Representation of the People Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Although it would be churlish to deny that this Bill is a step forward, it is important to look at what it is a step forward from. I am one of the few Members of the House who sat through the Elections Act 2022 and went through it line by line in Committee. Along with colleagues who now sit on the Government Benches, we were united in saying that that Tory election Bill was an affront to democracy. But now in power, Labour has taken that affront to democracy and, rather than ripping it into a million pieces, is doing what Labour seems to do best: take the very worst of Tory legislation and make it slightly less offensive. Although elements of the Bill will improve existing legislation, and we will therefore support it, this is not what we were promised, and I fear that it will be seen as a huge missed opportunity.

We very much welcome the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK general elections, which would bring this place in line with Scotland, which has enjoyed that for more than a decade and where it has proven to be an unqualified success. We also welcome efforts to clamp down on dark money infiltrating UK politics. Shining a light on the murky world of Westminster political donations is long overdue. The Labour party has been promising that since 1997, so I think we had best put it in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” pile, particularly given that the scandal of dodgy donations that has now disgraced the Labour party, through Labour Together, continues to swirl around Labour MPs.

As an Opposition party, one of our biggest arguments with the Tories was about the introduction of voter ID. We argued that it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The now Prime Minister was right when he said that it would lock people out of democracy. Yet now that Labour is in power, rather than scrapping the entire scheme, it has chosen to keep it and merely increase the number of acceptable forms of ID, knowing full well that the scheme disadvantages ethnic minority communities, the young, the homeless and the elderly.

My problem with the Bill goes beyond what is in it; it is what is not in it. The rejection—once again—of any form of proportional representation is a scandal. The fragmentation of UK politics is happening at pace. The Government’s refusal to consider proportional representation is dangerously short sighted. Parliamentary elections have become a race to achieve 34%, because, as we know, that is where landslides happen. There could be a reality check coming after the next election, when a party whose Members sit not a million miles away from me, and which refuses to play by the rules, achieves a huge majority on barely a third of the vote. I urge the Government to reconsider their opposition to proportional representation. If they do not, we could all live to regret it.

The Bill is deficient in several other areas: there are still weaknesses and loopholes in political finance, registration must be rolled out much quicker, there must be much tighter cryptocurrency regulations, and yet again, for whatever reason, the Labour party has decided to ignore the abomination of democracy at the other end of the corridor. The Bill is a million miles from being perfect, but on the basis that it is a very small step in the right direction, we will support it.

Representation of the People Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

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

[Esther McVey]

I will carry on for a second.

We are not saying that 16-year-olds would be sent off to combat, nor would we be saying that the inconsistencies about the age of marriage carry on. In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage and civil partnerships is 18. Arranging a marriage for anyone under 18 is illegal. The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, passed by Parliament only four years ago, revoked the previous legal provision that allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent. The legislation made it clear that marriage is an adult decision and that the law treats anyone under 18 as a child. The 2022 Act passed with cross-party support and the Labour Front Bench at the time supported it. Why did they believe then that people under 18 could not make the decision to marry, but now believe that they can make the decision to vote?

The same applies to property ownership and mortgages. My amendments 56 to 62 would link the age at which people are eligible to vote with the age at which they can obtain a mortgage or own a property. Our laws dictate that those under 18 lack full legal capacity, and therefore cannot enter into binding land or loan contracts. If 16-year-olds are not legally able to own a property or enter into a mortgage in their own right, why are they considered sufficiently mature to vote in elections?

If 16-year-olds are not sensible enough to buy alcohol—and that has been law in our country since 1923—why are they trusted to vote? I am pleased to support amendments 6 to 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, which would tie the age at which people can buy alcohol to the age at which they are eligible to vote. The question is simple: why have the Government decided that in respect of voting the age of 16 is adulthood, while in many other areas it does not meet the threshold?

We are told that votes at 16 are essential to engaging young people in our democracy and will empower them to participate in society and effect change, but which young people have the Government spoken to? I have spoken to many on my patch and have visited many local schools, and have found it interesting that many of them do not feel qualified and prepared enough to vote. We should bear in mind the impact of the lowering of the voting age in Scotland, where academic studies have shown that the boost in interest among young people has been short-lived and has failed to translate into wider political participation.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Is it Conservative party policy to reverse the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland? Every single piece of evidence that we can point to suggests that engaging 16 and 17-year-olds makes them better citizens. Does the right hon. Lady seriously want to undermine that?

