Representation of the People Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The central point of the Bill is, of course, the franchising of 16 and 17-year-olds. I will not deal with that issue extensively, although I must say that I thought the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) essentially demolished the argument for votes for children. However, I want to look at it in a slightly different context.

Whether someone is 16 or 86, the whole idea of universal suffrage is that people have the opportunity, as equals, to elect those who make their laws, whether in a council, in this Parliament, or in some other institution. That is the fundamental point. Indeed, the secret is in the title: Representation of the People—representation in the election of those who then make our laws. But here is the problem. If the Bill is passed and you are a 16-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. If you are an 86-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. That is because we are in the absurd position that in part of this United Kingdom—which boasts of universal suffrage, which boasts of equal rights across this United Kingdom—in not one area but in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are not made by those whom we elect; they are made by those in a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament, elected by the electorates of 27 other countries.

[Liam Conlon]

The hon. and learned Gentleman mentions Europe. Another key component of this Bill is transparency in funding, and he will know that the Constitutional Research Council donated nearly half a million pounds to the Vote Leave campaign in Northern Ireland—a company that does not disclose its accounts or who funds it. This Bill will correct that. Does he agree that is a fantastic move forward?

[Jim Allister]

Yes, transparency in funding is important, and I will say something about that if I have time, but there is a more fundamental issue. Whatever their age, the hon. Member’s constituents, once they are given the vote, have a right to elect those who make their laws. My constituents and I do not have the right to elect those who make our laws in my part of the United Kingdom, and I challenge anyone in this House to tell me why it is either democratic or right that we should have universal suffrage on the basis of representation of the people, but that we should extract and remove from the people of Northern Ireland that fundamental right in 300 areas of law. That is perverse. It is wrong. The Secretary of State, in introducing this debate, said that this Government “will tackle foreign interference head-on”. Well, let them start by removing the foreign interference in making the laws in my part of the United Kingdom. That would be a very good starting point.

Finally, I want to make a point about foreign donations. This House may know that in Northern Ireland we have a party by the name of Sinn Féin, which has run a coach and horses through every regulation that has ever been made about foreign donations. Because the party operates in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it plays the rules of one against another. In a recent year it received £2 million from the United States, so what does it do? It filters the money through whichever country’s laws allow it to be most easily filtered, and then moves it north-south or south-north, as suits the party’s purposes. This Bill does not yet go far enough. I want to see it tighten those loopholes and make sure that travesty cannot continue.

Representation of the People Bill

Jim Allister Excerpts

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

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that important example of where loopholes might exist in this technical area. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on that issue as we continue to develop the Bill.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I want to make some progress.

Government new clause 78 strengthens information-sharing provisions already in the Bill by establishing a reciprocal statutory gateway between the Electoral Commission and relevant public authorities. We have carefully considered recommendation 9 of the review, and we agree that if we are to expect the commission to regulate political finance effectively and respond to the emerging risk, it must be able to receive relevant information from the bodies it works alongside. The new clause enables the commission and relevant public authorities to share information with one another, where doing so assists the performance of their respective functions. The Government also recognise that information sharing must be accompanied by robust safeguards. That is why the gateway is tightly defined. It does not override express statutory prohibitions on disclosure and includes additional protections for sensitive personal information received from revenue authorities, backed by potential criminal sanctions for an unauthorised onward disclosure.

Government amendments 125 to 131 respond to recommendation 10 of the Rycroft review. They give the Electoral Commission greater powers to require the disclosure of documents, information, and the giving of an explanation outside an investigation. They also make minor amendments to ensure that former accredited recall campaigners can be investigated when they cease participation in the recall petition process. Currently, outside an investigation the Electoral Commission can only issue a notice to specific regulated entities requiring disclosure. To issue a notice requiring disclosure from anyone else, there must have been reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. That places the commission in an impossible situation: the only way it can get such information is to take the serious step of opening a formal investigation. However, without such information it is unable to establish the reasonable grounds for suspicion that it needs to open an investigation in the first place. The amendments extend the commission’s powers outside a formal investigation, so that it is able to require the disclosure of information relating to the income or expenditure of regulated entities from any person or organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I join others in warmly welcoming the Democracy Minister to her place. I know that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it is great to have such a strong ally on these issues in Government.

We have returned to this place after a summer when barely a day has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages. As the previous speaker referred to, there have been accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflicts of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more.

