepted all the recommendations of the Ryecroft review. There is a powerful case, as we've heard, for cleaning up our funding system and of course, restoring the integrity of our electoral system.

If we are to ensure that we do not become what I describe, a pound ocracy instead of a democracy where infants can be bought by large donations, and the guiding principle should be that diverse and transparent base is healthy for a robust democracy because it will ensure wider participation and give more people agency and stake in society. And I think it is important to regard that principle in terms of diverse funding as an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urgent issue. It's my five minutes neatly segues very nicely from what segues very nicely from what Baroness Pressure has just said. If this bill is about renewing our this bill is about renewing our democracy, it should be not simply about widening participation, which about widening participation, which it is appearing to do very well, but about deepening democracy, which is why I strongly support which is why I strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 16 and 17 year olds.

I enjoyed the maiden speech of Lord McIntosh of Eastwood and agree with much of what he said and welcome him to this House. My Lords, before entering politics, I was actually an assistant head teacher of a large comprehensive with what now would be called PS h e and I would like to say to Lord to Lord Bailey to reassure him, teachers are
18:37
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
actually asked to deal with far more controversial issues than why they have the values they have in they have the values they have in joining a democratic political party. So you can imagine, I got to party. So you can imagine, I got to know 15 and 16 year olds rather well. I spent years trying to persuade teenagers that turning up persuade teenagers that turning up on time was a good idea, that deadlines were not merely advisory, and that adults occasionally knew and that adults occasionally knew what they were talking about.

My Lords, I regret to say the results were mixed, but what I learned was that young people are curious, questioning, and far more interested in the world around them than we often assume from their grunts, from underneath their their headphones. So yes, let us give them the votes. But and it's a big but from me, if we are extending democratic rights, we must also think seriously about democratic education mentioned by a few noble Lords and citizenship. Education has been treated as an optional extra when it should be regarded as essential democratic infrastructure and teachers are, as Lord Bailey said, often quite nervous about teaching about politics.

Young people should leave school understanding not only how to vote, but how parliament works, how local government works, how decisions are made and, very importantly, how they can influence them. And yet, from my experience, I fear we approach such civic education with a certain nervousness. Now, during my years in politics, like many of you, I was invited to speak to sixth formers about my role, and almost invariably, before I began, some would be quietly whispering in my ear and say, don't be too party political, as if it's somehow a dirty secret, a liberal Democrat.

I understood the intention. School should never be seen to promote a particular party. But there is a huge difference between party political advocacy and teaching young people about politics itself. And what I found quite excited me that they invariably wanted to talk about politics. They wanted to understand why we all disagreed and why we reached different conclusions, and how different values and priorities shaped political policy. They also wanted to know what I earned. That was very often a common question.

In other words, they wanted to understand democracy. If we want young people to become active citizens, we should not sanitise politics. We should help them to understand it. Political parties, competing ideas, honest disagreement, freedom of speech they're not embarrassing byproducts of democratic life. I believe they are its lifeblood. My second point concerns representation. For all the progress we've made in politics, there remains. It still remains a difficult environment for some people more than others. And women know this only too well.

Now. Over the years, I've had the joy of rubbish dumped on my doorsteps, lights smashed on my car and all manner of unpleasant things sent through the letterbox. I was even given the rather charming nickname of hashtag Wicked Witch of West Watford. I was grateful it wasn't the whole of Watford, but most, most people, women in public life, have these stories of their own. We laugh about them, we treat them as part of the job. But perhaps we should stop and ask why.

Representation is not simply about whether people have the legal right to stand for office, it's about whether they feel able to do so. So every time I spied a talented woman and they decided not really to stand for election, it's not for me. And every time an elected representative leaves, leaves public life because the personal costs have become too high, our democracy loses talent, experience and perspective. Issues such as candidate safety, intimidation and abuse are therefore not peripheral concerns.

They go to the heart of democratic constitution. So, my Lords, I, we I welcome this bill, and I would like to give the Minister notice that I would expect to bring forward a. Moments amendments on citizenship. Political literacy and the barriers that can still prevent full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

participation in public life. Firstly, I'd like to welcome the government's decision to extend the government's decision to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. Young people already contribute to our society and have a direct stake in the future, shaped by political decisions made today. Expanding the decisions made today. Expanding the franchise strengthens our democracy by ensuring more people have a voice through the learn. With the voice through the learn. With the Lords programme, I regularly visit schools and am consistently impressed by the level of
18:42
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
engagement that I encounter. One of my favorite visits was to a primary school where we discussed how school where we discussed how Parliament works and how people can influence political decision making. influence political decision making. Afterwards, around 150 pupils wrote to the then Prime Minister about the winter fuel allowance. It the winter fuel allowance. It started with one pupil asking me what it was and what had happened. The pupils listened, formed their The pupils listened, formed their own views about the issue and wanted their voices heard.

The problem is often not a lack of interest from young people, but a lack of opportunities for them to participate and a lack of them being asked questions at all. I also agree with the Minister's opening remarks that we must put politics back in public control and respond to real changes in how people participate in politics. My remarks focus on three themes modernizing our democracy, ensuring the safety of candidates, and strengthening transparency. First, on modernising democracy. Having worked in the European Parliament, the Senate and Westminster, I have often been struck by how many of our political structures remain rooted in assumption about who can participate in public life, job sharing and caring responsibilities are now a normal part of life for many people.

Yet our democratic institutions have been slower to adapt. Has the government considered the merits that job sharing arrangements could bring to elected office, and the diversity of people able to serve at the same time? Although this is the representation of the people Bill, it does not address one of the most significant questions of representation itself our electoral system. We live in an increasingly multi-party political environment where vote, share and seat share can diverge significantly. First, past the post is increasingly difficult to justify if our objective is genuine representation.

Will the Minister say whether the government has any plans to review the electoral system? My second theme is safety of candidates. I welcome efforts to make democratic participation safer. In particular, I support the cross-party proposal put forward in the other place relating to domestic abuse offenders. Public office is a privilege, and the public rightly expects high standards from those who seek it. I am also persuaded by the case for removing the requirement for candidates and election agents to publish their full residential address.

However, one notable omission remains, which we've heard from a number of other members, is online abuse. Social media platforms have become a significant enabler of intimidation and harassment against candidates, campaigners and elected representatives, with women disproportionately affected. If people decide not to stand for public office because of the abuse they expect to receive online. Democracy itself is diminished. Can the Minister explain why no provisions have been included in the bill to address online abuse, and whether the government will consider requiring Ofcom to produce an election, an election specific code of practice.

As we've heard from a range of members today, my final theme is transparency. Public trust is the foundation of any healthy democracy. If people are to have confidence in our political system, they must be confident that influence cannot be bought, that elections are conducted fairly and that democratic institutions are protected from improper influence. So as a Welsh member of your Lordships House, I listened carefully to the Minister's reference to Nathan Gill. His convictions serve as a reminder that foreign interference in democratic processes is not an abstract concern.

That is why transparency around political donations remains so important. The government has announced a task and finish group to examine potential reforms, but there remains little clarity about its remit, membership or timetable. Can the Minister tell the House how this work will proceed and when Parliament can expect to see its conclusions? My Lords, there is much in this Bill to welcome, particularly its efforts to broaden participation and strengthen public confidence in our democratic system. However, important questions do remain about representation, candidate safety and transparency in our democracy.

If we are serious about renewing public trust in politics, we must be prepared to address those issues. I look forward to the minister's response and to working constructively with colleagues across the House to strengthen the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill in the next stage. My Lords, before I turn to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I turn to the representation of the people, Bill, may I thank the Minister for the may I thank the Minister for the action that she has taken in relation to another matter? I spoke on the duty of candour in relation to the Hillsborough Bill, and I'd been pursuing for three years the been pursuing for three years the briefing given to the Minister by officials. At no stage was it has
18:47
Lord Hayward Portrait Lord Hayward (Conservative)
-
-
anybody been willing to allow me to discuss it, either with the Minister or with officials, within Minister or with officials, within one week of me raising it on the floor of this House? The Minister has taken the action and I have has taken the action and I have received I've had a conversation with officials, and I'd like to put with officials, and I'd like to put on record my appreciation to the Minister for the action that she has taken. Whether we agree in the has taken.

Whether we agree in the end or not is another matter. But may I also take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her involvement with many members of this House. In my case, she rang me yesterday for a discussion about aspects of the bill, and I greatly appreciate that. There are two broad comments I wish to make about the bill. One is, I'm afraid it's far too long. I made the point previously that the legislation on electoral law should have been consolidated years ago, and it should be consolidated now, and this is a missed opportunity.

Which leads me on to the second point, which I wish to make about the general debate. And I'm not talking here about disagreements in relation to policy and ages of voting or whatever it may happen to be, but there have been a number of contributions this afternoon where people have said, we will need to change this urgently next year or the year after, and they've come from all sides of the House. And my criticism of this bill is that it's come at the wrong time, because many aspects of, whether it be donations or other matters, have not been carefully enough considered so that they will encompass the whole range of issues, whether it be donations, subscriptions, whether it be accessed through cryptocurrencies or the like.

So those are two broad comments. Can I now touch on two very much questions of detail. There are elements in this bill which, to be honest, are utterly unnecessary. They appear to be drafting because returning officers have come to disagreements, councils have come to disagreements. And I will solely at this point identify one classic case. And I'm referring here to clause 31, subsection three A, and it says, and I quote in paragraph A for an officer substitute a senior officer.

Now, please, I ask you, is that an indication that actually officials in a council couldn't agree? You should knock their heads together. It should not be whole clauses in a bill. And there are other more substantial examples that I could give and will give in committee. And the other aspect to which I think there's been virtually no reference today is the impact assessment. It's a very, very lengthy document. To be honest, it's a statement of every reason why you should support the government's decision.

It doesn't consider alternatives. Now, Lord Rennard and I will disagree on many things in relation to registration, but it doesn't address the alternatives which are available. It just says we've decided this and this is how we're going to do it. And associated with that, I have to say that the costings in many of the pages of this, of the impact assessment are barely credible. And I'll just draw attention to two. One is on page 59, and Baroness Prashar made reference to the need to educate people and communicate well.

Now the Electoral Commission have put their costs at 39.8 million as a central estimate on an annual basis. The rest of the national costs are actually supposed to be just over 40 million. Now, is it credible that if the Electoral Commission reckon their costs are going to be a figure, that the cost to the whole of the rest of the nation is going to be almost exactly the same figure? And the reason I have doubts about that example, but I could cite any number of them because I was sad enough to spend the summer recess reading.

The impact assessment is paragraph 74 on page 61, which says there are additional resource implications arising from the collaborative development of the policy with staff from other departments, principally the DfE. There is a potential impact on education staff and it says. However, these contributions are not considered significant in cost terms and therefore have not been monetised. Now, anybody who believes that they can't be monetized and shouldn't be monetized is stretching credibility beyond belief. My Lords. When the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour Party. In 1990s by the Plan Commission looked at the age of voting, we were very, very sceptical about were very, very sceptical about lowering it to 16. I have tracked what's happened in Scotland. Local government in the last decade. But government in the last decade. But above all, what really convinced me is my work on learning with the
18:53
18:54
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Portrait Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Conservative)
-
-
been very much opened up as a point that we can discuss within this bill because of the attempt to bill because of the attempt to reduce the franchise to age 16. And I would agree wholeheartedly with my noble friends, Baroness May and my noble friends, Baroness May and and Lord Brady in their concerns about 16, not least because we need about 16, not least because we need to determine what is an age of attainment. If one at age 16 cannot attainment.

If one at age 16 cannot use a sun bed. It's rather strange that one can suddenly vote, but that's a wider debate for Committee stage. I'd like to examine postal voting. Postal voting franchise was massively widened in 2001 by the Blair government. I think concern that the. The volume and numbers of people voting had been on a steady decline, and I have to say the state we are in is is not better than where we once were. It was in the old days.

It was available if one was unwell, going on holiday or had a degree of frailty. I mean, I don't know about anybody else in this House, but I, I find it not that difficult to go down to the co-op or a convenience store in the evening. I find it hard to believe that on Election Day, given there's 15 hours to do it, one can't find the time to go and vote. I'm afraid the opportunities for fraud, for postal vote harvesting, I'm afraid, are very well known.

We have grave concerns about what happens in the actual polling booth, whether that's family assistance and all the rest of it. I don't have grave concerns about that, but I do have grave concerns about what is happening behind doors where nobody can see. But that's a wider discussion. I will probably lay amendments to that effect. But while we're on the issue of franchise, I was asking myself, why do we have such a wide franchise? We have a number of states of attachment and relationship with the United Kingdom.

We have British Crown dependencies, and we're familiar with those Isle of Man, Channel Islands. Then we have British overseas Territories, Gibraltar, British Virgin Islands, those type of very close relationships. We have a slightly oddity with former Hong Kong citizens of the right age, and they're all fairly small numbers, particularly in British overseas territories. There is a close relationship. We still have governors and there's close working with the F, c, D o, but I looked rather more closely as which ones of those allow in those countries voting by British citizens who happen to be there.

Very, very few, is the answer. Gibraltar does. Turks and Caicos most certainly do not. You have to attain an Islander status before one is allowed to vote, but they're fairly small numbers. I'm not overly concerned, but I'm very concerned about the Commonwealth. A commonwealth of 2.7 billion people, a third of the entire global population. And it runs from places that I you know, frankly, until I looked at this, I wasn't entirely sure existed. I'm not entirely sure now that I know where it is, but we're tiny in Africa.

I always think my Gibraltar, my geography is pretty good, but I'm not entirely sure why that is. And Vanuatu and very large populations like India, like Pakistan and Bangladesh and medium populations like Australia and Canada. As long as one has a right to come to the country for work and has a visa, any of these people can vote in a UK election, parliamentary and local. Now, when we're in the European Union, we restricted the franchise just for local elections.

Now, arguably, because the powers that be at the time have been blunted, of course, were on the road to making us a single country of Europe. One could have argued rather more closely that European citizens should have had the franchise in the UK for all elections, but the franchise of Commonwealth is a little bit quaint, in my view. I mean, let's have it by all means, as long as there is a reciprocation. So I've looked a little closer. Ghana does not allow British citizens, under its 1992 constitution to vote in the UK.

