Representation of the People Bill

Julie Minns Excerpts

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

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I thank those hon. Members whose excellent amendments I have put my name to. There are dozens of them, so I could not list them all, but they included amendments on electoral reform, capping political donations, crypto, and preventing domestic abusers from standing for election. Today, I speak in support of my new clauses 32 and 33, which would require candidates in parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales to obtain an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check.

Public trust in politics is at a historic low. The National Centre for Social Research found that 79% of people surveyed believed that Britain’s system of Government needed significant improvement. That long-running survey, conducted since 1986, shows a marked decline in confidence in our political institutions over recent decades. The reasons for that decline are complex, but repeated cases of misconduct by elected representatives have undoubtedly played a part.

In recent years, Parliament has seen a series of high-profile cases involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. In the last Parliament, several Members were suspended, sanctioned or forced to leave office following serious findings or criminal convictions. In 2023, it was reported that more than 50 MPs had been referred to Parliament’s independent complaints and grievance scheme for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. The overwhelming majority of MPs and councillors serve with integrity and dedication, but the actions of a small minority damage the reputation of all of us in public life.

The same principle applies in local government. Councillors often hold positions of public trust and responsibility, including things connected to safeguarding and child protection, yet there have been numerous examples of councillors convicted of serious offences or resigning following allegations of misconduct. We rightly require taxi drivers, teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals and many others to undergo DBS checks before they can work in positions involving public trust and contact with vulnerable people. It is therefore reasonable to ask why those seeking elected office should be exempt from the equivalent requirement.

Of course, a DBS check is not a guarantee of good conduct—no safeguarding measure is foolproof—however, it would establish a minimum standard and set an important precedent. It would send a clear message to those seeking elected office that they should meet the same basic expectations that we apply to everyday workers. As elected representatives, we regularly interact with constituents, volunteers, parliamentary and political staff, and members of the public. We visit schools, youth groups, hospitals, care settings, community organisations and in many cases we come into contact with children, young people and vulnerable adults. In any other role involving that level of contact, a DBS check would be regarded as the basic and proportionate requirement. Since becoming an MP, I have been asked when visiting schools whether I have been DBS checked, and people have been surprised to learn that we are not required that have it.

My new clauses are not about restricting democracy; they are about strengthening confidence in it. They are about safeguarding the public, improving standards in public life and helping to rebuild trust in our public and democratic institutions. My new clauses would require candidates to hold a DBS check prior to submitting their application to the returning officer, therefore placing no financial burden on Government or councils. I urge the Government to consider the proposals seriously. Will the Minister set out what further steps the Government intend to take to strengthen safeguarding, improve standards in public life and restore public trust and confidence in elected representatives?

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for all her work on the Bill. I also welcome the Minister to her place.

I will speak briefly to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I thank the many Members from across the House who have supported it and the Royal National Institute of Blind People for its assistance and support in drafting it. The Bill takes a significant step towards strengthening and protecting our democracy and extending the franchise. However, we must recognise that one group of voters remain disenfranchised and unable to vote independently and in secret because they cannot see the ballot form in front of them.

I first worked on the issue of accessible voting at the 1997 general election, when I had the privilege of working for Scope on the “Polls Apart” campaign. “Polls Apart” shone a light on the physical barriers that disabled people face when exercising their right to vote. It went on to secure changes in the law to remove many of those barriers. Nearly three decades on, however, blind and partially sighted people still cannot reliably vote independently and in secret.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Bill and on trying to level the playing field to ensure that every Member and every person has the ability to vote independently and in secret. She rightly highlights that one group, which includes me, are unable to vote independently and in secret because we are unable to see our ballot paper clearly. Does she agree that it is time for everyone to work together to ensure that we level the playing field so that every person has the ability and the right to exercise their vote independently and in secret?

[Ms Minns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right was first enshrined by this Parliament in 1872, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) said earlier in the debate. More than 150 years later, blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. It is time that was brought to an end.

One of those people currently denied that right is my constituent John, who on arriving at the polling station with his guide dog at the last general election found that there was no usable tactile device. John had to fold his ballot paper to make creases as reference points and ask the staff to read out the names in order as he navigated the creases to identify his candidate of choice. Unlike me and most of the people in this Chamber, John could not be sure that his vote was private, accurate or truly his, because he was dependent on someone else verifying it for him.

John’s experience is echoed by RNIB research that found that only a quarter of blind voters said they were able to vote independently and in secret, while two thirds had to rely on a companion or polling station staff. New clause 48 offers a practical way forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for indicating the Government’s readiness to act, as the Bill moves to the other place, to give blind and partially sighted voters the right to vote independently and in secret.

[Anna Dixon]

I very much support my hon. Friend’s work to ensure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does she agree that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also face barriers in participating in elections, and that further work should be done to ensure that everybody has a free vote?

[Ms Minns]

I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.

[Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)]

Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned.

This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity.

I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.