I doubt that anyone in this House could say with confidence that we currently have the right safeguards in place to ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so that the public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign-based billionaires. That is why this Bill is so important and why so many of the measures in it are welcome.

I am delighted that following the Rycroft review there are amendments to strengthen the Bill, including: the cap on donations from overseas electors; the new residency test to close the potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics; the moratorium on crypto, which will ensure that companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits; and the swift recent action we have seen to look at lower caps on how much parties and candidates can spend during regulated periods. These are all really welcome steps that will help to limit the influence of big money and curb foreign influence.

We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat and to ensure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. In that spirit, I have a couple of suggestions. I do hope that in the Electoral Commission’s review of spending limits, per the Government amendment, it could also be asked to look at whether the whole concept of the long and short campaign is working to keep spending in check. Candidates have already been selected by parties for the next general election, and many more will be in place by the end of this year, but the long campaign regulated period does not kick in until 4 February 2029. That means, in many cases, more than two years of further uncapped spending, with declaration of interest rules only formally in place for the year before an MP is elected and nothing for candidates who do not win.

This is really important because we know that the reality of modern politics is that campaigning never switches off. I am glad that in this country we have avoided the money-pit of TV advertising that the United States has, but social media means that vast sums of hard-to-trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or party outside of these regulated periods. I am fully supportive of the Government’s intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think that a thorough look at these regulated periods would help to deliver that goal and ensure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods.

I am also glad that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this Bill is the start of the political reform agenda and not the end. Unfortunately, many of these big money interests and foreign states with malign intent are very good at finding loopholes and working around our laws, and they will continue to do that and adapt once these new laws are enforced. To avoid that risk, the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels that are currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests.

I welcome the Democracy Minister’s positive engagement on this topic, and I hope that there may be a way to use this Bill to review that issue and build consensus while ensuring that we do not have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging. In that spirit, we do not need legislation to talk about the national commission—we could do that immediately.

As I said, I hope the Bill is the start of the new Administration’s political reform effort and not the end. We all know the context, with plummeting trust, the influence of big money and the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are serving not them but other interests. I know that the Minister is committed to going as far as possible. The Bill is in really good shape—it has been strengthened—and I hope that in the summing up from the Dispatch Box we might hear about next steps to take it that little bit further.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was absent from the House for some time to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a privilege to speak in the debate, because it is the ultimate manifestation of involvement in our democratic process. The policy paper that goes with the Bill says:

“The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity”.

What that speaks to is equal citizenship: that every citizen, no matter from where, who is on the electoral register in the United Kingdom should be able to have the same right to elect those who make their laws, whether that is for a council, a devolved institution—if they have one—or the Parliament of this United Kingdom. Those who make our laws, whoever they are, should be subject to the right of every citizen to elect them.

What I bring to the debate is the situation in Northern Ireland. That is how it used to be—until 2021, my constituents had the equal right to elect, whether at council, Stormont or Westminster, those who were making their laws—but under what we now call the Windsor framework, in Northern Ireland we are denied the right to elect those who make laws in 300 areas of law. Those laws are not made in this place and they are not made in Stormont. They are made in a foreign Parliament, elected by no one from the United Kingdom.

That takes me back to that founding, underlying principle: the right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity. New clause 122 and amendment 152 bring that matter to the House’s attention by suggesting that unless and until there is an equality impact assessment in respect of the whole United Kingdom’s participation in all aspects of democracy, the Bill should not have effect.

Let me put it to the House like this. The Bill proposes that a 16-year-old in Cardiff, London or Edinburgh who has paid no tax and who has never served their country has full franchise on all aspects of law—they can elect everyone who makes rules governing their lives—but a 67-year-old veteran in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all his life and who has served his country, or any other citizen, is denied that right to elect those who make his or her laws in over 300 areas of law. That is the inequity that I respectfully suggest the House needs to face up to.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Regretfully, I think that the hon. and learned Member is confused about the constitutional process. That 67-year-old constituent of his votes for a representative to come to this place, and this place takes decisions on their behalf equally, on any part of the United Kingdom. This institution decided that it was in the best interests, and continues to be in the best interests, of this country and of Northern Ireland to maintain the Windsor framework in lieu of any better alternative on the table. I find using that issue to try to withhold the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds to have directly elected representation in this place to be spurious at best.

