Representation of the People Bill

Lisa Smart Excerpts

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

[Katie Lam]

When I have finished this point, I will give way. It should terrify all of us that election material in our country is being produced in a foreign language and designed to drum up support among a particular religious community. Not only does this contribute to a culture of group-based grievance politics, but it makes it impossible for the vast majority of the British public to scrutinise what candidates are saying.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.

[Katie Lam]

The fact that English takes words from other languages does not mean that an English voter, or indeed any British voter, would be able to read election material in Latin. The point is that our voters must be able to understand the election literature that is being produced, and if it is not produced in a language of the British Isles, they cannot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart]

Let me begin by putting on record my thanks to the Minister, who I very much welcome to her place. In particular, I thank her predecessor, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who has shown with her comments today the grace and thoughtfulness with which she conducted herself throughout the whole process. We did not agree on everything in the Bill Committee—indeed, all members of the Bill Committee did not agree—but we conducted our discussions with good grace and occasionally a hint of humour. I am grateful for the work that the other members of the Bill Committee put in, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), who led for us on all matters to do with candidate safety and candidates, given her hugely relevant experience as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. It would be remiss of me not to share the gratitude of the House for Philip Rycroft’s efforts in conducting his review, the recommendations from which have given this legislation more teeth than it started out with.

I do not think it will surprise anyone, however, that we Liberal Democrats think much more could and should be done. The political freedoms and assurances we have relied upon for decades are increasingly vulnerable to insidious, hostile actors. We saw an entirely unnecessary by-election over the summer. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and was brought about by a resignation whose circumstances are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Our rules should not permit a Member under investigation to trigger a by-election and then walk straight back in here at the public’s expense, and that is precisely what new clause 79 in my name would prevent. However, I do not believe it was selectable, so I will move on.

That saga was yet another example of how big money is infiltrating our politics, with millions of pounds paid to politicians, uncapped donations and direct payments for inflammatory social media posts. It is totally disfiguring our politics. We have to tackle big money wherever it comes from, and that is a major omission from the Bill. New clause 88 would require the Secretary of State, within three months of Royal Assent, to publish proposals for a royal commission to consider a cap on political donations and the level at which that cap should be set, and whether existing limits on campaign expenditure and the period over which they bite are still fit for purpose. It would require those proposals to cover terms of reference, membership and funding, and the commission would have to report within 12 months. It is a straightforward request. It does not demand or impose limits without buy-in. It does not ask any Member to sign up to a particular figure. It takes a conversation that has been going on for the better part of 20 years or more, and gives it a proper remit, a proper deadline and a proper independent home.

I want to be fair to the Government, because over the summer things have moved in a positive direction. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about the defending democracy taskforce yesterday, but we need to hear more detail about how it will function, particularly around money coming into political parties in and around our politics, how its recommendations will come into force and, importantly, when they will come into force. The threat is real, the threat is now, and urgent action is vital.

We have tabled further amendments on money in politics. New clauses 9 and 10 would introduce barriers on who can donate, preventing donations from those who are or have been members of, or political advisers to, foreign Administrations and those convicted of promoting or inciting political violence. New clauses 11 and 12 would require candidates and parties to declare and mitigate the risk of foreign-linked donations. Taken together, they are a natural extension of the “know your donor” scheme, which this Bill enhances. We should know exactly who funds us, and the public have that right, too.

Money is not the only way in which influence is bought. We now live in a world where a handful of people own the platforms and write the algorithms that decide what millions of our constituents see about politics every day. When the owner of a social media platform can openly discuss handing tens of millions of pounds to a British political party, the danger is in plain sight, and the Bill does not meet the moment. The Government chose to reject sensible amendments on deepfakes, AI-generated content and the clear labelling of digital campaign material. Those were not wrecking amendments; they were an offer of cross-party work on a threat that is moving faster than we are legislating. I ask the Government even now to commit to the real-time disclosure of donations and a publicly searchable database of every pound spent on online political advertising, so that voters can see who is trying to influence them and with whose money. That will be more important as we extend the franchise.

The Lib Dems warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16. Indeed, we have campaigned on it for decades, but we are concerned that the current voter registration system does not work well for young people. If we want votes at 16 to be a success, we need the voter registration improvements that the Bill enables to be implemented in time for the next general election. I would welcome hearing some reassurance from the Minister, when she is winding up, that they will be in place for the next general election.

My final point is the one that, I feel, matters the most. This Bill tidies the rules of the game, but it leaves the game itself untouched. There is no silver bullet for fixing our politics—it requires will, consensus and graft—but one thing that is shared by dozens and dozens of Members across the House is the understanding of the need for fairer votes. We cannot have a conversation about representing the people without addressing the elephant in the room: we have a voting system that handed one party two thirds of the seats in this House on barely a third of the vote. Millions of people cast ballots that changed nothing and elected no one, and then they are told to have faith in the result.

