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.