Paul Holmes
MP for Hamble Valley · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her position.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I often found myself going home in the evening and thinking, “How could I have agreed so much with the Liberal Democrats?”, but I looked myself in the mirror, had a wash and got over it the next morning. Planning decisions shape our towns and villages for generations to come.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the Government argue that the scheme will create greater consistency and allow committees to focus on significant applications, there is a risk that standardisation will come at the expense of local discretion.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s proposed approach risks weakening the democratic safeguards that allow communities to have their voices heard. This policy represents a significant shift in the balance between professional planning officers and elected local representatives.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, she cannot have it both ways; she cannot devolve to local people, while taking away some of the most retail decisions that councils and locally elected people make on behalf of those people—giving with one hand while taking with the other.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under this scheme, that proposal could not be referred by a ward councillor and could not be debated by ward councillors who represent the community. As the Member of Parliament, I could make a written representation but would not be able to go to a planning committee led by councillors to make that decision. That is fundamentally wrong.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,156 held · 2,155 searchable for Paul Holmes. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step. Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Police contact form Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others. Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly. I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces? I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official. Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates. Members are covered by Operation Bridger.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue. Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent. We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times. Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states: “The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.” We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld. I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge. The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024. In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I do not, because everybody knows that elections are coming up. If someone is at the stage where they cannot get the acceptable form of identification shortly before, my view is, quite frankly—tough. There is a system in place that allows people to get the necessary identification to vote. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—I sat next to him for two years at Clarion Housing when he was the director of comms and I was the director of public affairs, and he is a personal friend of mine—I know that, at 20 years old, he would have made sure that he got the right identification to vote. He would have never fallen into that trap. I contend that many people would be as honourable as him and as determined to go out and get the correct identification to cast their vote.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No. I absolutely do not take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as an insult to me. He is absolutely right; as young activists for our respective parties, and from some of our conversations at our desks, we could only be described as “odd”. I am sure that applies to pretty much all members of the Committee, as he insinuated. Again, we have a set election period. People who want to go out and vote will know the expectations of them in the current system. Therefore, the scenario the hon. Member described would be a very minor issue. My line is that, for the integrity and safety of the system, people should know what the system expects of them and there are ways to allow them to cast their vote.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who was even younger than me when he got into politics, and is even younger than me now, as a very young member of this House. He knew when he was expected to go out and vote. He is right that all political parties are able to put out in their literature the expectations of people and what forms of ID are available. The Government’s watering-down is disastrous for democracy and will weaken the integrity of the system.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They emphasised that no one would be disenfranchised, and that such reforms would not have been introduced if it would mean large numbers of voters being unable to participate.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although such products may serve a purpose in enabling access to goods and services, their use as voter identification introduces a significant risk of electoral fraud. We should also reflect on the experience in Northern Ireland, where voter identification has been required for decades: paper ID since 1985 and photographic ID since 2003, when it was rightly introduced by the Labour Government of that time. Those measures have proven effective in tackling fraud and preventing the serious crime of personation, without reducing participation. Ministers at the time were clear that requiring photographic identification would make fraud far more difficult, while ensuring that honest voters were not disadvantaged.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“] I will not take any more interventions because I want to finish my remarks on this clause. As I have outlined, we are concerned about the proposals, particularly on bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph, and the name displayed, often as vague as “Mr J. Smith”, does not provide sufficient assurance of identity or date of birth. That creates a real risk of impersonation, especially in communities with common surnames. Those concerns are heightened by the Government’s indication that pre-paid cards, which do not require credit checks, could also be accepted. Some companies, such as Suits Me, actively market bank cards that can be obtained without formal identification, often targeting individuals who are new to the country.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course I think that everybody who can cast a ballot in this country should be able to, but I am not willing to compromise the integrity, safety and security of the voting system to make it easier for people to vote. Of course I want the turnout to be higher, more people to be able to vote and, when the legislation has passed, 16-year-olds to go out and vote and be able to engage in the system—I still think the voting age should be 18—but that should not be to the detriment of the safety and integrity of the system. The hon. Gentleman may be willing to contend with weakening that to make it easier to vote, but the Opposition, or at least the Conservative party, as the official Opposition, are not. That is why we oppose these measures. [ Interruption.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On each and every one of those cards, my name is written differently: there is “P Holmes”, “Mr P. J. Holmes”, “Mr Paul Holmes”, “Mr Paul John Holmes” and “Mr Paul J. Holmes”. They are all different, and a card would be the only thing that a volunteer at the polling station would have to adjudicate. I put it to the Committee, and I strongly put it to the Minister, as I did in the evidence session, that this is a retrograde, reckless step that will increase identity fraud and voting fraud. Every expert in the evidence session who was asked said that they had concerns about bank cards being used, and that it would water down the system. We strongly contend that that is the case, and we oppose the new clause. We obviously support amendment 30. The official Opposition think this proposal is a bad thing, and we vigorously oppose it.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating new clause 19, but it is absolutely clear that three is too many. He may be willing to accept that there were three cases that were proven—as was the 2022 case in Eastleigh—but I do not think there should be any examples of voter fraud, and I certainly do not think that any responsible Government should make it easier for that to happen. I agree that it will be harder to impersonate somebody than it would be under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but photo ID shows the face and eyes of the person who is going to vote. Allowing the use of a bank card, which can have a different form of the person’s name, and has no date of birth or address, would make it easier to impersonate somebody. I have four bank cards in my wallet—probably because I am in so much debt.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will therefore insist on pressing amendment 28 to a Division. We will also divide the Committee on clauses 20 to 25.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It went on: “Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.” Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised: “For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.” It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood. Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified. There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience. Consider also the issue of responsibility.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no. Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law. At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it. Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true. Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes. Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are. Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process. I understand if the hon.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.” He goes on: “I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16. The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said: “we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them?”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates. The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves. I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy.”
House of Commons24 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