Australia severed the link, particularly with the Australia Act 1986. So a British citizen that may be there for a long period, for all intents living there forever cannot vote. And in Canada, that franchise was lost many, many decades ago. So we've opened the Pandora's Box on franchise. We're talking about 16 year olds. I shall open Pandora's Box to talk about the franchise of Commonwealth citizens. I think the time has come for a a new thing, a new thought on this.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, in following the noble Lord McKinley, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of for returning to the subject of political funding, because, of course, we are conducting this debate under the shadow of one debate under the shadow of one number, £72 million, or rather one, number, £72 million, or rather one, some two times £36 million. Now, this has led to far more attention this has led to far more attention being paid to the issue of political funding.

And your
18:59
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
Lordships House very often is facing the government benches and saying you're heading in the right direction, but you need to go direction, but you need to go further. Well, now there is a very clear direction from the country clear direction from the country that we need to see this bill going far further in capping donations to political parties wherever they come from. Now, that's there's also come from. Now, that's there's also another factor, which the country I'm sure doesn't know about.

But if they did, they would also be saying, please cut the amount of spending that is allowed on elections, particularly given the fact that it was massively increased at very little notice, with very little attention under the last government at the very late in the bill. Now, there are some specific factors that do influence the issues of political funding now, and I agree with the noble Lady. Baroness, may I share her skepticism about cryptocurrencies? They are good. No, great for fraudsters and criminals, but there's no evidence that they in any way contribute to the public good.

And the noble Lord Evans of Weardale, as I've heard the noble Lord say on many occasions, we have invited into this country corruption from around the world over many years. Russia, China and other countries. And we are now seeing money of very dubious sources from the US coming into the UK, UK now into our politics. We need to take action on these issues. Those two contributions help me make the point, however, that this is not a new problem.

Political funding has been a huge issue in British politics for decades. We have had big money choosing what kind of politics we get. We get the politics they have paid for. Now, where does it come from? Financiers, the city, gambling companies, property developers, fossil fuel companies, and other giant oligarchic companies from around the world. We've got the politics they paid for, and this has to stop. If we are going to restore trust in our politics.

Now, one specific point that I'm going to be raising, as my hon. Friend Ellie Chowns did in the other place, the issue of donations from companies, and I'm relying here on analysis from the centre for Analysis of Taxation, almost 1 in 10 pounds donated by companies comes in directly from individuals who are likely to be ineligible to donate directly. Around a quarter of donor companies are opaque, meaning it's not possible to identify who controls them. Currently, the tax system provides an implicit subsidy of up to 39% for political donations routed through companies, and what the bill is supposed to be trying to do is very easy to get around.

So why not ban political donations from companies altogether? The bill accepts that a company's right to donate depends on the rights of its individual owners. If they can donate directly, why are we allowing corporate donations at all? Now, I want to pick up a couple of other points very quickly from the debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Russell, rather stuck in my craw when the noble Lady, Baroness O'Neill, complained about lack of consultation, given the way in which the last government's Election Act was railroaded through, and I was really disappointed and surprised that the noble Lady repeated, totally debunked, clearly politically motivated allegations about family voting from Gorton and Denton.

I'd refer your Lordships house to the Manchester Police press release of March 27th, which found no evidence of any intent to influence or refrain any person from voting. That is something that we need to stop undermining our own system when there is no reason to do so. Now, I want to briefly come to votes at 16. We've already heard many powerful testimony, particularly from the learned with the Lords, about why we should have votes. At 16, Baroness O'Neill asked why not 15 or younger? And indeed, I think that's a really good question, but I very much agree with the many contributions, saying we need more political education, but with learn with the Lords, visiting schools, colleges, I found that 16 year olds are on average as well informed about politics as 60 year olds.

Which is not to say that both groups don't need a great deal more political education, understanding and help with critical thinking in our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

current media age. There are many ways to describe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are many ways to describe this bill. The top of my list at the moment is simply timely. I the moment is simply timely. I would also like to briefly point out to the representatives of the Conservative Party here, with their slightly selective memories of election history, that in 1928, the conservative government extended the franchise so that women were able to vote on the same principle as men. And what happened in the 1929 election, the Conservative Party lost its majority.

I was originally a historian, so I do check these things out. I will check these things out. I will comment on four different areas voting for 16 year olds, caps on political donations, deepfakes and misinformation during elections, and the need for greater regulation. and the need for greater regulation.
19:05
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
And transparency in political advertising. Like the noble Lord Moorooka and like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I've done a lot of work with learn with the Lords. What I typically say when we are discussing potential voting at 16 year olds, which I always raise is. My point of view is we as adults have made such a mess of the world that they are going to inherit that the sooner we give them skin in the game, particularly on issues like climate change, the better.

Lord Patten referred briefly to Australia's compulsory voting scheme. I just did a bit of historical homework. Believe it or not, that is now 102 years old and it was brought in in after the 1922 election, which achieved a 60% voter turnout in the election after compulsory voting was brought in in 1925, it jumped up to 91%. And to this day, in general elections in Australia, the average voter turnout is between 88 and 92%, which slightly puts ours to shame.

Caps on political donations. As I heard of the two donations over the weekend to reform, my mind went back to my great grandfather in 1931, who was being pressed very strongly by two conservative press Lords to change the government policy, and he made quite a well-known speech about them, in which he accused them of power without responsibility. And I do think there are echoes of that in the situation we're in today. But I would like to put on the record my genuine thanks to Christopher Harben and Ben Delo for bringing this subject into such sharp focus.

Conveniently just in time for our Second Reading, and I'm very grateful for that, because one of the problems, essentially with what has happened, and Mr. Harben actually referred to it himself, he said, I was prompted to put in my additional bid out of my competitive instincts. My Lords, that way lies an arms race, which is the last thing we want. Should it be retrospective? Actually, I'm quite relaxed about that because based on current and recent experience of the particular party to which the money has gone, they will almost certainly fritter it away and waste it.

And in fact, they may even make their situation worse rather than better. The history of most disrupter political parties around the world, particularly those that are focused on a charismatic leader who formed it, is once that leader is out of the way or starts losing his or her faculties, the party fades away fairly quickly. And I suspect it may be the case with with that party. And as far as Mr. Hagen's own statement of his own priorities and why he gave money to reform, he said, we have three existential threats facing us nuclear war, artificial intelligence and climate change.

My Lords, if he thinks Mr. Farage is going to solve any of those, let alone all three, I think he's rather wasted his £36 million when it comes to deepfakes and misinformation. Misinformation is not mentioned in this bill at all. In section 106 of the 1983 representation of the People Act, it only covers personal character and conduct, not political claims. As far as greater regulation and transparency and political advertising, there should be a public repository for all paid for digital advertising.

We need to establish clear, enforceable code of practice to prevent mis and disinformation, and we need to restrict overseas spending on political advertising at all times, not just at elections. And we should give the Electoral Commission the power to obtain information at speed from online platforms. At the moment these things happen, not waiting for a formal investigation, which is what is currently proposed. My Lords, we will have a busy Committee stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, before I start, if I can, as usual, declare that I am a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. My Lords, there are positive My Lords, there are positive aspects to this Bill as outlined by my noble friend Baroness O'Neill at the start. However, there are also many deficiencies, and I thank the many noble Lords who have raised many noble Lords who have raised such issues as the age of maturity, representation of British citizens representation of British citizens abroad, the lack of true engagement, not addressing social media and the
19:10
Lord Jamieson Portrait Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
risk of bias in these donation rules. Now, there's not the time rules. Now, there's not the time for me to debate all these issues today, so I'm going to focus on some of the bill's contradictions. some of the bill's contradictions. Now, the noble Baroness, the Minister, has said the bill will address loopholes in donations. address loopholes in donations. However, it fails to address one of the most glaring loopholes, as confirmed by the noble Baroness, confirmed by the noble Baroness, the Minister, in a written answer.

Chinese, Iranian and Russian citizens on the electoral roll in Scotland and Wales can make uncapped donations, whereas in England, foreign nationals other than certain EU and Commonwealth citizens who are not entitled to vote cannot donate. I ask the Minister is it right to limit the amount British nationals can donate while allowing Chinese, Iranian and Russian nationals living in Scotland and Wales on a temporary basis to make donations. The Bill seeks to address unregistered voters by auto enrolment and a modified reduced threshold.

I ask the Minister, has the government truly thought through the implications of this in an increasingly mobile society? The scope for errors is significant and the bureaucracy involved potentially huge. There is already an obligation for everyone contacted by an arrow to respond and verify their eligibility. Now we have the reverse situation. They will be on the electoral roll unless they prove that they are not eligible. Students or contractors who frequently move address could end up with multiple registrations and in many instances may not even be aware.

You may say that this does not matter, but it does. The robustness of the electoral roll is fundamental to election integrity, and the election roll is also used for other purposes, such as credit and fraud checks. The bill is also not clear on what an Ero needs to do to find all these potential new voters, and I would appreciate the Minister giving clarity on this matter. The Bill will also water down the integrity of voting. Photo ID is working.

Why do we need to introduce a less secure form of ID? A bank card is not a secure form of ID, as the Electoral Commission has made clear by example. My father and I share the same name. How will a poll clerk differentiate us? Yet even the mildest scrutiny of a driving licence would establish we are different people. In fact, there are an estimated 2000 J jamesons in the UK and unfortunately the Baroness. The Minister is not here at the moment, but she is even more popular than me, with an estimated 12000 s tailers in the UK.

I would appreciate the Minister explaining how this improves integrity of voting. Finally, I would like to address two issues. This bill is not addressing. The fragmented nature of the electoral law, causes significant issues in operation and interpretation. As my noble friend Lord Hayward has said today and previously many times. It is overly complex and conflicting. Do we really need another bill that adds to that complexity? Secondly, according to the Electoral Commission, and this has been mentioned by 1 or 2 other noble Lords, two thirds of candidates faced abuse at this year's local elections, which.

From personal experience, I can attest to. Now we support robust debate. But if good people are unwilling to stand. If candidates are restricted in campaigning, if politicians are constrained in what they say from fear of abuse, we do not have a robust democracy. It fundamentally undermines democracy and harms our country. Now, we support the measures in this bill to protect election officials and candidates, but much more needs to be done, and in particular, online abuse and misuse of AI can ask the Minister why this is not also a greater priority.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to address my remarks to the provisions of the Bill that will provisions of the Bill that will improve voter participation. In one of my roles in my previous job working for Labour, I was a member working for Labour, I was a member of the elections team. I'm talking in the early 1990s, another one of those nerds that Baroness Paul those nerds that Baroness Paul referred to. We, of course, wanted to maximise the possibility of Labour winning elections, and we Labour winning elections, and we provided guidance, advice and leadership to the various Labour Party units led by brilliant
19:14
Baroness Linforth Portrait Baroness Linforth (Labour)
-
-
professional staff and driven by great volunteers. And when I look great volunteers. And when I look back on those days, I cringe at some of the things we had to do because government bodies and local because government bodies and local authorities weren't doing them. We asked our volunteers to look through electoral registers to through electoral registers to identify properties that didn't appear, and then we visited them to see if we could register the see if we could register the occupants. It was hugely labour intensive, and I would like to take this opportunity now to thank those volunteers for doing this.

But we had to, because participation in the democratic process, being able to vote is possibly the greatest right any citizen has. And back then, the government of the day was lax in compiling the register of electors. It shouldn't have been left to volunteers to make sure the electoral register was up to date. And that is why I welcome the provisions in this bill allowing for electoral registration officers to register individuals directly and to enable new methods of voter registration for parliamentary electors and local government electors in England and Northern Ireland to be piloted.

I believe that the move to individual electoral registration in 2014 was a retrograde step. I must admit that I feel it's. I find it slightly amusing that we are now proposing making electoral Registration officer a quasi head of household. It seems to me that it is a tacit admission that the move to individual electoral registration was a failure. I understand that close to 8 million people are currently missing from the electoral register. That's around 15% of all over 18 year olds in the UK.

That's not good enough. We thus need to be able to compare all databases created whenever a citizen interacts with the government and local authorities, and then use them to plug the gaps in registration. That could be, for example, driving licences, passport applications or council tax data, etc. I would also encourage a legal duty for the electoral register to be compared with datasets held by credit reference agencies. These companies often hold information about people not on the electoral register who should be on it.

The register of electors should be first among equals. It should be of a gold standard. And if we are going to move to votes for 16 year olds, I would encourage the government to link the issuance of National Insurance number at that age to becoming registered to vote. I favour that as a citizen would be registered automatically, but being offered an opportunity to opt out at the point of registration. In this regard, I welcome that it is proposed to end the presumption that citizens would be registered onto the open register, and that any citizen would have to opt in to that register.

I don't actually support compulsory voting, but I do want everyone to vote. In these days of highly partisan party politics. That might be a little controversial, but I truly believe that the higher the turnout, the better. Whoever a voter chooses to vote for political parties should work hard to earn votes, in my opinion. And the institutions of government should remove barriers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to voting. My Lords, I. Welcome this bill because the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Welcome this bill because the integrity of our democracy is increasingly under threat, not only from the foreign money and misinformation, but from the politicians who are deliberately, politicians who are deliberately, deliberately seeks to divide people by race, religion and immigration by race, religion and immigration status. I want to concentrate on that wider democratic culture. I'm
19:18
Lord Sahota Portrait Lord Sahota (Labour)
-
-
particularly concerned about the direction in which reform UK, under Mr. Nigel Farage, is seeking to Mr. Nigel Farage, is seeking to take our political debate. Mr. Farage is perfectly entitled to Farage is perfectly entitled to argue for a lower immigration and stronger borders. Those are stronger borders. Those are legitimate subject for a democratic debate, but there is a profound difference between debating difference between debating immigration and repeatedly presenting immigrants and ethnic minorities as the explanation for everything that is wrong with our country.

We saw a disturbance disturbing example of this in Southampton following the horrific murder of Henry Novak. Mr. Farage called upon British people to respond with what he described as pure, cold rage. He spoke of two tier culture and of anti white prejudice. Within hours there was a serious disorder in Southampton and some police officers were injured. Now compare that rhetoric with the terrible recent tragedy in near Middlesbrough, seven people died, five young men travelling in a stolen car and two serving police officers.

My Lords, every one of those deaths was a tragedy and my heart goes out to all of their families. But had those five young men been from the minority communities? Just imagine Mr. Farage, his reaction would be very different, but nothing. Why? Because it did not fit his political narrative of demonising ethnic minority communities. Social media would have been flooded with claims about immigration integration and supposedly failure of multicultural Britain. Crimes must be condemned, whoever commits it, victims deserve justice regardless of their colour.

