Representation of the People Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

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

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Steve Reed]

I will give way to my hon. Friend later.

We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.

[Joe Powell]

Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

Representation of the People Bill

Joe Powell Excerpts

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

[Liam Byrne]

Let me start with a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is not in her place, who said quite rightly that an awful lot has changed since the Bill was first introduced to this House. Indeed, a lot has been revealed over the course of the summer. In fact, reporting in The Times, The Sunday Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian and Byline Times has now revealed 37 different questions around the finances of the Reform party, but no doubt we will find there is an innocent explanation for all of it.

No doubt there is an innocent explanation for why Mr George Cottrell passed $2 million through US-based crypto exchanges just a day or two before he moved the money to his mother, who then went on to make big donations to Reform. No doubt we will learn that Mr Cottrell was in fact on the electoral register when that money was passed. No doubt we will discover that his mother, Fiona Cottrell, declared and did not disguise the fact that the money had ultimately come from her son. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why loans to Reform through Britain Means Business were reclassified as donations, even though the party treasurer was not told about that. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who—surprise, surprise—is not in his place, did not declare a £5 million donation before he was elected to this place and went off to lobby the Governor of the Bank of England on behalf of his cryptocurrency allies. No doubt it is a complete coincidence that the man who has given Reform half of its fortune—more than £25 million—made his fortune in the crypto industry.

No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of that. I very much hope that absolutely no offences have been committed. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of it—and no doubt it will stink to high heaven to the British public.

I very much hope that all of that has been above the law, but that is not the test for political finance regulation in this country. It is not enough to be above the law; conduct must be above suspicion. And right now, the conduct of political finance in this country is not above suspicion. That is why the measures in this Bill are needed, and that is why it will be madness if we do not use this Bill to once and for all eliminate not just cryptocurrency donations, but the cryptocurrency system from British politics.

I welcome the moves that the Minister has made and the commitment she has made at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to continue to listen to the debate and ensure that the rules under the Bill are as tight as possible. However, the revelations in the newspapers over the summer underline why we must be as hard and as tough as possible. The truth is that right now, the amendments that the Government have tabled to the Bill are full of holes. Under those rules, it would still be possible to move money through digital tokens; it would still be possible to move money through memecoins like the $BRITAIN token; and it would still be possible to aggregate it, convert it into conventional currency and then donate it, for example, to Restore Britain.

We know that this is not some speculative feature of the system. We know that donations that have gone to Reform have been routed through cryptocurrency exchanges like Radom. Now, I have nothing against Radom; it is clearly wholly committed to transparency, which is why it has moved its domicile from Poland to the Cook Islands—that beacon of transparency. With risks like that multiplying, why on earth would we leave loopholes open?

The effect of new clause 34 would be to ban off-ramping, ban new forms of digital currency transactions and ban memecoins, which are exactly the kind of measures that Ministers now need to bring forward. If we want to take the crypto system out of political finance, this is what we need to do.

The final point I want to make is about a larger hole in the Bill, which I hope we will square up to over the course of this debate. There are now Members of this House who are making more out of ad share revenue than they are from their salary. If Elon Musk decided to write a cheque to a political party, under the terms of this Bill it would be outlawed. If he decided to retweet something and generate tens of thousands of pounds in ad share revenue, it would be allowed.

We have got to recognise that over the last five years £200 million has been assembled to build a media political complex on behalf of a party that thinks there is a problem with foreigners but not with foreign money. Frankly, it is time that we eliminated that kind of politics, argument and system from our country.

[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.