Representation of the People Bill

Lord Patten Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, I do not intend to enter into the rather heated waters of what, if anything, should be done about the allegedly huge sums of money put into our electoral process by individual donors or, indeed, by trade unions. I wish, rather, to concentrate on the sometimes tiny numbers who go to vote, which is another very big issue that demands our attention in the context of the Bill. I have four points to make.

First, I fully support my noble friend Lady O’Neill of Bexley in what she said in opening the debate from this side of the House. It would be otiose to repeat her words, but I greatly enjoyed her sweep of history, back to the Great Reform Act, proving that on every single occasion when anyone in the Palace of Westminster has changed the voting system, the Conservatives always come out best. I hope that this will always continue, and I suspect it will do this time round.

Secondly, I deeply regret the often very small numbers of those already in the UK aged 18 who bother to vote, and I equally regret that the Bill does little to improve the picture—unless the Minister can draw something to my attention to prove that is 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—a right still denied in many parts of the globe. It seems to me so peculiar that turnout in the 2024 general election was below even that of 2019: just 35% of the vote. Yet people who cannot be bothered to vote can always manage to moan a lot about their lot, and that seems to continue.

Thirdly, I note that the excellent, independent and always accurate Electoral Commission reports a feeling—it is its job to do this—that everyone entitled should be automatically registered to vote. That demands deep interrogation, and it may well be something we need to see. On the other hand, I am equally strongly against compulsory voting, believing in freedom of choice in our free society every time.

Fourthly, it is interesting to see that compulsion is already used in voting in free societies like Australia. The voting age there is already firmly 18. It has been for a while, and you have to vote. That is prefaced by two years from age 16 which help to develop awareness and interest in the political things to come—a sort of democratic apprenticeship. I am very much in favour of looking at what the Australians have done, and done well. Their solution feels about right, as young people move at about 18 into earning and taxpaying in this mobile frontier between age limits that the Labour Party has introduced. I am not in favour of starting registration here at 14. It seems rather pointless. There is no evidence adduced to suggest that this will persuade younger people to vote further on down the electoral line. From all the UK turnout facts I have described, it seems highly unlikely.

I favour a close look at the Australian model in many ways, although not perhaps in its boisterous parliamentary language, its hard-hitting personal attacks and its enjoyable bouts of fisticuffs. I do not think we want to see this in our Chamber or in the other place, where demure behaviour is generally favoured. Australia is a highly valued strategic and economic partner in the Anglosphere. It strongly supports the royal role in the Commonwealth, and I hope Australian representatives will get the chance to have discussions with our representatives in the margins of the forthcoming Heads of Government meeting in Antigua.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Patten Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patten (Con)]

My Lords, first, I declare my long-standing interest in Persimmon plc, a middle-market mass housebuilder. This position has given me a ringside seat to observe the vicissitudes that have beset house building and planning over decades, with their cycles of ups and downs which no one has ever managed to defeat. Secondly, whatever the Bill before us sets out to do, in no way can it suddenly abolish the cycles in favour of a smooth, ever-upward movement of growth just by virtue of the men and women in Whitehall knowing best. I do not believe that is possible. This unfortunate Bill cannot by some fiat just fix those cyclical ups and downs—which rather depend on the safety of the economy, levels of taxation and availability of capital and of skilled labour—simply by grabbing more power from the centre. Indeed, the record sadly shows that no Conservative or Labour Government since 1945 have ever met their stated aspirations or hopes or pledges to build this or that particular number of homes in any one year or in any one decade.

It is amusing, but sad, to see that 300,000 per annum still is the hot-favourite target. The Prime Minister and his Ministers have since 2024 said much about their target intent. I would like to ask the Minister for a bit more clarity. He has an enviable reputation for being straightforward, saying it as it is and absolutely giving it between the eyes. I hope that he is not going to let me down—I seek not to damage him in any way by what I say in his important role. I want to ask him, therefore, what number of homes he expects to see built per year until August 2029, when his lot will come to the end of their present term. Is the number by then really still to be 1.5 million? I look forward to his answer. If his colleague who will be winding up tonight cannot give me that answer, I will be very happy to have—as drafted by the noble Lord—an answer in writing placed in the Library of the House so we can all see exactly what it is. That is because four years is a decent enough length of time over which to succeed or perhaps to be called out and be shown to have been pledging the unattainable. I do not think the massive shift of planning power away from local communities and councils will be any guarantee of success.

Thirdly, although HMG can recycle or manufacture new pledges—I think we have seen a bit of this in the last year—unfortunately we cannot manufacture new supplies of land. I have said in your Lordships’ House before that it is a scarce resource. All new housing cannot be built on reused brown, grey or green-tinged land, or built in areas once occupied by military bases—they are probably going to be reopened as military bases quite shortly. Much green or green-tinged land, alas, will need to be built on to provide new homes for young people. I accept that sometimes this will be necessary, and it is the only way that young people will get their homes. I doubt it will be easily accepted if it is from distant London SW1 and all to be decided centrally. Local involvement will always be needed to generate acceptability, for planners do not create communities; only people create communities. To make this happen, houses must look good. It is very possible to build well and build beautifully and to a human scale, as the late Sir Roger Scruton said—that very rare bird, a university moral philosopher and urban thinker. We should heed the advice that he gave.