Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)

My Lords, it is an understatement to say that this is a constitutionally significant Bill. Particularly at a time when the political landscape is so turbulent, this is where your Lordships’ House proves its worth—with careful, considered scrutiny to improve the Government's legislation as best we can. Indeed, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is driven by the need for this thorough scrutiny, and I thank him. I thank all those who are speaking today; I am sure that a number of very important matters will be raised, and we will be listening to them very closely. The Bill seeks not only to give children the right to vote in all elections but introduces automatic voter registration, reforms political finance law and tackles foreign interference, while potentially leaving the door open for foreign citizens to vote. I also flag that the Bill was drafted with minimal engagement with other political parties. The Electoral Commission has said that “any legislative change on 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 the Rycroft review was completed before proceeding with Second Reading of the Bill in the other place? If the Government wanted to fast-track their manifesto commitments on the voting age, why could they not separate the election measures from the political finance measures, as indeed the last Labour Government did with the Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? This is not how election rules should be reformed. As Sir Winston Churchill said at the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill in 1948: “It has 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 an agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/1948; cols. 859-60.] Some of the provisions are indeed deeply troubling and risk 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 this weekend of crypto donations to Reform UK. It is our current understanding that these donations would be caught by the overseas contributors cap, but I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify how this proposed cap would work. Do the cap’s provisions apply to long-standing domestic electors and not just to overseas electors and overseas electors who return to domestic registration? Can the noble Baroness confirm the requirement for a full calendar year of prior UK residence when making a donation? The legislation commences these provisions retrospectively from March 2026, but the calendar year of UK residence requirement may predate 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 on this matter if she so wishes. As to the Bill’s other provisions, let me be very clear that we will not stand in the way of the Government’s manifesto commitment to lower the voting age. Noble Lords opposite may see themselves as having a monopoly on progress, but I gently remind them that when the Reform Act 1832 was passed—they know the answer—the Conservatives won the general election in 1841. It was the Conservatives who championed the Reform Act 1867, and we once again defied expectations following the Reform Act 1884, when the Liberals 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. However, the Government’s position in this Bill is inconsistent with their policies elsewhere, which raises serious questions. The Government must decide whether they see 16 and 17 year-olds as children, in line with the Children Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. If not, then why not 15 year-olds or younger? What exactly is the Government’s rationale? Will they change other laws as a result? Children currently cannot stand for election, be deployed in the Armed Forces or buy alcohol or cigarettes. The Government have raised the age for buying fireworks, vapes and knives or for using sunbeds to 18 and are proposing to raise the age for obtaining a driving licence from 17. Where do the Government draw the line and why? We are also concerned about automatic voter registration. We believe it is up to individuals to register, to be inspired to register rather than be 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 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 and not residency. No EU member state allows non-national citizens to vote in its national elections. Can the Minister confirm that eligibility to vote in general elections will remain the preserve of British citizens only? What is more, the Bill will water down requirements for photographic identification at polling stations, yet we still require photo ID to drive or for under-25s to buy alcohol. Again, what is the rationale? Where is the consistency? Amid 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 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. The Government have not said whether any assessment has been made of sectarianism in election campaigning. This is counterproductive to integration and brings into question whether this Government are serious about social cohesion. There are, of course, some aims in the Bill which we welcome. We support initiatives to safeguard candidates, campaigners and elected representatives from unacceptable acts of abuse, intimidation and violence while protecting the right to robust debate on strongly felt issues. The previous Government took several actions on this and we are 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 the Bill should be based on consensus and 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 have introduced them. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the points raised and I look forward to hearing the valuable insights of other noble Lords on this hugely significant and wide-ranging Bill.