But political outrage must not be switched on when the alleged offender belongs to one community and switched off when the circumstances do not fit a political political story. This is not a responsible leadership. History teaches us, teaches us that democracy is a rarely destroyed overnight, but is weakened gradually. When minority communities become convenient scapegoats, when independent institutions are treated with contempt, when misinformation becomes the norm, and when political leaders persuade voters that their neighbours are responsible for all their problems, than the foundation of democracy begins to decay.

Let me make with caution, my Lords, with caution. A historical comparison are my Lords, with the language used by reform leadership and reminds me. And that reminds me of the Europe of 19 1930s. Racialised language is in danger of becoming normalised in our country. Social media has made the danger even greater. One provocative tweet from world's richest man can do untold, untold damages to our community cohesion. That is why this bill's provision on political finance and electronic campaign material matters, foreign money must not be allowed to buy British political influence.

Electoral Commission must be strengthened. Political parties must be required to know where their donations ultimately originates from. My Lords, immigration and ethnic minorities are listening to this debate, and some are seeking asking themselves if this rhetoric one day translates into government than what would happen to them. They are our neighbours, doctors, nurses and so on. Britain is their home. We must therefore defend not merely the machinery of democracy but its values fairness, tolerance, truth and equality before law.

This is. That is why I support this bill and why I believe this House must remain vigilant against any politics that seeks electoral disadvantage by turning one group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of British people against another. My Lords, my starting point is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my starting point is very simple. The minimum voting age should match the minimum age for standing for an election, and I believe both of those should be 18. Yet through this bill, Ministers would be allowing a 16 year old to would be allowing a 16 year old to elect a member of Parliament while continuing to prevent that very same young person from becoming one.
19:24
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
same young person from becoming one. It is for Ministers to explain to your Lordships House why their judgment is sufficient for one purpose, but not the other. My greater concern, however, is whether dependent 16 and 17 year olds would genuinely exercise a fully independent choice at the ballot box. We know that family voting or let let's be frank and call it what it is. Electoral fraud is becoming increasingly common in this country. A report from Democracy Volunteers recently identified breaches of ballot secrecy in more than 1 in 5 polling stations that they observed during the 2024 general elections.

These findings should concern us all as they raise serious questions about the privacy and independence of voting, including the risk of one family member directing another's ballot. If observers identify breaches inside our polling stations, Ministers should explain how they will protect a dependent teenager completing a postal ballot at home. After all, there is no polling officer at the kitchen table. A young person may face a demand to show their ballot, surrender it or complete it under supervision before extending the franchise.

Ministers should publish before the House what assessment they have made of this risk, and what additional safeguards they are going to implement to prevent the cohesion, the coercion that may inevitably occur. What this bill fails to ensure, my Lords, is a parent is not acquiring an additional vote simply because their child becomes eligible, or that a husband does not cast his wife's vote. Every voting adult should have the confidence of being able to cast their vote in secrecy, and this should be the main concern and priority of the government.

Moving swiftly on to identify voter identification, it is entirely wrong to assume the possession of a bank card is enough to establish the identity of an individual, and this is an area where I intend to move amendments as it is beyond farcical that, after all the work that local authorities have put into training staff around photographic identification and the issuing of a voter authority certificate, that this bill should now be allowed to undo that work and weaken the integrity of the ballot.

And moving on to the issue of political donations, I welcome tighter controls, but Parliament must test whether they work and how far they actually go in protecting the integrity of our elections. A British company's address must not legitimise money supplied by a non-permissible owner. Donor parties establish the true source of funds, not simply record the name on the transfer. Restrictions must withstand attempts to route money through companies associations, loans, third party campaigns, etc. if a party cannot establish that a donation is lawful, it simply should not be able to accept it.

Deliberate evasion of these rules should and must bring very serious consequences. And these standards must apply equally to every party. But we should be, however, very wary of retrospective changes to the law. People should be able to rely on the law as it stands at the time, reaching back and changing the consequences afterwards is a very dangerous precedent and risks serious overreach by the state. And we must not confuse foreign interference with British citizens who happen to live overseas.

These are not foreigners and they should not be treated as such. If they have the right to vote in our elections. Their lawful participation in our democracy, by making transparent donations, should not automatically be treated with suspicion for the integrity of our democracy. It is a validation of the source of the donation made that government should turn its attention to my Lords. Like others in this room, I have stood as a candidate in a great number of elections and observed many counts over my lifetime.

I do not support measures that risk weakening the very fairness and secrecy upon which public confidence depends. And for these reasons, I do actually urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Lords to reject this bill. This bill, which should help strengthen our democracy at a time when it is under some strain. The when it is under some strain. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, following Scotland and Wales, represents an important step in recognising the contribution many of them already contribution many of them already make as citizens and enabling them to contribute to political decisions that will help determine decisions that will help determine their futures.

However, I know from my own earlier research as an
19:29
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
academic, some young people do not feel prepared for this new responsibility. The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, emphasised Citizenship Education's emphasised Citizenship Education's crucial role in helping to build active citizens. It deplored the way in which the previous way in which the previous government had allowed it to degrade to a parlous state, and expressed concern that, in expressed concern that, in emphasising individual character, it was failing to develop much needed political literacy. It is welcome that the government will make citizenship education mandatory in primary as well as secondary schools.

But the Association for Citizenship Teaching has warned that some of the proposed curriculum changes risk weakening the contribution it can make to preparing young people for participation in democratic life. May I therefore encourage my noble friend the Minister, if she hasn't already done so, to read the very useful recent report from the APPG for Schools Learning and Assessment Empowering students as Democratic citizens how schools and colleges can prepare young people for votes at 16. The report cites studies which demonstrate that effective democratic education in schools can positively impact young people's intended political engagement, as well as perceptions of political efficacy, confidence, interest and trust in politics.

All important factors associated with voting in elections. But access to such education is generally poor and inconsistent, with more marginalised groups likely to lose out a year. Eight student who gave evidence said equipping us with political education is a democratic necessity. The bill's provision for automatic voter registration is of particular importance to young people and also private renters, but it needs strengthening so that it becomes a duty and has a clear, speedy timeline. My Lords, the Women's Democracy Group emphasises the need to improve the diversity of political candidates, including through the implementation of section 106 of the Equality Act, which would require parties to publish data on the protected characteristics of candidates standing for national elections.

The government are committed to commencing section 106, but have refused to provide any kind of timeline for doing so or for the prior consultation process. Centenary action argue that section 106 is a vital tool for helping to move the dial on diversity of representation by bringing greater transparency, and that it's essential that it's enacted as soon as possible in time for preparation for the next election, which could well occur during the centenary year of equal franchise. Could my noble friend give us some idea of when action will be taken on this? My Lords, if we were to come into line with Scotland and Wales, we should also extend the franchise to foreign residents.

As argued by my hon. Friend James Nash MP. Drawing on the work of my The Migrant Democracy Project, who I met with earlier this year, the project argues, rightly that democracy works best when it is inclusive for all who it serves. All those who call the UK their home have vested political and social interest in how their communities and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are governed. Indeed, back in 2022, the now Justice secretary, 2022, the now Justice secretary, Alex Norris MP, tabled a Bill amendment which would achieve just that. Surely an inclusive representation of the people Bill should not exclude this particular should not exclude this particular group of people, and I ask my noble friend whether she will look at the case for their inclusion. In conclusion, my Lords, I support those arguing for stronger limits on political donations and for the establishment of a Commission for Electoral Reform.

The widely supported amendment on the latter was deemed out of scope in the Commons, with Minister Eshalomi arguing that it is premature to legislate now for one approach to electoral reform. But the whole point of a commission is to examine a range of approaches, ideally drawing on the wisdom of a citizens assembly. That said, I welcome her willingness to discuss next steps and hope that my noble friend will say the same in her remarks. She implied she was open to discussing anything with with members of this House.

Of course, a commission does not require legislation, but it would mark an important step towards what my noble friend Lord Kinnock recently described as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

profound act of democratic democratisation. Yes, my. Lords. It's a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and I, as I was re-elected a councillor in May. I have a direct interest in the have a direct interest in the formation of electoral law, and as such it will perhaps be no surprise such it will perhaps be no surprise that I want to focus my remarks on some really practical issues. The
19:34
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
first is about voter registration, which is currently significantly which is currently significantly incomplete despite the best efforts of elections officers, the of elections officers, the Electoral Commission estimate that 8 million people are not registered 8 million people are not registered to vote. In my own constituency of Spen Valley. That is estimated to Spen Valley. That is estimated to mean 10,000 potential voters not able to vote because they're not registered. This has impacts on our democracy. Lack of registration is heavily skewed to those who rent, and those who move home regularly.

This demographic are also more likely to be less well off than the average. A further impact is on the boundaries of constituencies, which are based on numbers of registered electors. The reasons for not registering are many, but include those who do not want others to know where they live and do not trust the opt out of the open register to safeguard them. For, for instance, from a violent ex-partner. So the move to an opt in register is therefore a positive move.

Automatic voter registration is welcome, but the practical implementation leaves much to be desired. Where is the timetable for action? Where are the proposed pilots, which are absolutely essential if there is to be a move across to automatic registration? Perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, can provide those details before a wide scale introduction. And will that occur before the next general election? The other issues I want to raise are small, but in my view, important.

And the first is that of the issue of postal votes. Currently, there is no specified timetable for elections officers to send postal ballots to the Royal Mail for delivery. Given that in some local elections, those voting by post may constitute a significant proportion of votes cast between a third and a half, depending on turnout. Naming a postal vote day or days will aid both voters and campaigners voters because they will get the information about who is who are the candidates and campaigners because they can get the information to them in time.

Then there is the issue of abuse of election spending limits. This I'm referencing here. Local elections in particular. So literature from a national political party that does not name either a local candidate, specific local issues or a the the party in the locality are not counted towards local election expense limits. In a recent local by election in Kirklees, where I am a councillor, approximately £4,000 worth of such literature from one political party arrived on voters doormats.

This is more than double the enforceable election expense limit for that election. It is making a nonsense of spending limits, and I urge the noble Baroness, the Minister, to consider, with the Electoral Commission, changes to those regulations. Finally, my Lords, I wish to raise a concern about the relative sizes of electorates in local wards now not within a council district, as that is well governed by the local Boundary Commission. This bill seeks to improve the representation of people.

Yet in Birmingham, for instance, the councillor voter ratio is 1 to 7000. In my own Kirklees it is 1 to 4700. In Manchester it is about 1 to 3500, and for London boroughs the ratio is about 1 to 2500. So in one part of the country is three times greater at ratio than in others. So there are serious implications for this disparity. The larger the ratio comes with the growing loss of real local representation and remoteness from those elected to make local decisions.

And I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to reflect on these disparities and how they can be addressed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. This bill does not end the power of the rich to hijack democracy. Corporations and the super rich don't donate. They super rich don't donate. They invest and get a return for themselves and their class. Numerous laws are bent to advance Numerous laws are bent to advance their interests. The result is that 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 70% of the population combined. Private equity bosses are taxed at lower rates than wage earners.

No
19:40
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
one is prosecuted for the Post Office. Grenfell and other scandals, Office. Grenfell and other scandals, frauds and HMOs remain uninvestigated. Government uninvestigated. Government contracts are showered upon donors with little transparency. The with little transparency. The Autonomy Institute reported that for every £1 of donation since 2000, for every £1 of donation since 2000, public contracts worth £1,294 have been given to the same set of companies. No party really wants to end the political auction, which people see every day.

The 100,000 cap on donations by an overseas voter does not dismantle the political bazaars. It can be bypassed through donations by connected persons. There is no way of knowing whether the money came from Musk or Mafia. Thailand based Christopher Harborne has had its £61 million to reform since 2019. He was named in the Panama Papers. Mandela has handed £44 million to reform and has a criminal conviction in the US. He was sentenced to 30 to 30 months of probation and fined $10 million.

Will the government ensure that individuals with criminal convictions cannot fund political parties? The government has promised to implement the Ryecroft review proposals on corporate donations, but they won't curb regulatory gains. Just to give one regulatory gains. Just to give one example, some years ago, £5,137,785 was donated by Lord Ashcroft to the Conservative Party. Its one time treasurer and a non and a treasurer with a non-dom status. The money originated from Stargate Holdings, a company controlled by Lord Ashcroft and registered in Belize.

Complex transactions were used to conceal the origins of the money. The money passed through a series of UK companies Astra Porter UK limited, Bare Wood Holdings Limited and then pay to the Conservative Party. Buy Bare Wood Corporate Services Limited. None had sufficient profits to cover donations. The small companies used in this chain did not have to publish full set of accounts, therefore making it difficult for anyone to carry carry out. What we now call know your donor checks.

Now, the Ryecroft review has recommended that corporate donations should be based on post-tax profits. This. This is also highly problematical as there is no statutory definition of profit, profits or accounting, tax and management purposes are not identical. Accounting rules are malleable and scandals show that profit can be manufactured through intra group transactions. That happened at Carillion is happening at water companies. Companies can have profits, but they can be cash poor. So does that mean they will borrow money to make political donations? That is what this legislation will result in.

Currently, the government is consulting on deregulation of corporate reporting, which will make it impossible for anyone to carry out the know your donor checks. I hope that someone in the government will connect the dots. Finally, my Lords, there are two ways of cleaning up UK politics, which has to be the ultimate aim of the Bill which is in front of us. We need a ban on political donations with parties funded by modest membership fees and possible state money to help them.

They're already getting some short money or all donations must go to a central fund administered by Electoral Commission. The money is then divided in accordance with the share of the votes secured by a party. This way, corporations and the super rich can't directly funded by or can't directly fund the political party and buy political influence. And we can finally be free of the iron grip of corporations and the super rich on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our politics. Hear, hear. There's always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. Lord. Although I must say, I think I've Although I must say, I think I've heard some of those arguments before. My Lords, this is a big bill with. But it misses the big bill with. But it misses the big point. Instead of strengthening democracy, it fiddles around the edges. Now, I thought many elections in a career in local elections in a career in local government, and after. I often have to remind people that to become the leader of the Council, as I was for leader of the Council, as I was for nearly 20 years.

You have to win three elections very quickly. Once in your ward, once among your. Once
19:45
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
amongst your political friends and the other amongst the whole council itself. So you have to learn how to itself. So you have to learn how to count. But the answer was the rules are pretty clear. In order to win, you just get more ballots than the you just get more ballots than the next person. The candidate with the most votes win. You can explain that to anyone in a few seconds. that to anyone in a few seconds. Plain and simple. Done and dusted. Yet, as I survey the state of Yet, as I survey the state of democracy in our nation, I see so many complex and contradictory voting systems.

