Contribution
My Lords, my starting point is very simple. The minimum voting age should match the minimum age for standing for an election, and I believe both of those should be 18. Yet, through this Bill, Ministers would be allowing a 16 year-old to elect a Member of Parliament while continuing to prevent that very same young person from becoming one. It is for Ministers to explain to your Lordships’ House why their judgment is sufficient for one purpose but not the other.
My greater concern, however, is whether dependent 16 and 17 year-olds would genuinely exercise a fully independent choice at the ballot box. We know that family voting—or let us be frank and call it what it is: electoral fraud—is becoming increasingly common in this country. A report from Democracy Volunteers recently identified breaches of ballot secrecy in more than one in five polling stations that they observed during the 2024 general election. These findings should concern us all, as they raise serious questions about the privacy and independence of voting, including the risk of one family member directing another’s ballot.
If observers identify breaches inside our polling stations, Ministers should explain how they will protect a dependent teenager completing a postal ballot at home. After all, there is no polling officer at the kitchen table. A young person may face a demand to show their ballot, surrender it or complete it under supervision. Before extending the franchise, Ministers should publish before the House what assessment they have made of this risk and what additional safeguards they are going to implement to prevent the coercion that may inevitably occur. What the Bill fails to ensure is that a parent is not acquiring an additional vote simply because their child becomes eligible, or that a husband does not cast his wife’s vote. Every voting adult should have the confidence of being able to cast their vote in secrecy, and this should be the main concern and priority of the Government.
On voter identification, it is entirely wrong to assume that the possession of a bank card is enough to establish the identity of an individual. This is an area where I intend to move amendments, as it is beyond farcical that, after all the work that local authorities have put into training staff around photographic identification and the issuing of a voter authority certificate, this Bill should now be allowed to undo that work and weaken the integrity of the ballot.
Moving on to the issue of political donations, I welcome tighter controls, but Parliament must test whether they work and how far they actually go in protecting the integrity of our elections. A British company’s address must not legitimise money supplied by a non-permissible donor. Parties must establish the true source of funds, not simply record the name on the transfer. Restrictions must withstand attempts to route money through companies, associations, loans, third-party campaigns and so on. If a party cannot establish that a donation is lawful, then it simply should not be able to accept it.
Deliberate evasion of these rules should and must bring serious consequences, and these standards must apply equally to every party. However, we should be wary of retrospective changes to the law. People should be able to rely on the law as it stands at the time. Reaching back and changing the consequences afterwards is a dangerous precedent and risks serious overreach by the state.
We must not confuse foreign interference with British citizens who happen to live overseas. They are not foreigners and should not be treated as such. If they have the right to vote in our elections, their lawful participation in our democracy by making transparent donations should not automatically be treated with suspicion. For the integrity of our democracy, it is the validation of the source of the donation made that the Government should turn their attention to.
Like others in this Room, I have stood as a candidate in a great number of elections and observed many counts over my lifetime. I do not support measures that risk weakening the very fairness and secrecy upon which public confidence depends. For those reasons, I actually urge noble Lords to reject the Bill.