[Jim Allister]

I think the hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has effectively just said: that it is right for this House to disenfranchise my constituents, to take from them to right to vote for those who make the laws in 300 areas. Those 300 areas are what shape our economy in Northern Ireland: how we manufacture our goods, how we package them, how we sell them. All that has been removed from the reach of any single constituent in Northern Ireland to elect anyone to have any say over that.

That is disenfranchising and that is the fundamental objection, from a democratic point of view, to the Windsor framework. I therefore say to this House that yes, we can argue about whether 16-year-olds should have a vote. What I say is that if 16-year-olds are due to have a vote in Great Britain, 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland should have an equal reach on their franchise. It should enable them to elect those who make the laws, and not be subcontracted out to those we do not elect. That is why those two new clauses are there.

That is a probing, fundamental issue that touches upon our commitment to equal citizenship and to the fundamentals of our democracy, which is everyone’s right to participate on an equal footing in our democracy, electing those who make our laws. It is incontestable—it is wrong—to say to my constituents and every other constituent in Northern Ireland, “It is good for us in Great Britain to have those rights, but it is not good for you.” That is fundamentally wrong.

I make a final point on a different subject. I tried to intervene on the Minister but she would not take the intervention. On the £100,000 cap, will she confirm, in winding up, that Sinn Féin, for example, which is a party registered in Northern Ireland, will be exempt from the effect of that cap if an Irish citizen living abroad makes a donation in excess of it? Is that the position? If it is, and it is my reading of the Bill that it is, why has that loophole not been closed? Why should I or anyone else have to compete with a party that is not subject to the same constraints as the rest of us? Perhaps the Minister will address that, because it seems to be a loophole crying out to be closed.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

As so many have said in this debate, our democracy must not be for sale, so it is disturbing that the campaign spending arms race is becoming out of control. As has been mentioned, in 2023 the previous cap on campaign spending of £19 million was increased massively to £34 million. None of our constituents was asked whether they wanted that, and the Electoral Commission said at the time that it had not seen evidence to justify the increase.

We all know what can happen when campaign spending spirals out of control. A number of Members have referred to the situation in the US, where opaque crypto interests spent $189 million just between January and the end of June this year. That is with four months to go before the mid-term elections. We have also seen huge donations from crypto interests in our own country, but they were given in pounds.

New clause 70 would set a limit on campaign spending of £24.4 million. That is what the previous limit of £19 million would be now, allowing for inflation, minus 15%, per the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I understand that the Government are keen to avoid additional legislation at this stage, given the time pressure for ensuring that votes at 16 are delivered. I also acknowledge the letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the First Secretary of State, which was published last night, urging the Electoral Commission to examine the matter. That letter makes it explicit that

“spending limits on parties and candidates are too high, and ought to be reduced”.

It asks the commission to provide recommendations to the Government by July 2027 at the latest.

I am pleased that the Government have heard the call from Members right across the House from the many different parties represented here who have supported my new clause. I am really grateful to the Members who supported it. As the Government have made that request to the Electoral Commission clear, I will not push for a vote on my new clause, but I really want to see progress. The Electoral Commission now has to work speedily on a lowered limit for campaign spend, to stop this arms race. That message has come clearly from this House, and the commission needs to act on it now.

In my remaining remarks, I want to urge the Government to move at pace on the further risks to UK democracy to which so many speakers have referred, many of which are covered by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). As others have said, we must ensure greater transparency on targeted online political advertising, including that facilitated through artificial intelligence, and on additional measures on third-party campaigning and political funding.

The stakes really could not be higher, as so many have said. The UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre has recently shown that online platforms and AI-generated content are playing a powerful role in amplifying not just divisive narratives, but extremist narratives and conspiracy theories. This has led to a disturbing increase in the size of the still small, but now much more consequential, minority that accepts political violence. Over one in 10 people in our country now say that they could accept political violence. There has also been an increase in those who reject at least some democratic norms, with almost a third of people saying that we should ignore democratic institutions and rules if they get in the way of change. In the centre’s words,

“hostile states and domestic extremists are deliberately accelerating these fractures to further destabilise Britain”.

The Bill and the Government’s amendments will help, but they do not yet meet the full scale of this challenge. The Government have to engage in the kind of protection and promotion of democracy that they successfully urge many other nations to do when under the threat of foreign interference. Extremist narratives have to be contested and online platforms regulated and reformed, so while welcoming the Bill overall, I will continue to push for change so that we can really ensure that we have what is the right of every citizen in our country: free and fair elections.