Yes, there's the first past the post. Then there's the supplementary vote, the PCCs and mayors. In England we have the single transferable vote in Northern Ireland, although that's also open to EU citizens. There's a hybrid proportional scheme with additional member top ups of party chums in Scotland. And I note Lord Foulkes isn't in his place, but he entertained us with his accident. Accidental election earlier in this debate. There's a closed loop system in Wales where only the chums can win, and thank goodness the voters rejected the alternative vote in May 2011 in that referendum.

But somehow that method method persists with the Scottish Crofting Commission elections. Apparently they're not. The only difference is anyone can vote in Wales or Scotland, regardless of nationality, as long as they live there, but not in England. Then we get all acts or thirds for councils and single or double or multi-member wards, and 4 or 5 year terms in some councils and not others in London. And I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Baroness Pinnock. It takes 3108 electors in average across the whole of London, to choose a councillor, but 15,000 in parts of Essex.

My Lords, there are more councillors within the M25 than the entirety of all the county councils of England. And now we heard from the noble Lord Mackinlay, who's not in his place, about overseas territories. Well, this complication I saw with me now, I remember the case a few years ago, when in Cambridgeshire, on the same day, there were elections for five different layers of local government, with three separate voting systems. No wonder people were confused. We're meant to be a United Kingdom, but in terms of the electoral system, there is more that divides us than brings us together.

And given a choice in 2011, in a referendum, the voters expressed a clear preference for first past the post. Because the problem is that when you depart from the simplicity and purity of the principle of the person with the most votes wins, you end up with funny business and nothing harms faith in democracy, the legitimacy of politicians and trust in our institutions than funny business. But this bill does nothing to address that or the abuses. Recently, we had the unseemly rush to pass the supplementary vote regulations in the Manchester mayoral elections in June.

There was a cancellation, attempted cancellation of local government elections last year. Thank goodness that's been unwound for next May, thanks to the government's screaming U-turn handbrake turn on LGR last week, we've all been spared the unseemly debate relating to the gerrymandering of Labour councillors in the formerly proposed Lincoln Unitary, where there would be three councillors per ward in the city of Lincoln, but only one in the rural hinterland around. That's a scheme which would have betrayed and disgraced a a banana republic.

How the Labour Party considers themselves fit to pass this piece of partisan legislation I don't know, but there are other omissions in this bill. Where are the guardrails referred to by Baroness Pinnock for equality in the value of of the vote? I'm entirely with my noble friend, Lord Jameson. A bank card can just be picked up from the sideboard. There's no security there. The bill introduces new jeopardies in the classroom, bringing divisions between teachers and children and amongst the children themselves.

And back in 2018, I'm thinking of unincorporated institutions here. The noble Baroness, the Minister and I together have put the local government association on a proper footing. It was previously an unincorporated body, but there are plenty of others, like the Ipswich Business Club, a monthly dining club that would be henceforth prohibited from engaging in politics. Any other organisations, clubs and charities would be caught in this crossfire and I do not stand for reform. But retrospection is clearly wrong in principle.

My Lords, this bill puts a tinkering before simplicity, and it's a missed opportunity that fails to reinforce confidence in the voting voting system itself. And it fails to call out the funny business that disavows the principle that you win the election fair and square. When you get one more vote than the next man. This bill should correct it, but it doesn't.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very pleased to make a short contribution to this debate. And can I begin by congratulating my noble friend, congratulating my noble friend, Lord McIntosh of Eastwood for his excellent and engaging maiden speech? I should declare an interest. Decades ago I used to interest. Decades ago I used to organise an annual meeting with the Scottish Parliament on science, to which the noble Lord made contributions, and he was a very distinguished presiding officer of the Parliament, and I'm sure the House will want to hear from him on House will want to hear from him on many more occasions in the future.

Now, meanwhile, I'm the 45th listed speaker in this debate. I feel as
19:50
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
though I fall into the dinner break category, and I'm not the only person to remark upon the exquisite timing of today's debate. At the weekend. We all heard that almost weekend. We all heard that almost two, I mean, two almost incredibly wealthy people have decided to give £36 million each to the same political party. Without a doubt, these are the greatest proposed these are the greatest proposed individual financial gifts ever bestowed upon any political party in British history and, in my view, raises some fundamental challenges to our political system and our democracy, which we would pass over at our peril.

Do we want our democratic politics to be reduced to a fundraising race to the bottom? We can look across the Atlantic and see the effect in America of the divisive impact of big money and big donors. Now, the bill proposes a limit of £100,000 on an overseas contributor. That could be made as a political donation in any calendar year, and I'm beginning to think that that figure ought to be reviewed. We should also extend the moratorium. I'd prefer a ban on the donation of crypto assets to registered political parties.

Crypto assets, almost by definition, make it hard or impossible to be sure that the donation is not tainted in any way by legal activity and unknown malign actors. And there's a bigger question about the appropriate limits on individual donations. I mean, I must say, my Lords, if you believe that the two people in question who have claimed not to want anything in return for their £36 million, if you believe that, then I've got news for you. You will believe anything. And there are huge questions to be raised about transparency and accountability.

How is their relationship going to be monitored? We can't have undercover reporters at every single drinks party to let us know what is going on. Now, turning to other areas in the bill, it's an important bill and it seeks to implement manifesto commitments. And I speak of one amendment many members in this chamber who have contested elections at local and constituency level, and I'm one of those who rather wishes that this bill was a consolidated bill. But we are where we are, and I've been really interested in some of the comments made about extending the franchise and its political effect.

So please don't tempt me because I'll run out of time. But I do support the right of 16 and 17 year olds to vote. And when I speak to young people at schools or like other noble Lords have mentioned, in line with the Lords events, I am struck by the fact that they know that their future. It's the future in which they have the greatest stake, and they are hungry to know and understand the system. And I think we should do a great deal more than we do even now, to help with their education.

I mean, to my generation, forgive me, but the words tick tock refer to a grandfather clock or the passage of time. But to the new generation, tick tock is how they get their news and the video clips which shape their view of the world. So I strongly support the proposals in this bill. I think it's clause 15 that local authorities will have a duty to raise awareness among young people. And when it comes to voter registration, I personally strongly support the spirit of part two of the bill.

In the late 1970s, I was an agent and in the constituency of Kensington North where I lived, grew up and voted. I conducted an exercise in voter registration in a ward in the north of the constituency, and I was astonished to find that there were 371 people who should have been on that register. So I strongly support what this bill is seeking to do. But there is one point I want to make to the Minister, which is that the Electoral Commission will be increasingly important a guardrail in protecting our democracy.

Things like the imprint rules to which have been referred, and the use of deep fakes and the damage it can do to the trust in our democracy. So I ask my noble friend, the Minister, when she winds up, can she assure the House that the Electoral Commission will have adequate resources to do the expanded role that it is expected to carry out? And finally, my Lords, there's one issue which you might consider very esoteric that I do just want to raise with my noble friend.

It's about the demise of the Crown and its impact on elections. Does this bill guard against the possibility, however unlikely, that a general election at the very end of a five year parliament would be put at risk by the demise of the Crown, to be precise, could there be rare circumstances that caused the postponement of a general election for 14 days beyond the statutory five year Parliament limit? Now, my Lords, my time is up. I hope that we can get as much consensus on some of these areas in this bill as possible, because it helps preserve the stability of our democracy and the representation of the people upon which it rests.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the way, this bill is concerned with extension of and concerned with extension of and fair voting. Why, then, are peers us still not included in a system us still not included in a system that is almost universal, the exclusion of peers from participating in general elections participating in general elections is an outdated democratic anomaly that has no place in a modern society. Sitting members of the society. Sitting members of the House of Lords are taxpayers, subject to the law, and are as profoundly affected as any other
19:55
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
sector of society by the laws made by the House of Commons, which in by the House of Commons, which in the last resort they cannot defy, denying them us the fundamental democratic right to vote, classing democratic right to vote, classing them as persons with legal incapacity, unnecessarily strips incapacity, unnecessarily strips them of their basic civic voice, granting peers the right to vote in parliamentary elections would not parliamentary elections would not diminish the primacy of the Commons. Rather, it would align our electoral system with universal suffrage principles, ensuring that every adult citizen can participate in choosing the government that shapes their daily life.

Our wise and well informed heads cannot vote, but 16 year olds will be enfranchised. The mandate committed the government to this. This age limit adds to our muddled approach to maturity. Those 16 year olds cannot yet buy alcohol, gamble, sign a tenancy agreement, get credit or marry. If they're mature enough to vote, then sooner or later those other age limits will have to align. As it stands, the 16 year olds will need to be protected from family voting, coercion, undue influence by their peers and family and impersonation.

They are particularly subject to pressure because they're probably still financially dependent on their parents living at home, still in education and with little privacy. Very soon they will be barred from accessing Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook and Twitter. So, my Lords, where are the young people going to get the necessary information from that which makes their vote meaningful? They don't read newspapers or even books. A survey by Statistics Statista in 2025 showed that only 18.7 of teens read something daily, and the newspaper consumption is even lower.

Only 14% of under 16 read a paper. So where are they to get the information and experience they need in order to cast an intelligent vote? At 15 years and 51 weeks, they won't be allowed to access relevant media, and the next day they can vote based on who knows what information our school teachers equipped to teach about political participation without straying into party politics. This takes me to the bill's provisions about bank card ID. A 16 year old can apply for a bank card, but would have to do so quickly if an election was imminent.

I cannot see that bank cards will prevent impersonation. A bank card has a name on it, but no link to the person carrying it. What principle is the government adopting to ensure that identity is proven and impersonation prevented? What steps will the government take to prevent fraud and impersonation, and to ensure that bank cards are secure enough? Finally, I turn to the donations that may be made to political parties. The bill rightly seeks to prevent foreign money from influencing the system.

But what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. British activists and British NGOs have a long history of trying to influence, not through money, but by lobbying American elections and policies and American strategists and think tanks and corporations with UK subsidiaries have influenced British elections. The position is not wholly consistent because trade union members still have to opt out rather than opt in to funding the Labour Party, there should be individual consent to one's money being taken to fund a party.

Trade union donations are transparent if forced and are 100% donations to one party. Moreover, there is no cap on individual donations. If criminal convictions disqualify a person from donating, each trade union member will need scrutiny. There is a law against promising an honour, e.g. a peerage, in return for political donation, but sadly this law is too narrow and hard to enforce. We should be on the look out, my Lords, for cash for honours. This Bill, in all does little to ensure the integrity of the voting booth.

The knowledge and identity needed to be a voter and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

influential donations. My Lords, I would just like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would just like to start by saying how sad I was to hear from the right Reverend prelate that this was his last contribution in the House. He's retiring at the end of the month, and I'll just say I served with him on the Council for Christians and on the Council for Christians and Jews. He was a chairman. I was a Christian vice chairman and was very thankful for his leadership, his wisdom and kindness. I wish him
20:00
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
well in his retirement. My Lords, I will speak mainly against plans to lower the voting age to 16 on three lower the voting age to 16 on three grounds. Evidence of brain development. The confusion they bring to our policy approach to maturity and their reinforcement of shopper politics, where building the good society matters less than giving ever more stuff to voters. Young people face an array of Young people face an array of wicked policy problems. Successfully tackling just one of these would make a far more tangible difference to their outcomes.

I am also concerned about registering 14 year olds as attenders, given the extra layers of safeguarding required for those at confidential addresses who have fled domestic abuse or other threats. This will intensify bureaucratic burdens without guaranteeing safety. The more systems in which an address is recorded and the more people who may lawfully access it, the greater the potential for error or unauthorised disclosure. The government considers such data to be sensitive enough to require the special non-disclosure regime, laid out in clauses 7 to 14 of this bill.

But can the Minister explain why they should collect and maintain electoral registration data on children two years before they can vote, putting an additional, younger birth cohort at risk? At Commons committee, the Minister pleaded consistency with current arrangements, where 16 and 17 year olds are on the register. Yet lowering the voting age is profoundly inconsistent with other policy areas. Staff I meet across the youth custody estate are punctiliously referred to 16 and 17 year olds as children precisely because of their relative immaturity.

Practitioners who support 16 and 17 year olds mental health tell me they have so many other life issues. They are trying to come to terms with military recruitment of under eighteens demonstrates they are not fully autonomous adults but require special protection. They need parental permission, are not sent into combat and are still considered to be in secondary education. Lowering the voting age increases the risk that young people, especially young women in some communities, are pressurised, as we've heard elsewhere, to vote as a family bloc during common stages.

Debates about reducing the voting age. One supporter pointed to young carers having already carried onerous familial responsibilities for over a decade. But what has that got to do with it? Their exceptional hardships are thankfully not typical. Neither are the under 18 year old youth mayors, held up as exemplars for giving all 16 and 17 year olds the vote were. The anecdotes are not evidence of cohort wide maturity. Ironically, neuroscience has heightened awareness as never before of how very much more maturing the brain still needs to do.

At 16, world renowned developmental psychologist Professor Laurence Steinberg found the sweet spot for resistance to peer influences is age 18. By this point, the majority have developed the capacity to stand up for what they believe and withstand peer pressure to do otherwise. Other studies show the brain's control system, or executive functions that help young people manage their thoughts, behaviour and decisions in pursuit of a goal grow rapidly from late childhood to mid-teens, only stabilising to adult levels in late adolescence.

18 to 20 years old. Executive functions govern how effectively a person can regulate their emotional reactions, perhaps to a TikTok video, as we've heard, evaluate the effects of different influences and decide independently. Voting at 18 means as many as possible are able, as far as possible, to make independent judgments, hold competing arguments in mind, resist others views, and consider longer term consequences. Lord McIntosh of Eastwood, in his commendable maiden speech, highlighted the higher turnout in Scotland, but many of 16 to 18 year olds are still embedded in family and in school, where peer pressures can be considerable, it where they're amplified, the Commons Minister said the voting age should be lowered simply because young people are our nation's future.

