Contribution
My Lords, the Bill is concerned with fair voting and its extension. Why, then, are Peers—us—still not included in a system that is almost universal? The exclusion of Peers from participating in general elections is an outdated democratic anomaly that has no place in a modern society. Sitting Members of the House of Lords are taxpayers, they are subject to the law, and they are as profoundly affected as any other sector of society by the laws made by the House of Commons—which, in the last resort, they cannot defy. Denying them—us—the fundamental democratic right to vote and classing them as persons with “legal incapacity” unnecessarily strips them of their basic civic voice. Granting Peers the right to vote in parliamentary elections would not diminish the primacy of the Commons; rather, it would align our electoral system with universal suffrage principles, ensuring that every adult citizen can participate in choosing the government that shapes their daily life.
Our wise and well-informed heads cannot vote, but 16 year-olds will be enfranchised. The mandate committed the Government to this. This age limit adds to our muddled approach to maturity. Those 16 year-olds cannot yet buy alcohol, gamble, sign a tenancy agreement, get credit or marry. If they are mature enough to vote, then, sooner or later, those other age limits will have to align. As it stands, 16 year-olds will need to be protected from family voting, coercion, undue influence by their peers and family, and impersonation. They are particularly subject to pressure because they probably still are financially dependent on their parents, live at home, remain in education and have little privacy.
Very soon, young people will be barred from accessing Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook and Twitter, so where are they going to get the necessary information that makes their vote meaningful? They do not read newspapers or even books. A survey by Statista in 2025 showed that only 18.7% of teens read something daily. Newspaper consumption is even lower: only 14% of under-16s read a paper. Where are they to get the information and experience they need to cast an intelligent vote? At 15 years and 51 weeks, they will not be allowed to access relevant media, but the next day they can vote, based on who knows what information. Are school teachers equipped to teach about political participation without straying into party politics?
This takes me to the Bill’s provisions on bank card ID. A 16 year-old can apply for a bank card, but they would have to do so quickly if an election was imminent. I cannot see that bank cards will prevent impersonation. A bank card has a name on it, but no link to the person carrying it. What principle are the Government adopting to ensure that identity is proven and impersonation prevented? What steps will the Government take to prevent fraud and impersonation and ensure that bank cards are secure enough?
Finally, I turn to donations that may be made to political parties. The Bill rightly seeks to prevent foreign money influencing the system, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. British activists and NGOs have a long history of trying to influence American elections and policies—not through money but by lobbying; and American strategists, think tanks, and corporations with UK subsidiaries have influenced British elections.
The position is not wholly consistent because trade union members still have to opt out from, rather than opt in to, funding the Labour Party. There should be individual consent to one’s money being taken to fund the party. Trade union donations are transparent, if forced, and are 100% donations to one party. Moreover, there is no cap on individual donations. If criminal convictions disqualify a person from donating, each trade union member will need scrutiny. There is a law against promising an honour, such as a peerage, in return for a political donation, but sadly this law is too narrow and hard to enforce. We should be on the lookout for cash for honours. This Bill, in all, does little on ensuring the integrity of the voting booth, the knowledge and identity needed to be a voter, and influential donations.