Representation of the People Bill

Chris Hinchliff Excerpts

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

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Our democracy is precious but faces significant challenges, and if we want to protect our system, it must change with the times. The turnout for the 2024 general election was far too low, at below 50% in the poorest areas. Property ownership was still dictating representation, with renters voting at a rate of 38%, and owner-occupiers at a rate of 71%. The delta between younger and older voters is still too high. Expanding participation and trust in politics is an issue of equality, but also one of social, economic and generational fairness, and I am proud of the Government’s efforts to address that in the Bill.

No Member who has spoken today is under any illusion about the limited trust in our current political system, and the bandwidth of that system to enable meaningful democratic participation, especially among those who need it most. MPs elected with increasingly fractured minority votes, and a Parliament that is sometimes unrepresentative of the voting intentions of the country, repel the trust, participation and engagement that our elected representatives in government need. It is not a party political point to state that; this is about every person stepping up to participate and seeing their vote reflected in this place. When MPs and Governments are enabled with a low share and turnout of the vote, increasingly fewer people see their ballot as meaning anything in this place. If that is their first experience of voting, they are far less likely to vote again.

I believe that the Government can give us a route that starts from the first principles of enabling a system to become fairer and more representative and that sustains public confidence through an independent national commission. That is not something that the Government will do today, but they ought to do in the future so that the next Parliament does not start from scratch on long overdue reform to our electoral system.

New clause 68, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), to which I have added my signature, requires registration officers to accept postal and proxy vote applications that are received after the deadline when there is proof of timely posting. That is a meaningful effort and step to prevent people from losing their votes after having made reasonable steps to submit it. It is not reasonable for voters to lose their say in an election because of the potential—and quite common—unreliability of the postal system, and the new clause would empower returning officers to count the votes of people who have made an effort in good faith to vote.

Sadly, we see amendments from Opposition parties that would limit postal voting, such as Reform’s new clause 108, which would have created serious issues, especially in Scotland. For example, when the last general election was called, the last Tory Prime Minister called it for the first Thursday of the Scottish school holidays, and under new clause 108 thousands of people would have been made ineligible to vote through no fault of their own.

In the last wheeze of parliamentary effort, amendments have been proposed to stop votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have to thank Conservative Members, because their arguments have only compounded my belief that this is the right step for the Government to take. It is ludicrous that amendment 6 and subsequent amendments link the voting age to the age that people can buy alcohol as a way of getting around the Government’s manifesto commitment in the Bill to extend the franchise. Perhaps Members would have been persuaded to support the amendment if we were to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote if they then went to a licensed restaurant for a sit-down meal accompanied by an adult. Sadly, that seems to have been omitted in the amendment.

If there is a serious concern about where we draw the line on the age of capacity, I make the principled point that allowing 16-year-olds to vote so that they can have their democratic say in how the taxes that they contribute are spent and how the conditions of their labour are regulated is a far more rational place to tie that milestone than whether they would be able to have a pint at 8 o’clock while watching the Scottish premiership. The Government is right on this principle and I am glad that we will be able to achieve this milestone today.

Opposition Members have made a lot of references to vote rigging. I find that ludicrous, principally because when votes for 16 and 17-year-olds were passed in Scotland it was with cross-party support, including from the Scottish Conservatives, and because engagement has been increased among 16 and 17-year-olds ever since. I cast my first vote aged 16 in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I was not grateful for the Government of the day. I went out and enthusiastically voted for the SNP—a ludicrous proposal considering how much time I spend in this place opposing SNP measures. I voted because it was the right thing to do and it was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that we have that cross-party consensus today: even if it is a majority and not the unanimity that we had in 2016, it is going to get this over the line.

Sadly, the Conservative and Reform amendments have been about restricting political participation; comparatively, what we have heard from Government colleagues has been about expanding political participation. I hope the Government will go further and set up a national commission, but I look at this Bill as the first stage of our political reform agenda.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

A political system, even one with regular elections, is not really a democracy if rich individuals and corporations are able to use their wealth to buy access and influence, and shape decisions in a way that ordinary citizens will never enjoy. That is what new clause 25, tabled in my name, seeks to address.

The British people will never be able to trust the fact that we are genuinely representing their interests if those with deep pockets can wield disproportionate political power. Unless we use this Bill to drain the influence of money from our politics, that doubt will continue to rot away at the foundations of our democracy, driving more and more of our constituents to disbelieve that Parliament is here to serve them, and meaningful engagement with politics in our country will continue to sink to ever more dismal depths, until no Government have the mandate to legitimately call themselves representative.

The amendment in my name focuses on a specific aspect of this problem that is particularly pernicious and should be banned in its own right: developers donating to political parties to weight the planning system in their own favour. What gets built and where shapes our daily lives like nothing else, and the decisions made through our planning system are often the most tangible touchpoints with democracy for local communities. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about the urgent need to put agency and power back in the hands of the people, but in recent years the near universal experience of those engaging with the planning system as ordinary citizens is that their hopes and concerns are dismissed and trampled on by decision making that overwhelmingly favours the interests of speculative developers.