That argument is simply unsustainable. We invest in the first 1001 days of a child's life, because infants are also our nation's future. Lowering the voting age means taking an evidential, indefensible step in terms of child protection, requiring a complex legislative and bureaucratic underpinning, perhaps solely for political advantage. More feel good shopper politics will not solve the problems facing this country, or especially our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

congratulate. My noble friend Lord McIntosh on his amazing speech, even though I was unable to be here for it, which I hope he's forgiven me and does. He hasn't walked out before my He hasn't walked out before my speech starts. I think there's a chance that he might have done. I'm delighted to be able to contribute delighted to be able to contribute to this debate as part of the process, whereby an important
20:06
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
manifesto commitment is transferred into legislation. And what makes this bill so important is that it strengthens and future proofs our democracy at a time when, as in too many countries today, democracy itself is under threat. I called many occasions for the voting age in England to be brought into line with Scotland, but votes at 16 were introduced in 2015 and five years later Wales made the same change. So there was inescapable logic in extending that to cover the entire UK and applying it to elections at all levels.

Votes at 16 is an important democratic development, expanding the electorate and bringing new voices and perspectives into the political process. The comments just now by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller notwithstanding. But the full benefits of lowering the voting age will not be felt if that right is introduced in a vacuum. That's why the all party group in schools, Learning and Assessment, of which I'm a member, undertook an inquiry into how the building blocks can be put in place to ensure young people are prepared for being democratically empowered.

The inquiry was concerned with education that supports young people in preparing to vote, but it went beyond that to examine how schools and colleges can foster the democratic skills and knowledge that underpin using the vote, and support young people to participate in broader democratic societies. Critical, engaged and active citizens. The report was published in July, and as my noble friend Baroness Lister said, it stressed the importance of citizenship education in providing the building blocks for young people to understand and develop an appreciation of democratic engagement.

Among its recommendations was a call for the government to ensure that upcoming changes in response to the curriculum and assessment review create a core curriculum entitlement to citizenship, and that teachers are given the support to enable them to navigate this new aspect of citizenship education with confidence. If implemented effectively, there is a particular strength in young people registering to vote while still in an educational setting, with schools and colleges able to support them through that process, the Association of Colleges says in its briefing for this debate that colleges are keen to explore the scope for integrating college and school enrolment with voter registration, as has already occurred at several universities.

Clause three of the Bill stipulates the entitlement to be registered at 14, signaling, I think an opportunity for schools to embed registration for 14 and 15 year olds and thus enhance initial citizenship and political literacy education. I also want to highlight the very welcome toughening of rules on political donations and campaign financing in part four of the bill, its initial provisions were strengthened in another place by the government, adding recommendations by the Rycroft review into countering foreign influence. The restriction being placed on the amount, which can be given to a political party during a calendar year by an individual who is a non-UK resident, has been set at 100,000, which is appropriate and one that I think the average voter will see as reasonable.

Unlike the outrageous amounts paid to a political party last week, the timing of which was simply to evade this legislation. And as my noble friend Lord Saker said, these are not donations, they're investments. That said, I cannot agree with those who call for retrospective legislation to deal with those payments. Firstly, retrospective law is fundamentally undemocratic and second, such a move would play into the hands of those who claim this bill is specifically aimed at one party in particular. It is not, of course, but that argument could quite easily be used against Labour unless the government treads carefully.

There is also an issue with domestic political campaign donations at Third Reading. In another place, Minister Eshalomi made a commitment on domestic political finance for reform, saying that a new cross government task and finish team will be working at pace to find a solution to the issue of mega donors in UK politics. Can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, if she will expand on the remit of this task and finish team, and whether the government will commit to the introduction of donation cap and reduce national campaign spending limit before the next general election? My Lords, time does not allow me to cover the question of electoral reform, the Electoral Commission and hostility towards candidates.

All of those will need to await the Committee stage, to which I look forward. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords recent of. Time, I wish. To advance. Two proposals that can also be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Two proposals that can also be read across to other bills. First, read across to other bills. First, commencement. As the Delegated Powers Committee notes, the commencement clause. Clause 90 is a commencement clause. Clause 90 is a standard provision. Some provisions take effect on the day the act is passed and others on a day passed and others on a day appointed by regulation by the Secretary of State. Such a distinction is usual and, as the Committee notes, justified, given that, as it says, a franchise change will need considerable
20:11
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
implementation and preparation in advance of the provisions taking effect. The problem is one of uncertainty. The fact that clauses are approved, they become part of the statute does not mean that they will be enacted until they are commenced. They are deemed by the courts to be law in abeyance, or courts to be law in abeyance, or what I've termed termed law, but not law. Given the sheer number of provisions in the bill, not least those that amend existing law, we could end up with a patchwork quilt of provisions commenced and others still in abeyance, creating problems for those who administer election law.

In knowing what law is in effect. At the very least, we need greater clarity. The explanatory notes include a useful table in annex A Adumbrating. How the provisions have territorial application in the UK. Could we not have something similar for commencement provisions or keeling like schedules with color coding, the changes taking immediate effect and those awaiting commencement? More substantively, there's a case for having sunset provisions that concentrates minds. It provides a useful discipline, and let's know those no affected know that they will not.

They will not be. Continuing uncertainty. We have under statute book already a large body of UN commenced legislation. This is not a satisfactory situation. Will the Minister at least give some guidance as to when provisions not given immediate effect are expected to be commenced? I realize you won't commit to sunset provisions, but that is something we may need to consider. Second consolidation. My neighbor friend Lord Hayward, has raised the need for a consolidation measure. Consolidation is highly desirable, but the chances of a government providing the necessary resources, not least time to get such a measure on the statute book, are slim.

Given that there is an alternative, a rather modest one, but at least an achievable one, and that is making provision on the face of the bill for post-legislative scrutiny. Such a provision qualifies under the criteria I've previously adumbrated for putting a provision for post-legislative scrutiny on the face of the Bill, namely that it is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested and has not been subject to pre-emptive scrutiny. This bill fulfils those criteria. I think it would be provide some reassurance to all those affected by the Bill, knowing that it will be subject to review.

Once enacted, it will qualify for Post-legislative review in any event 3 to 5 years after enactment. But unfortunately, not all departments are rigorous in carrying out such reviews. Implementation is somewhat variable, given that putting it beyond doubt, that is, that its effects will be reviewed is both desirable and achievable. The government have nothing to lose by making such a provision, and a great deal to gain in determining that the law has achieved what it is intended to achieve.

My Lords, I appreciate I focused on detail, but as we know, the devil is usually in the detail. We need to know what will take effect and when and whether it does what it is intended to do. The government will argue that getting something on the statute book is necessary. My point is that it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not sufficient. My Lords. Back in 1970.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Back in 1970. I was very grateful that I'd been born in March, because 1970 been born in March, because 1970 was the general election for the first time, that 18 year olds and first time, that 18 year olds and 18 years before in March, I had been born. That 18 year olds could been born. That 18 year olds could vote in general elections. And so I had the excitement of not having to wait till I was 23 or 5 years later, or whatever.

I was able to vote on three months after I attained the age of 18. And more than that, I. London Borough of Redbridge, where I lived at the time, had had a welcome to citizenship event in the evening that I'd been to, and I was all revved up to exercise my democratic duty. On the 18th of June, 1970, in the constituency of Wanstead and Woodford. That actually Winston Churchill was once MP of. And so I turned up and I did my secret ballot, and I felt I'd done my citizenship duty.

The rub was, it was a completely wasted vote, because in Wanstead and Woodford it was a two party race, and my vote counted for absolutely nothing whatsoever in the constituency or even nationally. And that was, if you like, a lesson to me, although I thought I only thought about it afterwards when I was fairly incredulous about the results, that that reform was actually needed. And if I think back just now, two years to 2024, of course, we had the most unequal election that we've ever had in this country with a Labour Party in government, with 411 members of Parliament, a majority of 172, on an astounding proportion of the vote of one third.

And not only that, in that election, we had 8 million people that hadn't bothered to register, only we had 40% of the electorate remaining. That didn't even bother to turn out. We had 12000 people rejected at the polling stations because they didn't turn up with their ID. And even of those 60% that voted, at least a quarter of them had to vote tactically rather than for the candidate they actually wanted. That's what's wrong now. I was incredibly impressed by the
20:18
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
statement, the opening address of the Minister, who emphasized very the Minister, who emphasized very early on in her address about the equality of votes, that one vote should not be worth any more than that of a millionaire, or perhaps we should say any other elector. we should say any other elector. And that's clearly the biggest vacant area of this bill, which is vacant area of this bill, which is in. Well, I agree with Lord Fuller, actually, to say that we should have one way in which we vote in this country.

But clearly we disagree in that we need to make sure that people's votes count. At the moment they don't. And this bill is completely blank in that area. So we do need rejuvenation in our democracy. And I just want to make one other small point, which is around that age of voting. I absolutely welcome the 16 year old and 17 year olds voting. I think it's shown, particularly in Scotland, and this has been said before, and also I believe in Wales, that people of that age range vote more than the 18 to 20 or 18 to 24 year olds.

And once they have voted, they continue to vote far more than they than the cohort that weren't able to vote at that age. To me, that rejuvenates democracy. So what I would say to the Minister and to this House is that those electors that are 16 and 17 year olds at our next general election that entered the polling station, please make sure that their votes, unlike mine back in Wanstead and Woodford in 1970, are not wasted. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Excellent. So there's been, I think, over four hours of debate at this stage four hours of debate at this stage with many views. And I'd like to probably speak briefly on what I probably speak briefly on what I think are two larger overriding points to consider. Firstly, that this bill is central to the this bill is central to the legitimacy of our democracy. And as such, I think any rules that we set such, I think any rules that we set under this bill must be fair, unbiased and consistent.

Now, I accept that at that stage, that acronym FUC is probably not the wisest acronym I've ever come up
20:20
Lord Markham Portrait Lord Markham (Conservative)
-
-
with, but I hope we could have all agreement that fairness, unbiased and consistency needs to be the and consistency needs to be the bedrock of everything we we consider here. Otherwise, and I think it was Baroness Paul who said think it was Baroness Paul who said it very much we'd be in danger of seeing an Americanization of our politics. I think anyone who's seen politics. I think anyone who's seen as an example in America the way that their states and their districts have been gerrymandered, or the way that politically aligned district attorneys and judges for one party or another subvert the law in favor of one party or another, would all accept that that is not a path any of us would want to go down.

That is not the kind of democracy I believe any of us want. The second, bigger point or overriding point I'd like to think about in our democracy is we mustn't feed a narrative that this is an establishment stitch up to somehow disadvantage reform. We only need to look at the recent AfD vote in in East Germany or the National Rally in France to see the inherent dangers of being seen as an establishment stitch up. And so I think that we need to use this and make sure that this is not an opportunity for reform, to cast this as somehow an establishment versus the people that will only be to our detriment.

And we need to make sure that this bill doesn't add fuel to that fire. So, so with that in mind and with the fairness and bias and, and consistency principles, I want to talk about some of the inconsistencies, some of the things that I think that this bill sets against us. I think
20:40
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jameson set out very, very clearly, why would we have a clearly, why would we have a proposal which actually seeks to decrease voter security by moving decrease voter security by moving away from voter ID? Unless you were trying to get a certain segment of the population, make it easier for the population, make it easier for them to vote than another to disproportionately maybe favor one disproportionately maybe favor one party around the electoral age. I would say that if we believe that 16 year olds should be allowed to vote, then we must give them the ability to inform themselves properly as well.

And like it or not, social media is the platform which now is a major forum for political views and exchanges. Yet at the same time, we're restricting social media feeds and personalization, which is the main way that 1617 year olds will receive political information. Surely, if we consider 16 year old old enough to choose a government, we must accept that they're old enough to hear the argument of all the media platforms without government restrictions. And the second principle that I will take to committee is that any rules on or.

The second example is that any rules on donations, again, are fair and unbiased. And so anything that we seem to do which specifically rule in or out particular groups for the benefit of one party or another, such as the rules that Lord Johnson was talking about in terms of union funding, I think will again put this bill under the spotlight. And if rules are seen in this, to enable unfettered large union donations to Labour, whilst at the same time restricting large individual donations to reform and even at retrospectively, I'm afraid, again, there's a danger in that that we will feed the reform narrative that this is an anti-establishment stitch up which will do much greater damage to us and democracy.

And I believe and and worry that will actually give much more succour to their to their argument. So I would like to finish up by saying that as we go through committee, the criteria, I will be looking to test each measure on is on fairness and bias and consistency. I will probably try and come up with a better acronym, as I say, but those are the rules I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be applying in committee. Good. Hi Lords, I find myself.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hi Lords, I find myself. In agreement with Lord Markham's introductory two points and I shall introductory two points and I shall try to be brief. My particular interest in this bill is in the interest in this bill is in the changes proposed in our electoral registration system. The stems from registration system. The stems from being. Now, six years ago, a member of a committee which undertook post-legislative scrutiny of the 2013 Electoral Registration Act. This committee drew attention to the obvious fact that large numbers of eligible voters are missing from our electoral registers, and we recommended at that time, improving the accuracy and completeness of the registers should be given government priority.

Six years later, the problem is only much worse, as others have drawn attention. The Electoral Commission research now suggests that a staggering 8 million people across the United Kingdom are not registered to vote like others. I therefore welcome the intent as recommended by our committee six years ago, to pilot new and automated methods of voter registration to remove barriers and make it easier to register. These systems are in widespread use in other countries. The technology exists.

I would ask the Minister about the timetable for moving forward on this. It is an urgent problem, but one where solutions can be found. If the will is there. Let me turn briefly and I'll try to be brief on some of the other provisions in the Bill. My Lords, on political donations, I welcome the government's intention to tighten the rules and to look and look forward to the extensive discussion, as is evident by, by, by this debate on how best to do this and to take account of the Rycroft review.

I should add that I support the intention in the Bill to strengthen the independence and effectiveness of the Electoral Commission. It has a vital role to play, and I would ask the Minister whether she is satisfied that the Commission has the resources to carry out effectively the many tasks now assigned to it on the lowering the voting age. I have doubts, but it is a manifesto commitment and I can see that a case can be made to improve, improve democratic engagement in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this way, those still in education can more readily be Taught about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taught about. Why voting matters and the commitment adopted early in life commitment adopted early in life may stick. But this can only possibly make sense. As many others possibly make sense. As many others have said, if sufficient real resources are made available to schools and to accompany this change. I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises that electoral interference from hostile overseas actors remains a real threat. I was a member of the Intelligence Committee, which produced the Russia report in 2019.

