Representation of the People Bill

Debate between David Burton-Sampson and Neil Duncan-Jordan

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

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It is the bedrock of our society, and we have got to defend it at all costs. In that spirit, I am delighted to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she will do a fantastic job.

We need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This Bill makes provision to ensure that we give protection not only to candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, but to electoral staff. I am sure that many of us in this place can point to times when we have been intimidated while out campaigning. Civil and robust debate is important, but it is very different from intimidatory behaviour. We require changes to keep pace with the changing world we live in and the increasingly digital life that we experience, so I note new clauses 41 to 47, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), to prevent online harms. Online harassment or worse is growing exponentially year on year. AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation being circulated on social media and other forms of online harassment are simply unacceptable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the preservation of Members in this Chamber, particularly women, who suffer even higher levels of abuse.

The spirit of those new clauses is spot on, and I am pleased that the Government are taking these issues seriously through the Online Safety Act 2023 and through the defending democracy taskforce. I am also pleased to see the Government establishing an AI-labelling taskforce, and as the Bill passes through the other place, I hope that the Government will continue their work to further tighten up measures in this area.

For very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate those risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key. We know that only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.

Cleaning up political donations is also vital. One critically important clean-up—we have heard about it today—is of cryptocurrency. I have spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about the crypto world as it stands today. Rules around the sector need to be watertight before it can be safe to allow contributions to political parties from cryptoassets. Crypto, in my view, has a place in the future of the UK financial system, and there are many in the UK industry who are working hard for tighter, more appropriate regulation to get that moving, but for now, the anonymity in the political donations world is simply not acceptable, as it creates the risk of a significant reduction in transparency. I believe the measures in the Bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy.

To conclude, I want to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules that update measures that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces, and they have to pay taxes if they are working. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be most exposed for the longest period to good or bad decisions made by future Governments. We must start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their minds. I have met some incredible young people through work experience in my office, and through my youth days and visits to schools. At my last youth day, 70 pupils—the clear majority, with only two against—were in favour of votes for 16-year-olds. Even the teachers, the people who know the children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age in which young people can have a proper say on their future. Democracy has endured because of its ability to accommodate change, and we are now in a rapidly changing world. The changes we need to make to protect our democracy for years to come are vital.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

It is clear from this debate that the public have lost trust in politics and the political process, and that is linked to them seeing money have an undue influence on the decisions that politicians make. In 2015, just 1% of private donations came from individuals or companies giving £1 million or more. By 2024, that figure had risen to over a third. We have seen the obscene amounts of money that some MPs have made doing second—or even third and fourth—jobs while they are supposed to be representing their constituents. Equally, we know that businesses that donate to political parties are often in line for Government contracts in return. That has got to stop, because if it does not, more than half of all political donations could soon come from just a handful of individuals, leaving elected politicians increasingly reliant on the patronage of a small elite. We will have wealthy individuals and companies with influence over the direction of our country, despite never having won a single election.

New clause 26, in my name, would begin to address those concerns. It would ban political donors from securing government contracts from the Administrations they paid to elect. Over the past 25 years, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth in government contracts, including during the covid era. In the middle of a national crisis, people needed confidence that decisions were made on merit and in the public interest, not shaped by big donors. The Government are quite rightly starting to claim back some of the covid contracts money, but they would also benefit from distancing themselves from those donors who are only interested in the party as a vehicle for achieving their own ends.

In this debate, we are rightly having a wider conversation about our democracy. There is scrutiny of a Westminster-centric political culture in which communities have often been left behind. Redistributing power on the basis of place is one side of the coin, which must go hand on hand with redistributing power on the basis of wealth. According to a recent Oxfam report, the super-rich exert influence in three main ways: buying political influence by funding parties and candidates; gaining direct access to decision makers and institutions; and shaping public opinion to defend elite power. That is why I am supporting amendments to limit donations from harmful lobbying interests and place stronger caps on what wealthy individuals and private companies can give.