This is not an accident. Developers are among the biggest donors to political parties, and the successive waves of planning deregulation that have served to silence and curtail community participation in planning decisions have allowed these businesses to make vast sums of money throwing up expensive housing that most young families could never hope to afford, while providing as few amenities as they can get away with and destroying our countryside in their pursuit of profit. Our constituents are not daft. They can see the depressing results of the triumph of speculative developers’ interests all around them, and they can also see those same developers and their lobbyists donating huge sums to political parties. The public can read the reports of exclusive fundraising events and access for those able to pay thousands for dinners with Ministers, and they can put two and two together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

What consideration did the hon. Member give to extending his proposed amendment to trade unions, which—a neutral observer might conclude—gave very large sums of money to the Labour party precisely to influence the Employment Rights Bill that it has now turned into law?

[Chris Hinchliff]

As we have heard many times in today’s debate, there is a vast difference between trade unions—which are made up of millions of members making small contributions that are collectively donated to the Labour party, which they support—and corporations and rich individuals seeking influence and to further their own vested interests.

To continue where I left off, what confidence can the British people have that the houses that will be built in their area will meet the actual needs of local families and enhance the beauty of their communities, when the developers throwing up sprawling, characterless, rip-off estates across the country are able to buy seats for a quiet chat with Ministers, during which they can lobby them? It is time to ban developers from donating to political parties, to wash away the stain of undue influence, and to deliver a housing and planning system that puts people before profit.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

The Representation of the People Bill makes much-needed changes that I am very pleased to support. The Bill, and the Government amendments we are discussing, show that this Government are taking protecting our democracy seriously.

Government new clause 72 would introduce a ban on donations using cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is unregulated and untraceable money, and we are right to take it out of our democracy. The amendment would place a moratorium on those donations—a non-permanent ban—until regulation can be put in place, but I have heard some very compelling arguments today for introducing a complete ban. Any hostile foreign actors wishing to disrupt our democracy are able to fund that disruption through cryptocurrency donations. There is no way to trace them, and any political party that takes crypto donations should take a long, hard look at itself. There is clearly a risk that they are taking money from those bent on harming our country.

Government new clause 116 would put a cap on donations from overseas electors, so that those who do not live in or contribute to this country cannot unduly sway our elections. Our democracy is not the business of individuals and organisations that are based abroad. British democracy should be in the hands of the people who live here and contribute, not those of rich individuals who choose to live elsewhere. That should be something that all parties can agree on, but sadly, it is not. I know that some parties have benefited from foreign donations a little more than others, and perhaps do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place again—because he is never here, is he? He never engages properly with legislation—not only on winning the most pointless by-election in history, but on the fact that his party broke the UK record for the single largest individual political donation by a living person. Some £9 million was donated by one person, a Thailand-based businessman, in one donation. With foreign friends like that, no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton has no need to spend time in his constituency. The new clauses I have spoken to will strengthen our democracy.

Votes at 16 have also been discussed today. The Conservatives say that 16-year-olds are not mature or wise enough to vote. I disagree; I do not think there is a clear correlation between age and wisdom. All of us in this Chamber speak to people of all ages. Some of the best questions I have ever been asked and some of the best suggestions I have ever heard have come from the 16 and 17-year-olds at the local schools and colleges I have visited.

I think the most compelling argument for votes at 16 is that it gets people in the habit of voting. Most 16 and 17-year-olds will still be at school, at college or in some sort of training. Voting is a way to show people how elections work. I know adults who have never voted simply because they did not understand how it worked. I have had to talk them through it, saying, “You go with your ID. You will have a list, and you will mark a box with a cross. No, you do not tick it. That would make too much sense.” If we get people involved in democracy at a younger age, they are more likely to be lifelong voters, and that is really important.

However, this Bill does not address the most pressing issue for our democracy, which is the glaring problems with our current voting system. It is clear that first past the post simply does not work anymore. That is why I am calling for a national commission on electoral reform. I know that the new clause has been ruled out of scope today, so I will not speak any further on it, but if anyone would like to talk about the problems with first past the post and the potential for a new voting system, please do get in touch. It is one of my favourite subjects.

I want to speak briefly against new clause 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I am puzzled by the idea that leaflets in other languages are somehow detrimental to our democracy. I used to live in Spain, and I was in a minority among Brits, because I actually spoke Spanish. Some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish, but I know from experience the difference between being able to understand a language and being able to understand the political nuances, the history, and the code used in political text, which can be different. We want to expand participation in our democracy, so I think it is perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. I note that only 0.3% of people in Britain do not speak English. It is a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately, this place is yet again being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis in reality.