Representation of the People Bill

Lord Pack Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I am very much opposed to a system other than first past the post, but it seems peculiar that we have a devolved system and then we are to say that people in the devolved Administrations cannot decide how they choose their Government. I find that a very odd argument. The fact of the matter is that Wales has an odd system of election. It is not one that I would campaign for, but the Welsh have decided that it is the one they want. I find it out of all proportion with the world we live in today. We are a country made up of a number of countries. Yes, of course, we are the United Kingdom, but the Welsh—and I speak as someone who had a Welsh-speaking father—are different from much of the rest.

However, where one party tends dominate election after election, there cannot be anything but the suspicion, at least, that that party will use its dominant power—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in another context—to fiddle the constitution.

Finally, this is important not just for transparency but consistency. The Government, in their Explanatory Notes, refer to the importance of consistency as one of the reasons for this Bill. If we are to be consistent, we should ensure that the franchise is consistent across the country.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

My Lords, this group provides us with a choice between devolution or top-down centralised uniformity. I acknowledge that the noble Lords, Lord Frost and Lord Jackson, are perhaps surprising voices for enforcing centralised uniformity on a range of nations, regardless of the views of those nations, but that is in effect what these amendments would do. However, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, pointed out, this is not quite the case, because a special privileged position is given to the City of London. It is a position that may be justified for some of the reasons we heard earlier, but which these amendments would not grant to the people of Wales or Scotland. As a Londoner for nearly all my life, and who is very proud to often argue the corner for London, I think giving the City of London a special place above and beyond Scotland and Wales might be going just a bit too far.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

On the important issue of the City of London, if you give it its name as the City of London Corporation, and you treat it as essentially a trading estate which happens to have 14,000 people living on it, then maybe the electoral arrangements it adopts are indeed a matter for that trading estate rather than for the rest of us.

[Lord Pack (LD)]

It is an interesting point but, as the noble Lord said, there are several assumptions leading up to its inclusion, all of which I would share.

We have also heard the argument that the ability of Scotland and Wales to make their own choices might result in pressure on us here in Westminster. In a way, that is quite an advantage. After all, if Scotland or Wales decide to do something and it works, that is a good bit of pressure that we should welcome. Of course, if it fails, it achieves the exact opposite. Seeing how variation plays out is not a bad thing to be scared of.

Indeed, there is much more variation than perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is aware of. He made reference to the United States. I point out that the voting system for Congress varies between states, and two of them use preferential voting. I very much hope that all sides of this Committee will pay more attention and maybe learn from the States in that respect.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

The noble Lord pre-empts my response to my noble friend. For clarity, I checked, and he is quite right. I stand partially corrected, in that the states of Maine and Alaska have ranked choice elections, one for governor and senator and the other, I think, just for senator. I am touched that he is interested in those issues. My general point is that the vast bulk of elections are based on the same kind of electoral system across the United States.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pack (LD)]

Indeed, but variation is present. There are many other examples of variation. The argument was made that there are some administrative burdens in allowing variation. I would simply observe that with devolution we have the ability to vary things such as speed limits and tax rates. If one is going to take seriously the argument that there are problems with variation, one should be up front and say, “That is an argument against devolution full stop”. It is not possible with powerful logic and consistency to argue that variation for the franchise is somehow a problem while variation for, say, tax rates, is acceptable. That goes to the argument about constitutional logic. The constitutional logic argument works exactly the other way: the very constitutional logic of devolution is that different people end up being able to make different decisions. That is the inescapable logic of devolution.

Finally, on the point about gerrymandering, some slightly more politic phrases were used earlier. I always think it very unwise to attempt to set rules for elections on the basis of partisan self-interest—partly, obviously, for the reason of principle, but also because it so often backfires. Returning to the United States, we may see some Republicans rueing what they thought was very clever drawing of boundaries when the election results come in tomorrow. Of course, all of us will have to be here bright and early on Wednesday morning, so we will not be able to stay up quite as late as we may have wished to watch those results coming in.

Fundamentally, this is a question about devolution: about whether we believe that it is right for different places which have powers devolved to them to make different decisions. I join with those who have argued in this debate that, yes, that variation is right. Therefore, on this occasion, I very much hope we will not be hearing warm words from the Minister in due course, but that she too will defend the rights of different parts of the United Kingdom to make their own decisions under devolved settlements.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Frost for his probing amendments, including those supported by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This has been a much quicker debate, but worthy no less, and I thank all those who have contributed to it.

These amendments seek to standardise voting eligibility across the UK, with the exception of the City of London ward elections, as has already been said. The SNP in Scotland and Labour in Wales have already given the right to vote in devolved and local elections to all foreign residents. Those decisions were not minor technical differences between the UK’s constituent parts, and they are deserving of debate at national level.

This issue also relates to automatic voter registration. While Wales has conducted four automatic registration pilots, it did not have to verify the nationality of an elector as a result of the changes at a devolved level. I am sure we will debate the security of automatic voter registration in greater detail in due course.

In addition, we are concerned about the consequences for UK political donation rules as a result of the changes made by the two devolved Administrations giving voting rights to every foreign resident. This has given foreign citizens the right to make unlimited donations to politicians and political parties across the UK, opening the door to foreign finance as well as direct electoral influence. For example, a foreign student resident in a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any political entity.

At Second Reading, the Minister, said that this Bill will

“reduce the risk of foreign money entering our politics … The threat to our democracy from foreign influence and hidden sources of political funding is an ever-growing danger—one that we cannot afford to delay tackling”.—[Official Report, 14/9/26; col. 971-72.]

Will the Minister therefore commit to closing this loophole without delay? If not, why is there an inconsistency when it comes to foreign interference?

This debate has touched on fundamental questions. The balance of devolution matters, but so does citizenship. It is not meaningless, as so many of those residents who have proudly chosen to become citizens can attest. I look forward to the Minister’s response.