I therefore tabled new clause 8 to bring in proportional representation for elections across the United Kingdom. It details the way in which a fairer voting system could be implemented, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity the Bill presents to rise to the occasion. First past the post is unfair and unrepresentative, and lets Governments take voters for granted. No amount of tightening around the edges fixes a system that was out of date a century ago. Despite identifying the crisis of confidence in our political system in their 2024 manifesto, this Government have yet to back even modest steps towards making our voting system fairer, such as a national commission on electoral reform, as detailed in new clause—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before we delve into a rabbit hole about proportional representation, it might be helpful if I remind all Members that it is out of scope of the Bill.

[Lisa Smart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the Government are putting forward a piece of legislation written in such a way that it prohibits proportional representation and fairer votes from being discussed on the Floor of the House. We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the things we need to fix in our country, so we will support the Bill as a step forward. However, a step is not the final destination. Until this House finds the courage to give people a Parliament that actually reflects how they vote, we will not have restored trust in our democracy. We will keep making that case, and we will support this Bill as the beginning, but certainly not the end, of this work.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me so early, Madam Deputy Speaker. Without wanting to upset you, I was going to talk about new clause 31. I will keep my comments on that to a minimum for fear of upsetting you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

I will come on to my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my speech. To come back to accessibility, we agree with the principle outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her amendment, which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who has lived experience of this, and many other Members. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and other interested Members from both Houses on a suitable amendment that can be tabled in the Lords.

A number of Members from right across the House have mentioned electoral reform. In the spirit of transparency, I should say that a number of Members know my position on electoral reform. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. The Prime Minister remains committed to electoral reform as a way of supporting that objective. However, this is a complex constitutional matter, and it is premature to legislate now for one approach. I would be happy to meet Members from across the House to hear their views, look at how we can work on strong proposals, and discuss next steps.

On new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the rules on third-party campaigning are clear, proportionate and workable in practice. On new clauses relating to spending limits, we are of the opinion that an independent assessment is needed of the adequacy of current spending limits in electoral law. We agree that the Electoral Commission is best placed to provide that assessment. That is why the Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State wrote to the Electoral Commission on 29 August, asking it to expand its review of spending limits to include candidate limits. That builds on the Government’s current ask of the commission to provide recommendations by July 2027, and will ensure that the electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose for the modern campaigning world.

[Lisa Smart]

It is welcome that the Government have asked the Electoral Commission to look at spending limits. I love a task-and-finish group almost as much as I love a taskforce or a sub-committee, but will the Minister put a little more meat on the bones, and say what she is doing on donation caps, specifically on timing, and on whether things will be in place ahead of the next general election? I would not want a Member to press for a separate Division on an amendment because there was not enough meat on the bone.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson. I cannot stand here and unilaterally write the terms of reference for the taskforce, but I would be happy to discuss with her at a later stage what the taskforce would entail. She also spoke about voter registration provisions. We will move towards more automated voter registration, but that takes time. We hope to use existing powers or non-legislative approaches as part of that.

The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes. Although there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining AI-generated content, we will continue to explore solutions and are taking the first steps forward. Several amendments relate to social media and elections. The Government agree that we must protect the integrity of our elections from malign influence, and greater transparency is part of that. We believe that the way to achieve that is through a new targeted transparency regime. That is why we are strengthening the imprint framework through the Bill. We have taken steps to tackle a range of threats from foreign states that are actively seeking to disrupt our political system. We are alive to the issues that Members have raised in this debate through their amendments, such as those on deepfakes and online harassment, and the Government are continuing to assess the best way to mitigate those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It has been a privilege to be part of this process and to listen to the impassioned contributions from Members across the House, from Second Reading through to Committee and Report. The contents of this legislation have been a long time coming, and owe a great deal to the hard work of the people who have campaigned tirelessly for improvements to our system and to clean up our politics, and of course, to those who do the work on the ground. Our returning officers and those who deliver democracy, often on shoestring budgets, so that we can sit here, rarely get the praise they deserve. We should be strengthening what they do and how they do it, and we owe them the resources to do what is needed.

The Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight, and we will do so because it extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—a measure that we have argued for over many years, and which I will be delighted to vote for this evening. We will also support the Bill because, without it, corrupt practices will only entrench further. The “know your donor” regime is not perfect, but it is a step that we welcome, and we will not obstruct it. We do not stand in the way of progress.

The Bill will make it easier for people to register, safer for people to stand and harder for the wrong money to stay in our politics. Those are good things and will have a long-lasting effect. I look forward to the discussions with Ministers that were promised on further work that they are doing on donation and spending limits, which they outlined earlier. The true test of whether the people really are represented fairly will be whether votes count when they are cast. That argument has not been resolved yet, and I do not think it is an argument that will fade away any time soon. For tonight, though, I am content that this is a better Bill than the one that arrived, and that is down to the scrutiny and grit that this House has been supported to deliver. I look forward to seeing how our noble friends in the other place can make it even stronger.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.