Representation of the People Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future.

I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed.

We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities.

The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for speaking about the security of candidates. That is the motivation behind my new clause 81, which would automatically make all candidates’ addresses anonymous. Does she agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that all candidates feel secure and able to stand for public office at all levels?

[Zöe Franklin]

I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates.

Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level.

If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it.

I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

I congratulate the new Minister, and welcome her to her place. It was, I think, a long overdue promotion.

It was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee; it was my first time. I enjoyed the Committee, and I enjoyed the spirit in which we conducted our debates. There were many occasions when I thought that amendments proposed by Opposition parties were sincere and tabled with good intentions, and on more than one occasion the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), had to take me aside and explain to me patiently why the Government’s position was that we could not do something that seemed to me to be a reasonable request. Some complex issues have arisen today as well. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who suggested that there might be a need for a second phase, and to many other contributions from Members who are more expert than me in in various fields. There has been a real sense of concern about the point that we have reached as a democracy.

I wanted to take a couple of minutes to continue my debate with the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). She is no longer in the Chamber, but I should like to respond to some of her comments about her amendments. Broadly speaking, she seems to be of the opinion that contributing a single vote towards the election of a representative for a four-to-five-year period should be done at exactly the same age at which people choose who should be their marriage partner till death them do part. Let me explain why I do not think that is correct.

We can play a quick game of “higher or lower”. The compulsory school age is five. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. At 12, you can be trained to take part in dangerous performances. You can be kept in police detention if arrested, and you have to sign your own passport application. At 14, you can get a Saturday job. At 15, you can apply to join the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. At 16, you can buy spray aerosols, enter a pub on your own, drink beer or wine with a meal, join the armed forces, change your name by deed poll without parental consent, hold a licence to drive a moped, or gamble by buying a lottery ticket. You can enter a housing contract. You can leave home. You can apply for legal aid, and be assessed on your own means. You can consent to surgical or dental treatment. You can buy premium bonds. You can become a pet owner, you can consent to sexual activity, and you can obtain your national insurance number. You have to be 17, however, to donate blood. At 18 you can be deployed in the armed forces, you can act as the executor of a will, you can buy fireworks and explosives and you can buy firearms, but you have to be 21 to adopt, or to supervise a learner driver.

The point I am making is that the transition from childhood to adulthood is not like flicking a switch; it is a process. The question that we are really debating is: at what point within that process should we trust somebody to take their first step as a democratic citizen by thinking deeply and contributing one of many thousands of votes in an election for who represents them?

Speaking as someone who has raised three children to the age of 16, but also as someone whose career has involved working with children and youth, I believe that 16 is the right age for a number of reasons. In particular, the evidence is strong that getting young people engaged in the democratic process at that age means that it sticks with them throughout the rest of their lives, but there is another reason too. We have heard talk of this being vote rigging. I have to wonder what it is about so many Conservative Members that makes them automatically assume that a 16-year-old will not vote for them. Every party in this place has an equal opportunity to appeal to that young person for their vote, but when they do not have a vote, they can be ignored. We only have to look at the Conservatives’ record—cutting child trust funds, closing down Sure Start centres, cutting primary school budgets, cutting the educational maintenance allowance, cutting school transport, closing careers services, closing youth centres, tripling tuition fees, locking people out of the housing market, and not doing enough on climate change—to see why it is important that we give that generation a say in their future. The right hon. Member for Tatton made that commitment at Wilmslow high school nine years ago, and I am disappointed that she has rowed back on it today.

I strongly endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). We need to look at the issue of deepfakes and protect our democracy, because we are all subject to it.

[Anna Dixon]

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on becoming a Minister. It is great to see her on the Front Bench.

I really welcome this Bill. We can go back in history and look at the amazing enfranchisement that happened with the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928, when suffrage was extended to women and those with no property. When I have visitors in Parliament, I love showing them the stained-glass windows where, here in this place, we celebrate giving more people the vote. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we can celebrate the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds. I am really proud that this Labour Government are extending the vote and reversing the Conservatives’ measures that disenfranchise people without voter ID, and that we are also going further with automatic voter registration. These are all really great strides forward in enabling more people to vote.

I hugely support a lot of other provisions in the Bill that ensure that our elections are free and fair, but I want to speak specifically to new clause 81, in my name. One part of a free and fair democracy is that it is essential that candidates and elected officials feel safe. My new clause would take forward a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and put an end to the publication of candidates’ home addresses. Today, the default option is for a candidate’s home address to be published. In the increasingly hostile and toxic political climate in which we operate, that is clearly a cause for concern, and I believe it has a chilling effect on our democracy.

I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) in remembering our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, who were both tragically murdered, and we think of the family of Ann Widdecombe as her horrific murder continues to be investigated. It is a travesty that death threats are now seen as part of the job, and as we know, it is women who are more at risk and more likely to be threatened. It has been reported—so, Madam Deputy Speaker, no worries—that a constituent of mine has recently received a suspended custodial sentence and a lifetime restraining order for a threat to kill me, in which he wrote:

“If I see you in public, I will try my best to kill you. I will work hard to find out where you live, and I will kill you there.”

