Representation of the People Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Let me start by expressing my commiseration with my former hon. Friend—he is still my friend—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was inadvertently confused with somebody who might want to join the Reform party. It is difficult to imagine a Member less likely to want to do that, or indeed to be received by the Reform party, than him—I am sure he is happy to hear that. That is perhaps except for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—but he once had his own problems with counting votes in a Conservative party election.

I am not going to address the absurd suggestion of votes at 16 as that has been well dealt with by other hon. Members. In particular, there is the obvious point suggested by hon. Members that because young people can sign up to join the Army when they are 16, they should be able to vote. The fact is, they can join the Army not to go and fight, but only as a cadet, and only with parental consent. To anybody suggesting that that somehow means that they should be able to vote, I invite them to suggest whether they think their parents should also be giving consent on how they vote in the voting booth. I think not. I will however come to family voting in a moment.

[Luke Akehurst]

I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the absurdity that he sees in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote. What is it about them that he feels disqualifies them or makes them less able to make a democratic decision than an 18-year-old?

[Danny Kruger]

We already prevent young people at that age from driving, from buying cigarettes and alcohol, and from standing for Parliament. We already conclude that they are not responsible enough in general. Obviously, many are far more responsible than adults, but the conclusion is that they are still children and that they should not be exercising this vital responsibility in respect of our whole democracy until they are 18.

I will quickly mention the Rycroft review. May I stress on behalf of the Reform party how much I welcome the review? Many hon. Members rightly mentioned the disgraceful episode of a former Reform MEP taking bribes from a foreign state. It is absolutely right that we look closely into the circumstances that allowed that to arise. We will wait and see what the review comes up with, but it is quite right that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we do not have foreign financial interference in our democracy.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Why don’t you tell your party leader?

[Danny Kruger]

That is our party position.

The importance of ruling out foreign interference in our democracy has been made repeatedly in the debate. Let me actually address the glaring foreign interference that we have, and which we saw in Gorton and Denton last week. I am sorry to say that it has not been mentioned in the debate so far. We have been talking about one disgraceful incident while mass abuse of our democracy has been going on.

It appears from the evidence of independent observers that as many as two thirds of polling stations had compromised voting in that election last week. As many as one in eight votes may have been cast under coercion—under pressure of family voting. That is a deplorable state of affairs, and it should be the focus of the whole House to understand what happened.

It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Danny Kruger]

I will finish the point and then certainly give way to both gentlemen.

We are seeing the criminal abuse of British democracy by Labour, and now by the Green party. This malignant new force has now occupied—

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman has just made the most extraordinary allegation about an electoral process last week: he suggested that 12% of all votes were somehow or other invalid because of pressure that he claims was put on them. Has he got any real evidence, or is that just an easy assertion to make to grab some headlines on social media and elsewhere?

[Danny Kruger]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have this debate. I am citing evidence provided by Democracy Volunteers, the independent observers who were present in the polling stations last week. It is important that we look into it. It is obviously impossible to tell definitively at this stage exactly what went on, but it is clear from these independent observers that serious abuse seems to have been practised.

[Stephen Gethins]

May I first congratulate the Green party on its significant majority and its win? It is not my party, but I will congratulate it for that significant win over Reform and the Labour party. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that every single UK citizen, regardless of their faith or ethnic background, has as much right to cast their vote as any other, without fear or favour?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the principle that should be applied.

[Stephen Gethins]

It did not sound like it.

[Danny Kruger]

That is exactly what I think, and every British citizen should be able—

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman accuse a political party in the Chamber of a “criminal abuse of democracy”. Did I hear that correctly? Is that remark in order, or does the hon. Gentleman—I use that word loosely—now need to back up his allegation with some hard evidence?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am hoping that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) will reconsider his words and withdraw them.

[Danny Kruger]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I inadvertently suggested that it was a party that was abusing our electoral system. What I am actually suggesting is that there is abuse of our electoral system through an influential network that applies in these constituencies. That appears to be the case.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the resounding victory of my hon. Friend the new Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in the by-election was a victory for hope over hate? And does he not recognise that he sounds like an extremely bad loser?

[Danny Kruger]

I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the work of Democracy Volunteers, which is a long established and well—

Representation of the People Bill

Danny Kruger Excerpts

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

[Emily Thornberry]

No, I have only got two minutes. Come on!