This murky domain is constantly evolving and we are right to take it very seriously. My Lords, as others have said, we live at a time of unprecedented uncertainty when democracy and the rule of law are in retreat around the world. We in this country are daily reminded that public trust in our ancient, hard won and precious democratic, democratic construct is at a low ebb. As others have said, this is a real challenge of our times, ensuring that electoral processes are free, fair and fit for purpose in what is one very necessary way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of addressing this challenge. And I welcome this bill. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I join a number of noble Lords who have raised the issue of deep who have raised the issue of deep fakes in electoral campaigning. I'm pleased to be supported this by my right reverend friend, the Bishop of Leicester, who is unfortunately of Leicester, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. It is regrettable that the Bill does not address the growing challenge to address the growing challenge to our democracy posed by deep fakes. Democracy depends not only upon the integrity of our electoral processes, but upon the integrity of the information environment in which those processes operate.

As the noble Lord Sahota powerfully reminded us. Voters must be able to know when political content has been generated or materially altered by artificial intelligence. Without that assurance, it becomes harder for citizens to distinguish truth from fabrication and easier for bad actors to manipulate democratic debate. Deepfakes pose a distinct challenge to our democracy because they erode the trust on which democratic life depends. They diminish confidence in what voters see and hear, weakening our shared basis for public deliberative discourse.

Ofcom research from 2024 found that 57% of respondents were concerned about the impact of deepfakes during the general election. Almost half reported that they did not know if they had seen one in the previous week, and a quarter reported that they had. The Christian and Jewish scriptures forbid the bearing of false witness against one's neighbor, and we have already seen this played out within our own politics. In 2025, a deepfake falsely depicted George Freeman MP defecting to reform UK circulated widely online, yet reportedly did not meet the threshold for any criminal offence.

Noble members of this House have also been subject to deepfake imagery, calling their character into question in a most disgraceful way. It is imperative that the law prohibits the creation or distribution of content that falsely purports to be a candidate, or to speak on their behalf with the intention of deceiving voters. Whilst, of course, at the same time the law must continue to safeguard satire, parody and legitimate political expression. All AI generated content should therefore carry clear imprints indicating that it is synthetic media.

But we should go further. AI generated political content should be ineligible for monetisation, and platforms should be required to provide regular reports to Ofcom detailing monetised political content and enforcement actions taken against offenders. We should also take seriously the recommendation of the Communication and Digital Committee in 2025 to establish a levy on UK profits from online platforms to provide sustainable funding for media literacy initiatives. My Lords, as I close, I wish to add my thanks to my right Reverend friend, the Bishop of Lichfield's contribution, both today and in his time in this House.

He has a gift for offering, offering understated but remarkably shrewd insights to our deliberations here and as ministered faithfully in this place through his past relationship with staff across the House. He will be greatly missed, and not least for his example, of taking significantly less than the speech limit in this debate. It is fitting that my right Reverend friend has ended his time in the chamber as he began advocating for the importance of strong British democracy. The omission of any consideration of deepfakes in this bill is a missed opportunity to safeguard and strengthen this democracy.

Further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I congratulate my friend Rob Macintosh on his maiden speech? Can Macintosh on his maiden speech? Can I also wish the Bishop very well in his retirement, and I hope he has his retirement, and I hope he has planned it properly, so he's going to have a lot of fun. Can I just return to the message I want to return to the message I want to convey is the issue about under registration, which people have discussed during the course of this discussed during the course of this debate.

Before I do that, I decided that I would get a copy or print a copy of the representation of the People Act, something I've lived with for many years, and it is that thick. There are 536 pages in this bit of legislation, 536 and I can remember in 2001, when I was a young lawyer, going along with to have a meeting about the creation of the Electoral Commission. That's 25 years ago. And one of the issues we discussed was about consolidation.

And it's a matter I've raised with the the noble Lady, my noble friend, the Minister, and it's desperately cruel for. I mean, it's a nonsense that you've been to 25 years and we're still waiting for consolidation, and I don't think I'll live to see it the way we're going. It's quite extraordinary. And it's. What a way of carrying on, frankly. Now, we know that we've had a figure of 8 million people on that on the register. Just think of it this way.

That's every single person in London is not registered. That's the that's the population of London. That's 8 million people who are not on the register. That should be. Now, I wish to address the issue of Anti-registration set out clauses 17 to 24 and schedule two of this bill, which set out the mechanisms for automatic voter registration without an application. That's the. Known in shorthand as Avrt. The bill clause 20 goes on to set out the provisions for a pilot scheme.

I urge the Minister to take speedy action to implement the pilot as a short time as possible, so that the scheme will be ready for the next general election, not the one after. The measures seek to introduce more automated forms of voter registration, and could help enfranchise the millions of private renters and others, underrepresented and underrepresented unrepresented group who face barriers to both registering to vote and remaining registered when they move home. For example, data sets could lead to more than 9 in 10 private renters being registered to vote.

Of the 9.41 million private renters over the age of 16 in England and Wales at the 2021 consensus, 8.5 million lived in households likely to interact with the Council for Council Tax, HMRC for self-assessment tax returns, DVLA for driving licences, DWP for Universal Credit and state pensions or other means tested benefits. Automatic registration would update electoral records when people update their address with trusted public services such as local authorities and council tax, etc. Research has found that AV R could increase private rental registration from 65% to 90%.

By removing these key barriers to registration. The bill currently contains no clear legal duty or timeline for the nationwide rollout of automatic voter registration. Without this, there is a risk that this reform only will be fully affected for a general election in the 2030s rather than the next one. The government should commit to lay out regulations by a specific date and ensure adequate resourcing and equality. Impact monitoring. I repeat, research has found that AV R could increase private rental registration and registration for the others from 65 to 90%.

By removing these key barriers. This would be a dramatic increase. However, the bill currently contains no clear legal duty or timeline for a nationwide rollout of registration without automatic voter registration. Now, this, in my view, to be dealing to deal with this now is very urgent. If we're serious about getting our electoral law into some sort of proper shape. Therefore, my noble friend the Minister, give a clear indication that the AV R system by the pilot will be implemented quickly as set out in the bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech as the director of the Free Speech Union. Lord Wallace, of Saltaire, earlier said he was looking forward to my remarks, seemingly under the to my remarks, seemingly under the impression that the Free Speech Union would be within scope of the Union would be within scope of the new regulations in the Bill. But the Free Speech Union is not a think tank, and nor is it regulated think tank, and nor is it regulated by the Charity Commission.

So unless there is an amendment in the flurry of government amendments that we're anticipating, which somehow brings campaigning membership organizations within scope, but nevertheless exempts trade unions, I think the Free Speech Union is probably safe. And I do say I share the the noble Lord, Lord Rooker's reservations about that particular practice, and I will be voting for his amendment shortly. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace's party received a 2.4 million donation in 2005 from a company called Fifth Avenue Partners, owned by a.

Michael Brown, who was based in Spain at the time and was later convicted of fraud. So while the bill I don't think will affect the donations to the Free Speech Union, it may well affect donations to the Liberal Democrats. I wanted to talk about the impact that lowering the voting age to 16 will have on the regulations that are due to be brought before both houses by the Secretary of State at DCMs later this year. Restricting or preventing children from accessing social media.

I share the same concerns that were articulated by
20:44
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
my noble friend Lord Markham, and I think that if you're going to lower the voting age to 16, it makes a blanket ban on under 16 accessing blanket ban on under 16 accessing social media less sensible. According to Ofcom, among 12 to 15 year olds, individual social media platforms are the most used single news sources. So to impose a blanket ban on under 16, accessing social media in those forthcoming regulations would make it much harder, I think, for children, when they reach the age of 16, they can't access any social media platforms before that point to make informed decisions about who to vote for.

There is an obvious solution to this problem, which is not to restrict access for under 16 seconds to content of democratic importance. News, publisher content and journalistic content. And there are duties in the Online Safety Act requiring social media companies and other providers designated as category one providers to protect all three types of those contents set out in sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Online Safety Act. But these duties haven't yet been activated. In spite of assurances from Ofcom that they would be activated this summer.

It perhaps won't surprise noble Lords to discover that all the take down duties in the Online Safety Act have been activated, but some of the keep up duties, the duties inserted in order to safeguard freedom of expression have not yet been activated, including the duties to protect content of democratic importance, news, publisher content and journalistic content. So my suggestion, or rather my question to the noble Lady, the Minister, is when those duties are activated, could she assure the House that under 16 year olds will not be restricted from accessing the kind of information they'll need if they're going to make informed choices about who to vote for when they reach the new lower voting age.

And there's another related concern, which is what content social media platforms are obliged to age gate because it is supposedly harmful. The content is supposedly harmful to children. These child safety duties in the Online Safety Act kicked in in July 2025, meaning that in order to access supposedly harmful content, you needed to be able to prove you were 18 or over. But some of the content that was age gated included a speech by Katie Lamb in the House of Commons about the grooming gangs, footage of anti-immigration protests outside asylum hotels and, ironically enough, a video made by spiked about online censorship.

So can I ask the noble Lady, the Minister, if she'll make it clear to Ofcom that it should no longer insist social media companies age gate this type of content to those aged 18 and above. If the voting age is going to be lowered to 18. And that's precisely the kind of content covered by sections 18, 17 and 19. So the simplest remedy would be to not restrict children's access to those types of content. But if that's a step too far for the government, can the noble Lady, the Minister, at least assure the House that speech is made in here and the other place won't be restricted for 16 and 17 year olds, as some of them are at present? To quote Robert Lowe in the context of the 1867 Reform Act, we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

educate. Our masters are. Thank you. To thank the noble Lady, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for opening such a long and detailed debate, one which has shown the broad range of expertise shown the broad range of expertise in this House, including that of the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Lichfield, whose presence Bishop of Lichfield, whose presence we will certainly miss. And even if it's not quite a like a one for one like swap, it was a very welcome to like swap, it was a very welcome to hear Lord Mackintosh's maiden speech, and I'm sure he will contribute much to both this bill and other topics in the future.

As someone with a PhD in the Great Reform Act, I'm very tempted by Baroness O'Neill's reference to digress deep into the 19th century, but mindful of the time of the evening, I should perhaps rather concentrate on some of the common themes that we have heard in this debate about the need to strengthen and protect our democracy, so that it is the voice of the ordinary citizen which is dominant, not that of the billionaire or the foreign government, and so that the necessary bureaucracy of elections serves the citizen and helps them exercise their democratic say, rather than obstructs or frustrates them.

And so there are important measures to welcome in this bill, such as the introduction of votes at 16, the progress on automatic voter registration and the strengthened independence for the Electoral Commission. But there are other areas where the bill as it currently stands, falls short, where it leaves too many loopholes or even creates some new ones, and where there will be much, therefore, to test out at committee. And let us hope where the government will be open to persuasion, particularly as the government itself has acknowledged the need to do more.

It tabled a very large number of amendments late in the House of Commons process for this Bill, a subject to which I suspect Lord Rooker may be returning shortly, and the government itself has talked of the need of further amendments to help implement the Ryecroft review, as well as also requesting the Electoral Commission to review spending limits. And with that late commitment given by the Minister in the House of Commons to a new task and finish group looking at Mega-donors. So clearly there is much more still to do, but so often review's proposals good intentions run into that sand of when legislative time will allow.

But we do actually have a vehicle for primary legislation available here and now, so it will be crucial that we make full use of the committee and report stages to polish and to fix and to improve the bill. And there is a certain urgency about that as well, given the dangers and strains, our existing systems face, dangers from abroad, as set out by the new chief of MI6 in her first public speech just before Christmas. Although set out by the director general of MI5 when briefing political parties earlier this year.

There's also the unprecedented concentration of donations to political parties from just a handful of the super rich, a trend accelerated in the last few days but present before then. Two more than 80%. For example, of all the declared donations ever received by Nigel Farage's party have come from just two people. But it goes more wider than that. As, for example, Lord Willis mentioned earlier, Transparency International has shown that the proportion of donations coming from those giving £1 million or more has surged 35 fold in under a decade, and those figures are before even the last week.

We're moving rapidly from a broad based democratic system of financing parties to one of unprecedented sums coming from a tiny number of people. Now, there's no one magic solution to solve. That action on multiple fronts is required, which is why you need this bill, but also an improved version of this bill. As, for example, Lord Wallace, Baroness Royall, Baroness Goudie and others have mentioned, there is the question about the breadth of donations which need capturing by rules covering transparency. But there are also some important loopholes in what the bill proposes.

I've mentioned before the Donald Trump loophole, one could call it the ability for him to split ownership of one of his firms with several members of his family, thus bringing each of them individually underneath the threshold at which the protections in terms of foreign ownership of firms in this bill would kick in. And the threshold is set in. This bill is a much more generous one than the threshold that is set for controlling foreign ownership in our newspaper sector. I'm not clear why our democracy should deserve lower protection than our media landscape.

Oh. And while the measures to add transparency to donations director candidates is very welcome, it also creates a new loophole as the government is not planning aggregation rules. So one large donation could be completely legally split into multiple small donations to candidates and kept secret. These and other examples will have to explore further at Committee stage, along with toughening up the proposed corporate donation limits, where in particular the Electoral Commission is quite rightly warned, there is again scope to split multiple donations amongst multiple people and therefore have them become acceptable because they're not being aggregated.

But there's such closing of loopholes can only get us so far, and that's why we on these benches welcome the many suggestions in the Commons, including from the Labour benches, for progress towards a donor cap so that a small number of very rich people cannot drown out the democratic voices of millions of ordinary citizens. I hope both the principle of protecting our democracy as one in which every individual gets their fair voice, but also perhaps the strong support we've heard from so many in the Labour Party in this debate today, as well as the support from many other parts of, of, of this House, including from Lord Evans and Lord Carter and Baroness Bennett, as well as many on the Labour benches, will encourage the government to have a very open mind on this topic as the Bill progresses.

That, though, is just the money in part. We also need to do much, regular, much better at regulating the money out part, as there are significant gaps in the controls on campaigning expenditure. The government's letter to the Electoral Commission asking it to review certain cap levels is certainly welcome, but we also need to move away from the government being in the driving seat on setting the limits that will apply for its own re-election bid. It should be an independent regulator that is in the driving seat, and we need to recognise that political campaigning is not a part time activity, as we all know very well.

It happens all year round, year after year, yet expense limits are part time. They do not apply all year round, year after year. That leaves a huge gap in our democratic defences, one that needs closing with year round spending controls. And we also need to close the gap that Baroness Pinnock in particular mentioned, because we are now in a world where post national mail shots at local election time, unless it's near to a general election, when the general election limits apply, are in fact a completely uncapped, unlimited form of campaigning that can completely drown out the campaigning that takes place at a local level.

