Representation of the People Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, as my noble friend Lord Wigley has covered some of the most important points. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is interesting that there is the exception in these amendments for the City of London but not for whole nations, so it would be interesting to hear more about that in closing.

The only points I wanted to raise was that the Welsh Parliament, Senedd Cymru, is the people of Wales’s Parliament. Therefore, it is only right that the people of Wales decide how it is run. The same goes for Scotland and the Scottish Parliament. These amendments are, essentially, an unnecessary power grab. Why is it the business of this Parliament how the people of Wales and Scotland decide to be represented in their Parliaments there?

On the point in relation to different electoral arrangements and whether people understand those when you vote at 16, I want to share the story that during a lot of engagements with younger people across Wales, a lot of them raise how they understand the different systems, particularly because of what happened during the Covid pandemic. During that pandemic, Wales and England made different decisions on whether schools were open. They also made different healthcare arrangements. The younger people of today have experience and knowledge of that; they understand the systems and what the different Parliaments make decisions on. It is really important to share that and rebut what was said in earlier speeches; because of those experiences, they know those differences of opinions.

We take a different approach on matters, and that is devolution. I end by saying that this is a matter, in my opinion, for the Welsh Parliament and the Scottish Parliament only.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Jackson. I do so because it is important for this country and its constitutional arrangements that we have these changes. This country has always been a unitary power. It is one of the oldest unitary powers; it is also one of the most stable political democracies. That second characteristic matters as much as the first, and its nature, both being old and unitary and being a stable democracy, means they are linked to each other.

Constitutional change is for the whole country. First, it has historically involved the whole country through broadsheets and with long debates and public discussion. For all these Parliament has been, as Churchill once said, the forum for the nation. It was Samuel Johnson, I think, who made Parliament popular for the public by being the first person to report systematically its proceedings—he was long the precursor of Hansard.

Secondly, it is important to avoid sectional politics in constitutional decisions. One cannot help escaping the feeling that in some decisions taken by other assemblies in Wales and Scotland, there is the hint of political considerations in determining these grave constitutional matters. It is much harder to break the mould of one party’s popularity and, for that reason, it is not a particularly bad thing that we have constant changes of political parties in this country. It is very good for democracy and stability that the other people have a chance.

The Government will not support these amendments. The Government are committed to maintaining and defending the devolution settlements. Allowing the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments to set the electoral franchise for their own elections, as well as for local offices, is a fundamental part of those settlements. The Government see no clear benefit to changing that position, one that has held for many years. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—who I think answered his own question—that there was indeed a mandate for the devolution settlements through the 1997 general election.