[Esther McVey]

If those in Scotland want to carry on with this vote rigging, they are fully entitled to do so, and I am sure that they will conjure up many other ways in which to do it.

This Government can wax lyrical as much as they like about the virtues of lowering the voting age, but we know how important it is for people to fully understand and appreciate what they are doing. It is the inconsistency that strikes me: 16-year-olds cannot buy alcohol, cannot have a tattoo, cannot be on the frontline and cannot get married, yet we are pushing for them to have a vote. It does not make sense at all. I therefore urge all Members to support my amendments and those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, and to put aside their self-interest in relation to extra votes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational Bill with which to start. It will allow British politics to take huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and to protect our democracy from being sold off for profit. I have personally set up and hosted an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voices of 16-year-olds and younger children is truly a humbling experience—their dedication and education is always awe inspiring.

I had hoped that the amendments I have tabled would improve the Bill even further, returning integrity to British politics, but I am reassured that the Government are seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and congratulate him on his promotion, and I thank him for his work in bringing forward these amendments. I also thank my other colleagues who have tabled valuable amendments, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington).

Our election law was written in an analogue age, and the legislation has not kept pace with how safe or unsafe something is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hands, 24/7. Election campaigns with highly targeted content are delivered directly into social media feeds, distributed at speed, with some of it only seen by the people it is designed to influence. Legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products or sausages. Food producers face a wealth of legislation that restricts what they are allowed to say about their products and rightly makes sure it is factually accurate—makers of porky sausages cannot tell porky pies, and pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts are under no such restrictions. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve integrity and trust in our political system.

AI-generated campaigning, which looks so convincing, produces misinformation that spreads at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly decided on wafer-thin margins with more and more candidates on ballot papers. With elections that close, and with budgets having been increased by 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real, material difference to our politics and our futures. New clauses 49 to 51, which stand in my name, present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined category of factual claims in paid material. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, argument, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate; they simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. That distinction matters. If we wish to restore faith in our politics, any reasonable person would agree that voters must have accurate information to build their opinions on. Research by Opinium found that 76% of people agree, alongside the backing of this House.

I have also tabled new clause 52—which, again, builds on the excellent work of my colleagues—to strengthen a code of conduct and standards relating to harassment and intimidation, placing them on a statutory footing. This will ensure people have the right to stand for election and represent their views safely. I accept the Government’s decisions on these issues and look forward to further debate, but I do wish that they would accept some of the other amendments that have been mentioned today to ensure that this Bill achieves its enormous potential and that our democracy is protected.

[Brendan O’Hara]

During this Bill’s Second Reading back in March, I said that the SNP generally welcomed its introduction, particularly its extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We on the SNP Benches still do. Evidence is always helpful; unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is no longer in her place, but Scotland has had this in place for 12 years, and it has been an unqualified success. No serious person is planning to backtrack on it.

That said, we do still have serious concerns about the Bill, because what is currently on offer is a far cry from what the Labour party promised during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. Back then, we all recognised that that Act was an appalling piece of legislation; it was nakedly partisan, and quite rightly, when opposing it, the Labour party promised to shred it. Now it is in power, I fear that it has chosen to tinker rather than shred. We can see for ourselves the levels of frustration that exist on the Labour Benches, because Labour Members know that this Bill was an opportunity to undo great democratic harms that were caused by the 2022 Act and introduce an entirely new system—one that would have fairness, equality, transparency and accountability at its heart. I fear that the Bill as it currently stands squanders that opportunity.

The clearest manifestation of that frustration is the number of amendments to the Bill that have originated from the Government’s own Back Benches. There are scores of amendments—215 pages of them. I want to highlight a few that I believe would have significantly improved the Bill, had the Government taken them on.

New clause 34, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), would tighten up cryptocurrency. He explained in an intervention earlier that the Government’s position in the Bill does not go nearly far enough, and we agree. New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would extend the franchise to those with indefinite leave to remain. Such a system has been in place in Scotland for more than six years, and it works well and has been entirely uncontroversial.