And I wouldn't want to disappoint Lords without mentioning the merits of electoral reform, because first Past the Post is designed for a two party system, yet we now have five and six party systems around the country. And while I commend Lord Fuchs's modesty in feeling that an election system that results in his own election is flawed, it is possible to take a different view of that, and in particular, so often, supporters of first past the post have talked about the stability and the clear mandates that it provides.

I would humbly suggest the evidence of the last few years is perhaps now is the time to look again. And so I very much hope that talk of a national commission to draw up proposals to change our electoral system will turn into action. But turning to an area of much greater cross-party agreement, the need to tackle abuse and intimidation of those taking part in a democratic system, a topic I know the noble Lady the Minister is committed to and has been mentioned as an important issue rightly in this debate by Baroness Lehmann, Baroness Morgan, Baroness Smith and and others.

There are some welcome moves in this Bill on that topic, undoubtedly, but they are pretty limited compared to the number of excellent reports and recommendations, such as from the recent Speakers Conference. Although set out by the Jo Cox Foundation or the Online Safety Network, and there's been very little movement in particular in the online aspects of those problems. So I very much hope that that, again, is an area where we can make progress at Committee stage. And for one final area to mention, there is, of course, that question of electoral consolidation, as mentioned by Lord Hayward, by Lord Norton, by Lord Shamash, and indeed mentioned by many other peers in the other recent debate that the Earl of Kinnoull held in this House, the statute book is an overcomplicated mess.

Views and experts have consistently concluded that for decades. But the situation keeps on getting worse, and that's a problem for returning officers, for the public sector staff working at the front line to try to make our elections function. It's a problem because of the risks of foreign influence that it opens us up to. As the Ryecroft review has set out, and it's bad for the ordinary citizen and for civil society, because far too often to work out how you can use your democratic rights, you need to call on a lawyer.

Now, lawyers are wonderful people in many ways, but the need to call on them should be safely limited. To give just one illustration of the complexity of election law, the explanatory notes to this bill point out that it refers to an immense 20 acts and 19 different Statutory Instruments. Now, to be fair, there is a very welcome piece of, one could call it mini consolidation in the heart of the bill on the rules to do with election forms, and those would certainly help us avoid situations such as the ludicrously long 72 page Statutory Instrument that was required simply to add the veterans card as an acceptable form of ID.

So, having tempted the government to one step of tidying up electoral law in this act, I hope through the Committee stage, we may be able to tempt the government to a little bit more. Why, for example, are the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1695 and the European Parliamentary Elections Act of 1993 not fully repealed? I just give those as two simple examples of how there is tidying up that could be done, that would make things clearer and would clear the road to full consolidation in due course.

But our democracy is a precious thing. We have the warnings from other countries of how quickly democracy can decay if it is not properly nurtured and protected. Much of this bill is welcome, but much of it too needs improvement. To go further, there's an urgency about those improvements because in legislative time, the next general election is already near. What we don't fix in this bill we may well not be able to fix before the next election. So I look forward to the government continuing to engage with other parties and with outside experts, and for peers to work collaboratively across the House.

So this bill ends up being the major milestone to improve our democracy, rather than a missed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity that we all regret. Hey. My Lords. This has been a long and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been a long and thoughtful debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macintosh of Eastwood, not only for Macintosh of Eastwood, not only for being a long standing friend of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but for a very witty and erudite maiden speech. And I wish the right Reverend prelate a long and healthy retirement. Having listened to today's debate, it is hard to escape the conclusion that this legislation is both rushed and ill thought through with a lack of proper consultation.

I do, however, thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for taking the time to meet last week to discuss our concerns. As this Bill progresses, I will work with my noble friends, Baroness O'Neill of Bexley and Lord Jamieson, to provide scrutiny from our frontbench while focusing on part four on campaigns and political expenditure, and part
20:56
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
five on enforcement and the Electoral Commission. Before I turn to the details of the debate and to the details of the debate and the measures we will pursue, I wish to address two matters of principle to address two matters of principle first, changes to the rules by which political parties compete should command the widest possible should command the widest possible confidence. As my noble friend Lord Markham made clear, some of this bill has been consulted upon, and bill has been consulted upon, and some of it is welcome.

But its most consequential political finance provisions were added late in the Commons after the Raycroft review, without the cross-party agreement that should accompany changes capable of altering the competitive balance. Always present in how political parties finance their operations, even a well-intentioned government should proceed by consensus wherever it can. The Rycroft review, published on 25th March this year, recommended an annual cap on donations from British voters living abroad. The government chose a 100 zero zero £0 cap and announced that it would apply to donations made from that day.

On 6th July, the government announced a further minimum residence rule. An overseas elector returning to the United Kingdom would remain subject to the cap until he or she had been resident here for a full calendar year, and that rule would apply retrospectively from 25th March. A modified cap running from the 6th of July was also proposed for people moving here who had not been registered as overseas electors. The government said that these provisions were needed to remove opportunities to circumvent the strengthened regime.

My Lords, the government is the temporary custodian of state power. It should not use that power to frustrate the finances of its political opponents. The best safeguard against a future government during the same to any one of us is a body of electoral law, made wherever possible by agreement. And that, my Lords, brings me to the second principle. Retrospective legislation is an extraordinary measure. It demands the most compelling justification. Under these provisions, donations that are today permissible may suddenly become unlawful.

After their commencement. The government points to a time critical risk of evasion, but this House must test whether that claim justifies such an exceptional cause and whether safeguards adequate safeguards have been provided. Of course, it is important to draw a distinction between retrospective measures, which apply from the point of a government announcement and those which apply before any formal announcement. If the Reform Party has accepted dubious donations in full knowledge of what the Labour government has already laid as amendments in July, that would be unwise of them.

Whatever Ministers present intentions, they must understand that conventions can break down, whether when there is rushed retrospective legislation without proper consultation or cross-party engagement, one side cannot resist the temptation to act unilaterally, the next retaliates and the rules of democratic competition become another instrument of partisan power. My Lords, we should not begin that race to the bottom. As I said, this has been an interesting and considered debate with excellent contributions, not least from a former Prime Minister, my noble friend Baroness May of Maidenhead, who spoke powerfully on crypto assets.

It has demonstrated both the depth of concern and the wisdom of subjecting these late and complex provisions to full scrutiny. In your Lordships House, we have heard important questions on everything from the rationale and consistency of the proposal to give 16 and 17 year olds the vote from my noble friends Lord Brady of Altrincham, Lord Bailey, Lord Brady of Altrincham, sorry, Lord Bailey of Paddington, Lord Young of Ashton and and Lord farmer to the rights of Commonwealth citizens to vote for my noble friend Lord McKinley of Richborough and to the abuse of candidates from the noble Lady, Baroness Morgan of Coates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Lamb, vice, and I will digress momentarily here to say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that he is of Lord Russell of Liverpool, that he is, of course, absolutely right that the great Stanley Baldwin sadly did not lead the Conservative Party to victory in the 1929 election, but he did lead the party to an historic victory two years later, in 1931, with more women than men believed to have chosen the Conservatives at that election.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, the Minister's response to all the concerns raised in this debate, but we should also acknowledge the areas where there is scope for agreement. We support measures that protect candidates, campaigners and elected representatives from abuse, intimidation and violence while preserving robust political debate. We will also engage constructively on the regulation of election advertising, including the challenges posed by AI generated material. And there are other measures such as the consolidation of electoral law, which many noble Lords have mentioned that can command broad support, and that only reinforces the case for proceeding by consensus wherever possible.

My Lords, this is a wide ranging Bill that will require scrutiny amendment across many areas. I draw attention to a few matters that we intend to pursue during its passage. We have concerns about the proposed 100 zero zero £0 annual cap on donations from overseas electors. Overseas electors are British citizens. It is a significant departure to say that a citizen may help to elect the government, but may support a political party only up to a limit that does not apply to a citizen resident here.

We do not believe that difference in treatment has been objectively tested by the government, protected politics from foreign and illicit money, requires parties to know the identity of a donor and the true source of the funds. Existing permissibility and reporting rules are not by themselves an answer to every modern risk, so we support proportionate, risk based due diligence duties. As my noble friend Lord Johnston of Lainston pointed out, we go to a great deal of trouble to ensure we avoid the wrong type of donor, but a residence based cap is a potentially blunt proxy.

The Electoral Commission has itself warned that the new overseas donation rules are complex. We will test their proportionality, workability and transitional effects in committee. There is, however, one related area where we for now support a clear prohibition and that is donations made in cryptocurrency. And my noble friend, the noble Baroness, Baroness Morgan of Coates, made a compelling case for a moratorium rather than an outright ban. But if we cannot know with confidence whether money funding a donation has originated, we cannot know whether it ultimately came from a permissible source.

And that is, in our view, a fundamentally different issue from restricting a lawful donation from an identifiable British citizen simply because that citizen lives overseas, where the origin of the funds cannot be reliably ascertained. Protecting the integrity of our political system must come first. We also oppose the bill's proposal to restrict a company's political donations by reference to its post-tax profits over the relevant five year period. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley spoke eloquently on this issue.

There are many legitimate reasons why a company may record little or no profit. A start up may take years to become profitable, while an established business may reinvest its earnings in growth. Neither circumstance is inherently suspicious. Company directors must act within their legal duties and political donations or expenditure exceeding 500 £0 in aggregate over 12 months generally require prior shareholder authorisation. The government can target shell companies foreign control and pass through funding directly, without excluding genuine British businesses, merely because of their accounting position.

The interaction between the Bill and the Electoral Commission's revised sponsorship guidance creates another risk. The guidance was published on 27th August and is due to apply from the 1st of January 2027. It explains that a payment may be sponsorship, even when made on commercial terms. If it helps a party to meet the costs of an event. Branding on banners, literature, lanyards or videos may therefore fall within the donations regime. The position is more nuanced than the present draft suggests.

The conference stands survived within the commission's maximum rates, and genuine services for an external fringe event bought at market value may remain commercial transactions, but parties and businesses need a clear and predictable boundary. When the bill's new corporate profit and control tests are layered on top, ordinary exhibitors may become impermissible or may simply withdraw rather than risk being treated as political donors. Party conferences are important forums in public life, and businesses commonly engage with more than one party.

We will seek a clear statutory protection for genuine commercial transactions while ensuring that disguised donations remain fully regulated. A related problem concerns party linked property companies. Political parties have long been associated with social and political clubs, whose land or buildings may sit in a legally separate company if an asset rich but Non-trading company winds up and transfers property to the connected party. The new profit test could prevent the party from accepting the transfer, even though it is not the mischief at which the rule is aimed.

If the profit test remains, we will seek a tightly drawn exemption for long standing party connected companies incorporated before a fixed date with suitable anti-avoidance safeguards. The transitional treatment of certain exempt trusts under the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides a model for protecting historic arrangements without opening a route for new shell companies. The Elections Act 2022 created a power for the government, subject to parliamentary approval, to designate a strategy and policy statement to which the Electoral Commission must have regard.

The current statement expressly preserves the Commission's operational independence. Clause 78 would repeal the power and the associated duties. We oppose the repeal because the statement puts proper weight on practical protections against electoral fraud and interference. And despite the note and the 2015 Tower Hamlets election showed why vigilance matters. And despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and as my noble friend Lord Agnew Lister highlighted more recently, Democracy Volunteers reported possible family voting across 15 of the 22 polling stations it observed at the Gorton and Denton byelection, and there is evidence it occurred in Birmingham in May 2026.

Clear national guidance, training and reporting are essential. Repealing the statement without demonstrating how those safeguards will be maintained, risks sending the wrong signal. And finally, and my noble friend Lord Jameson raised this devolved franchise. Rules in Wales and Scotland allow qualifying nationals. Foreign nationals who are lawfully resident, including some people with limited leave to remain to register for devolved and local elections. Once registered, they are permissible donors under the current United Kingdom political finance rules, and no general cap applies to individual donations.

The Roycroft review said that it had not been provided with evidence that this route had been used to channel foreign money, and I make no allegation that it has, but it identified a potential vulnerability requiring monitoring. If the government's case is that the political finance rules must be coherent against foreign influence, it should explain why it is retrospectively capping British overseas electors while leaving this route unaddressed. My Lords, electoral law belongs to the whole country. It is not the private preserve of the government of the day.

Ministers. Ministers should legislate as though every power and precedent they create May 1st day be used against them. We will support measures that genuinely protect the ballot, but we will resist provisions that weaken confidence that the rules are being made in a non-partisan manner. The government should think again before the temporary possession of power becomes a permanent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invitation to partisan retaliation. My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a very thoughtful, a very wide ranging and a characteristically well informed characteristically well informed debate. I've particularly enjoyed some of the history lessons we've heard about, although I would say heard about, although I would say to Baroness O'Neill, many of the dates she gave, of course, were before the Labour Party even came
21:09
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Labour)
-
-
before the Labour Party even came into existence. So well done for winning those elections. Now, the breadth of experience brought to bear by this House, particularly on electoral matters, is one of its great strengths, I think, and I welcome the careful scrutiny that noble Lords have given to the principles and purposes of this Bill, and I, too, would like to echo the thanks that have been given to many organisations who provided briefings to all of us, and I would particularly like to thank Philip Rycroft for all the work he did on his report, which I think was an excellent report.

At its heart, the representation of the people Bill is about strengthening confidence in our democracy, ensuring that our electoral system is secure, accessible and fit for the future and that those who administer and participate in elections can do so safely, and that every eligible citizen is able to take part freely and with confidence. Now, my noble friend Baroness Paul spoke powerfully in saying that challenges to our to our democracy do not come from voters turning up to vote at our local polling stations.

We know that, but they do come from elsewhere, and we must all put our minds to how we tackle those challenges. It was interesting to me that we have heard both that the bill is too big, but then from many noble Lords around the House, it doesn't include the things that they wanted in it. We've also heard it's being rushed through. That's an opinion. But is it in time to address what is an imminent crisis in some of the areas we're looking at, so we can only do our best to get things through as quickly as we can.

We can only do our best to create a bill that is practical and manageable, but tackles the main issues. I will seek to respond to the main points raised in the debate and where I am not able to cover every contribution in detail. I will, of course, write to noble Lords, but it's been a long debate, so I'm pretty sure I won't get to everything. Of course. Can I start by thanking the right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Lichfield, for his contributions to our house and wish him well in his retirement? It was a great honour that he chose this debate for his valedictory, and I'm very grateful for everything he's done during his time in our house.