That is why this amendment is personal to me. As things stand, if a candidate does not want their address to be published, they must actively request it. Thankfully, I had the foresight and I did, but it does put people like me who choose to do that at a disadvantage to other candidates by creating the impression that we do not want to be open and transparent. If this new clause were implemented, the requirements for those who decline to have their address published would become the default for all candidates, giving everyone confidence that, at least in their own home, they and their families would be safe.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her earlier engagement, and I look forward to and hope that the Minister will continue to work with me and the Jo Cox Foundation, as this Bill progresses through to the other place, to ensure we can put in safeguards and protections for candidates, their families and others, such as agents, who support them. I am not going to push my amendment to a vote, but I do hope that we can take measures to protect all those who put themselves forward for elected office at all levels.

I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, for his leadership of the APPG for fair elections, of which I am a member. Others have commented on just how unfair, unrepresentative and unsustainable our electoral system is at the moment, so I do hope—even though we are not considering it—that, in summing up and her wind-up comments, the Minister will give assurances about the steps the Government may take to further protect our democracy and ensure that every vote counts by looking at further measures of electoral reform in the future.

It is vital that we protect our democracy against foreign interests and others who wish to undermine it, and I hope the Minister will consider my amendment and some of those of other hon. Members.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

First, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their collective engagement so far on this Bill. As a former anti-corruption specialist for more than a decade and chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I have had the pleasure of working with Members from across the House on this Bill in seeking to drive foreign interference, dirty money and undue influence out of our democracy.

To that end, I wholeheartedly endorse a number of amendments: new clause 34 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on cryptocurrency; amendments 31 to 34 from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on strengthening “know your donor” requirements; new clause 61 from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on closing the political party start-up funding loophole; new clause 70 from my formidable right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on reducing campaign spending limits; new clauses 93 to 95 from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on foreign source donations and loans; and new clause 86 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on overseas donations. I hope the Minister will respond substantively to each of those amendments when she winds up.

I want to focus my remarks on new clause 121 and amendment 151, which are in my name on the amendment paper. Both are ultimately about one deliverable that I know the Government want to achieve—namely, restoring trust in politics as a force for good.

On new clause 121, I welcome the Government’s move over the weekend to expedite their existing ask of the Electoral Commission to review campaign spending limits. However, if the Electoral Commission concludes that spending limits should come down, we need to ensure that that decision is future-proof, and that is what my new clause 121 would secure. Critically, it would ensure that spending limits are set according to three key tests: first, the fairness of elections; secondly, the impact on the political parties; and thirdly, public confidence in electoral integrity.

The new clause would also ensure that future increases could take place only following an independent recommendation from the Electoral Commission. This matters because politics is caught in an increasingly unsustainable fundraising arms race. In 2023, spending limits were increased unilaterally by the Government of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) by 80%. The result was that the 2024 general election became the most expensive in British history, with parties spending £94 million between them. As spending limits rise, so does the pressure on parties to raise ever larger sums of money, and when the demand for money grows, it follows that the risk appetite for parties accepting donations, and therefore the window of opportunity for bad actors, also grows. The Rycroft review made exactly that point. Reducing spending limits can help reduce incentives to seek funding from problematic sources and lessen the pressures that fuel concerns about foreign interference in our politics.

Secondly, on amendment 151 in my name, I welcome the Government’s decision in July to move to a profit-based cap on corporate donations—a clear improvement on the previous proposals, which would have tied the cap to revenue, and something that the APPG I chair had for months been calling for. However, two significant loopholes remain. Amendment 151 would close both loopholes by ensuring that only the profits of the donating company itself are counted, and by calculating donation limits using average profits over five years, rather than accumulated profits. That would provide a more accurate measure of genuine economic activity, and make it far harder for corporate structures to be used to circumvent the intention of the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Minns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right was first enshrined by this Parliament in 1872, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) said earlier in the debate. More than 150 years later, blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. It is time that was brought to an end.

One of those people currently denied that right is my constituent John, who on arriving at the polling station with his guide dog at the last general election found that there was no usable tactile device. John had to fold his ballot paper to make creases as reference points and ask the staff to read out the names in order as he navigated the creases to identify his candidate of choice. Unlike me and most of the people in this Chamber, John could not be sure that his vote was private, accurate or truly his, because he was dependent on someone else verifying it for him.

John’s experience is echoed by RNIB research that found that only a quarter of blind voters said they were able to vote independently and in secret, while two thirds had to rely on a companion or polling station staff. New clause 48 offers a practical way forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for indicating the Government’s readiness to act, as the Bill moves to the other place, to give blind and partially sighted voters the right to vote independently and in secret.

[Anna Dixon]

I very much support my hon. Friend’s work to ensure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does she agree that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also face barriers in participating in elections, and that further work should be done to ensure that everybody has a free vote?

[Ms Minns]

I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.