People should just pay their taxes and get involved. New clause 86 proposes that a donor would have to be a total citizen. It is not enough to come back to Britain and go, “Oh well, I’m here now. I’m going to pay a little bit of tax because there are various tax dodges and I can do that.” No, they have to be here paying their full whack of taxes, and then they can make donations to political parties. If they care so much about Britain and about democracy, they should come here and be a full citizen, in my opinion.

My new clause 84 relates to descriptions on ballot papers. At the moment, instead of having just “the Labour party” on the ballot paper, it is possible to have “the Labour party, the party of equality and fairness”—fair enough. However, at the last local elections, the Greens registered candidates with the Electoral Commission as “first choice candidate” or “lead candidate”, so that, in an election with three votes, there was an instruction on the ballot paper as to who someone should vote for. That is an abuse, and it should be stopped. That is what that new clause is about.

New clause 87 is about ballot papers always being in alphabetical order. I speak as a T. My constituents had to look very hard to find me, and fortunately they did, but when we vote in alphabetical order, the Ts are at the far end—and there were hardly any of us. It is definitely an advantage to be at the beginning of the alphabet. Why do we not have the Australian system, and just randomise it?

There is so much more that we could do. Although there are rumours that a group may discuss how much more we can do, will there really be enough legislative time to bring forward another Bill that will deal with the many problems we have?

My predecessor, 180 years ago, was the MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe. He brought in the massive Chartist petition—3.3 million people wanting to be allowed to vote. So many people had signed it that they had to take the doors off the Chamber to get all the bits of paper through. Presumably it did not go into the Bag behind the Chair, but there was that much enthusiasm—that was what democracy was about. I do not want to be an MP for Finsbury who sits back complacently and allows our democracy to be undermined. We have to fight back.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) about the impact of algorithms, social media and deepfakes. There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology that the Bill does not closely address.

Let us face it: the Bill is not concerned with those questions. The claim is made that the Bill will defend democracy, but it is actually a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap Reform UK. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—always reliable—who made clear exactly what the Bill is about and who it is aimed at. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, too, for pointing out that the Bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction donations by trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour party in the last five years, £10 million of that at the last election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are delighted; they welcome it. Of course they are happy with that sort of support. This is partisan and highly partial legislation.

I put on record my resentment and outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to Reform UK, whom the Minister called “malign actors”. I wonder who she is referring to. She is talking about individuals, British citizens, who have made money and are choosing to donate it in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right.

[Luke Taylor]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Danny Kruger]

No, I am not going to give way.

It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way.

Some suggest that the Bill will restore trust in politics, which is exactly what is needed, but what they mean is restore trust in the class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in—[Interruption]—including, I am afraid to say, the party of which I was a part. That is why I left it. We need change.

I am glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, and it will put the interests of the British people, not the class of politicians and parties that got us into this mess, first. That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy.

Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can. Our democracy is underwired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system and therefore did not need to be stated. They did not need to be stated, but now they do, and they need to be stated because over the last couple of generations, we have brought into this country millions of people, many of whom do not understand or honour those implicit principles.

Let me go through the changes that are necessary to make explicit formerly implicit principles. The first is that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and commitment that that brings. There were historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who were in this country. That now needs to change. The number of Irish citizens is still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens resident in this country who are entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is wrong; it is time to correct that anomaly.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

No, I will not.

The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language?

The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that.

Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I congratulate the new Minister and wish her well in her role. I share the confidence of the House, as has been expressed, from her excellent role as the Chair of the Select Committee, and I know that she will do her best in this role, too.

This Bill and the amendments we are discussing matter because they go to the heart of what all of us hear on the doorstep, which is that people simply do not trust in politics or in many of the people in it any more. Trust and turnout are regrettably at record lows. That is not an abstract complaint or something where it would be nicer if we had a bit more of it; it is corrosive to democracy itself, so this Bill is a significant and welcome step forward, to do things such as give young people a voice, iron out some of the inconsistencies in voter registration, and crack down on the money and abuse that too often poison our elections.

Taken together, a number of the amendments before us are a genuine opportunity to further rebuild that trust by making our voting system fairer, getting big money and dodgy money out of politics, and ensuring that everyone can safely, confidently, independently, secretly and, one day—who knows?—enthusiastically be able to cast their vote.

I want to make the broader point that I acknowledge and accept that there is a new clause that cannot be named which is no longer in scope, but I wish to express my regret that it is not. This Bill is an opportunity to go as far as possible in restoring trust. Many of us believe that that is now missing.