I'd also like to thank my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Eastwood for his maiden speech, which my noble friend Lord Foulkes described as powerful, elegant and witty. I totally agree with those sentiments. I'm very grateful for that maiden speech. I know he's from the Isle of Skye. I've only been there once, but it was one of the most beautiful places I've ever been to, so I'm envious for that. And I also would echo his thoughts while we're talking about the political world, as we do in this bill, all of us.

Oh, our thanks to our families who put up with all the vagaries of living with our political careers. So I would like to thank him for that. I wish him well in his career in your Lordships House. So I wanted to start talking, first of all, about some of the points that have been made about the engagement on the bill, because I do think this is really crucial. The measures in the bill have been developed through close engagement with key partners from across the electoral community, the devolved governments with younger people, civil society organisations, academics, think tanks, the parliamentary parties panel, the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority, chief executives, colleagues from across government and so on.

And to deliver these changes, we will continue to work closely with partners in local and devolved government, with political parties, with the electoral sector, with education and civil society, and with citizens themselves, because we need to make sure that impacts are thoroughly considered and changes are successfully implemented. And I would absolutely dispute the accusations of lack of consultation. I have been provided with a long list of meetings and engagement, which I'm happy to provide to the noble Baroness Finn and the noble Baroness O'Neill.

And I did check that Philip Rycroft did consult with the Conservative Party during the course of his report. There's been a great deal of talk, not surprisingly, in the current circumstances, about donation caps, and I, my noble friend, Lord wills, Lord Faulks, he will know that my style is both to listen and to act on members concerns. This bill will be no exception to that. Lord Evans of Weardale, Lord Rennard, Baroness Hodge, Lord Carter, who wanted to insert a wide enabling power in the bill.

Baroness Bennett and Lord Watson. We must put. As I said in my introductory speech, politics back under public control, there are shared concerns about the rise of big money in politics and its ability to dominate public power. This bill is not the totality of our ambition for electoral reform. Work will continue as a first step, the first Secretary of State and the Mhclg Secretary of State have written to the Electoral Commission to review spending limits, which we believe are too high, and we are establishing that cross-government task force task and finish team to consider threats to UK democracy, including political funding, illegitimate influence and broader threats to political equality.

I've heard all the points that have been raised in the chamber this afternoon, this evening, and I will take those back for consideration. A number of noble peers have spoken in relation to the cap about why it should be retrospective. Well, my Lords, we will not allow bad actors to funnel money into our elections in advance of a change in the law. There is clear time, critical risk of evasion of these new rules that would undermine their purpose if it were brought in at a later date.

Donations made by overseas electors. And I think this is the information Baroness O'Neill was looking for. That breach. The new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an overseas elector as a participant that breached new requirements will have to be repaid. Donations made by individuals who return to the UK but who were not overseas electors from the 6th of July 2026 that breached the new requirements will have to be returned. Regulated transactions involving an individual who has returned to the UK as a participant that breached new requirements will have to be repaid.

We are removing the incentive for those who want to circumvent protections that we deem necessary, and this is not about any one or other particular donation. These provisions were in consideration before we got into this weekend. The noble Lord Wallace, the noble Lord Evans, Baroness Hodge, Lord Renard and Lord Carter all raised issues around party spending limits, and the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State are have asked the Electoral Commission to undertake a review on lowering registered political party, third party campaigner and candidate limits to ensure the entire electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose.

And in terms of timing for that, the Commission have been asked to provide recommendations no later than July 2027. Completely. Understandably, we've had a number of contributions around crypto assets this afternoon, and the noble Baroness Morgan. I will write to answer her specific questions. I'm going to make some general comments, but I will write an answer her specific questions. The noble, lawful and the noble. Baroness Finn asked very particular questions on this. With this ban, we. We do need to take decisive action to defend the legitimacy and integrity of the democratic system from foreign interference.

We do not want to undermine the ban. And so only applying that after Royal Assent of the Bill would risk bad faith actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the passage of legislation and undermining public trust in our democracy. So, as set out by the former Secretary of State on the 25th of March, any donations made to political parties in crypto assets will not be permitted. Under the new requirements, recipients will have a period of 30 days following coming into force of the provisions in the Bill to return or forfeit crypto asset donations accepted on or after the 25th of March 2026, after which enforcement action can be taken and failure to comply will risk criminal liability.

We've had a number of comments around think tanks, and I think this has been a really important issue, both debated here today and in the discussions on this bill outside of here today, we've heard contributions from Lord Wallace, from Baroness Royall, Baroness Hodge, Baroness Goudie, Lord wills, Lord Braden, Lord Evans of Sealand. Of course, electoral law already covers think tanks that donate or spend during regulated election periods. Our reforms will ensure that only those with a genuine UK connection can contribute to our democracy, for instance, requiring recipients to undertake know your donor due diligence to guard against illegitimate foreign funding.

The Ryecroft review identified broader risks of foreign financial influence across the political system, including the potential for existing arrangements to be exploited rather than risk specific to any one type of organisation. So our reforms are designed to address those system wide vulnerabilities. But I will continuing to think about the issues around think tanks. We had many points about the consolidation of electoral law, and I do understand, particularly after listening, not in the chamber, but to my noble friend Lord Shamash, setting out to me how broad the spectrum of electoral law is.

We also had comments today from Lord Evans, from Baroness Rob, from Lord Jamieson, Lord Fuller, Lord Norton, Lord Shamash and Lord pack. We understand those calls for consolidation of electoral law. Of course, major reform would take very careful consideration and an extensive amount of time. The government's immediate priority is the implementation of our manifesto commitment. So a full scale consolidation simplification would need an in-depth review and modernisation alongside consolidation. And to achieve this will be the job of more than one Parliament.

The government has got an ambitious agenda to improve our elections, including giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote and strengthening the rules around donations. We are focused on delivering that agenda via this bill. However, we are cognisant of the challenges facing election teams. As the noble Lord pack says, we're taking a tiny step towards consolidation with reforms issue, and we continue to look at areas which can help to modernise and improve the electoral process and delivery. We had many, many comments and rightly so today on the on young people voting at 16 and 17.

Some of those were formed as questions, some as comments. A lot of support for this around the chamber, although I appreciate it's not universal support. So I would say Lord Patten asked us to look at the Australian preparation for elections. I'm very happy to look wherever we can for information about that. Lord Brady, I'm not sure if he meant to say that voting can damage our health. I don't know if that's a new Tory strap line, but I don't think maybe we'll be picking that one up.

Lord Mackintosh spoke about votes at 16, improving voter turnout in Scotland, and Baroness Leman spoke about voting at 16 and 17. Baroness foster, Lord Markham, Baroness O'Neill all spoke on this issue and many other peers did. The important question here is not what else can or can't you do at 16? But the important thing is, is 16 the right age to be able to vote? And our government is clear that the answer to that question is yes. 16 is the right age to be able to exercise your democratic right.

Extending the vote will allow 16 and 17 year olds to have a say in the government that shapes their future and sets them up for lifelong engagement in democracy. They have views at 16 and 17 which deserve to be represented. As my 16 year old grandson is always telling me, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations. As we've heard from the experiences in Scotland, engaging voters at a younger age builds those foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.

I would just say to the noble Lord farmer, we don't give people the vote based on their intellectual or cognitive abilities. He was trying to press me on scientific evidence that 16 and 17 year olds should not be able to vote, but that applies to them, as it does to all of our voters. In a very important question was asked by many noble Lords about what steps are being taken to support young people's voter education, and I think this goes right to the heart of that previous question.

Lord Wallace, Baroness Royall, Lord Bailey, Baroness Prashar, Baroness Thornhill, both Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Lister and my noble friend Lord Watson referred to the Appgs work on citizenship education, which I commend. And Baroness Deutsch asked about this question as well. We want to break down barriers and drive participation. We know education and engagement are a crucial part of implementing this policy. It's vital young people understand and value democratic processes and feel it's relevant to them. So we want to ensure that democracy education reinforces the importance and value of participating and inspires greater democratic engagement.

So we want that to start at 16 and continue into adulthood. So we're working with the Electoral Commission, devolved governments and civil society to consider what additional measures we can take to support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical voter and civic education. And our colleagues in the Department of Education are looking at this in terms of curriculum as well. Some very important questions about addressing online abuse, particularly targeted at female politicians and candidates. But I think online abuse is something we all need to address as a matter of urgency.

Baroness Royall, Baroness Goudie, Lord Johnson and Lord Johnson mentioned particularly Ann Widdecombe. And I think we've had a number of these of these attacks on elected politicians, that they make us focus our mind again. But it's the hundreds of attacks also that go on around the country. It's a top priority. The Online Safety Act placed a legal requirement on all tech platforms to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content, much of which disproportionately affects women and girls. This includes harassment, sexual exploitation, stalking, controlling or coercive behaviour, extreme pornography and intimate image abuse.

We've implemented the new measures in the Online Safety Act and going further still, we've criminalised the creation of non-consensual sexual deepfakes, building on existing offences, criminalising, sharing or threatening to share such content and we have made this offence a priority under the Online Safety Act, so we need to continue our efforts in that regard to make sure that this does not have a place in our political dialogue. There are also some questions around AI generated and mis and disinformation, and illegal AI generated content is already regulated under the Online Safety Act, as I've said, and there are a range of legislative offences that apply to deepfakes and mis and disinformation in this context, including the false communications offence, which makes it illegal to knowingly spread false information with intent to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm.

I'm I've got a number of comments around bank cards and whether they undermine the security of the policy. And our our understanding is that the policy will remain secure. This use of bank cards doesn't undermine it. We are limiting the policy so that only cards from UK regulated issuers can be used. That's because the UK is recognised as having one of the strongest systems in the world for stopping money laundering and terrorist financing, so this safeguard will ensure a high level of security.

We're also limiting the policy to cards that have a visible expiration date and require this date as not elapsed, as bank cards are a non-photographic form of ID, it makes sense that they need to be in date to maintain security and integrity. And while bank cards don't bear photographs, we believe this is a sufficient and appropriate level of security, and this change will ensure more legitimate electors are able to meet the voter ID requirements and will not be denied their right to vote.

I think the last thing I'm going to have time to cover is on the National Commission on Electoral Reform, which a number of noble peers have asked about, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Understand the push for that. The government's priority is a politics that works for all people. The Prime Minister has been very The Prime Minister has been very clear on his commitment to bring about a new voting system, and he welcomes a national debate about this. But this bill is not the this. But this bill is not the place to legislate for that debate. We have to get these measures over the line for our 16 and 17 year the line for our 16 and 17 year olds to vote at the next election, and to curb foreign influence in our democracy.

Our Prime Minister our democracy. Our Prime Minister is open to different ways of having a debate about how we can better include everyone's vote and voice, and we will set out a path on that in due course, and I look forward to having those discussions in due course. My Lords, I will. As I've said, I didn't think I'd get to respond to all of the points that were made. I didn't. I will respond to noble Lords in writing where I haven't got to them.

This is. This bill is a significant and necessary step in renewing the foundations of our democracy. Of course, the government recognises that these are matters on which this House will rightly wish to probe in detail. We will continue to engage constructively as the Bill progresses, and I look forward to the further scrutiny and debate that will follow in committee. My my noble friend Lord Evans of Sealand mentioned our Prime Minister's wish for a national conversation about democracy. As I said, I welcome that.

I look forward to it. But the principle is clear our democracy works best when it's trusted, when it's secure, and when it is open to all those entitled to take part. That's what this bill seeks to achieve, and it is in that spirit that I commend this bill to the House. I beg to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this. The question is that this bill be. Now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that the motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. Amendment Lord Rooker. The Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lords. I spoke for less than a minute on Second Reading, and therefore I didn't have an opportunity to congratulate my noble friend, Lord congratulate my noble friend, Lord McIntosh, of Eastwood. And he's very, very powerful. Maiden speech. My purpose in this motion is exactly the same as the one on the Public Accountability Bill, and that's to strengthen the role of the elected members of the Commons. I just want to make a couple of general points and then come to
21:29
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
this bill in the Commons. The second readings are all effectively second readings are all effectively guillotined. It called the programme motion and it affects all the bills. The effect is the the bills. The effect is the government always wants to boast about the numbers of bills, which is done at the expense of scrutiny is done at the expense of scrutiny of bills. So the bills arrive in your Lordships House as a result of your Lordships House as a result of inadequate scrutiny.

We end up sending more amendments back to the Commons than would otherwise be the case. Then in the Commons, the in the Commons, the government. It's only one government. In both houses. The government blame the extra work for elected members in the Commons on the upper House abusing its position, leading to calls for reform. Even when we return amendments to the elected members, they are limited in the time they can use due to the original programme motion. My view is that elected members need more time for scrutiny.

The government has to return some of the power to Parliament. It has taken away with the programme motions designed to fit in more bills rather than better bills, and asking for a list from the government of what it's not allowed to be scrutinised, puts the book back where it belongs now on this bill, my Lords. On the 2nd of September, the Commons dealt with the report and Third Reading that five hours during which there was debate and divisions on which I do not comment.

Then the programme motion from March the 2nd took over, and the government's. The government's 15 new clauses and six schedules, occupying 72 columns of Commons. Hansard were approved on the nod. No debate, no speech, no vote. One of those new schedules in the Commons. It was called schedule eight. It's now turned up in this bill as schedule 12 is 19 pages of the bill. Now, with a revising chamber. We need to know what we're revising because in this case, you can't identify from the bill any of the changes passed on the nod, the dispersed throughout the bill, the numbers changed.

They could, for example, be italicized. We wouldn't need a list. Then the bill would show us these were the bits on the programme. Motion passed on the nod, but the only way at the moment is via the Commons Hansard, which of course is a bit unsatisfactory at the present time, and I think we should have an official list from the government of what the Commons didn't have time to scrutinise. That's what it's all about, because we can't identify in the Bill that part that we are not revising, but we're actually scrutinising for the first time because nobody else has scrutinised it.

Now we've been taken for Charlie's, as it were, because we get the blame later on. And I venture to say, my Lords, there'll be a lot of amendments in this bill, a lot of amendments. And in a few months time, when the row start about what's being sent down there, I want the audit trail complete. And in a way, that's why I've raised this motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that this motion be agreed to, since when an amendment has been moved at when an amendment has been moved at the end to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to. Can I just say. I strongly support what Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly support what Lord Rooker has just said? He's identified a problem. It's not new. It's evolved over a period of decades. But it is a real problem that this chamber is facing now. And I strongly support the detail which he is, which Lord Rooker has outlined, which we face and which the Commons has not addressed itself to.
21:34
21:34
21:35
21:36
14:00
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Leveson of Liverpool and Lord McTague
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page