Representation of the People Bill

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

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

[Chris Hinchliff]

As we have heard many times in today’s debate, there is a vast difference between trade unions—which are made up of millions of members making small contributions that are collectively donated to the Labour party, which they support—and corporations and rich individuals seeking influence and to further their own vested interests.

To continue where I left off, what confidence can the British people have that the houses that will be built in their area will meet the actual needs of local families and enhance the beauty of their communities, when the developers throwing up sprawling, characterless, rip-off estates across the country are able to buy seats for a quiet chat with Ministers, during which they can lobby them? It is time to ban developers from donating to political parties, to wash away the stain of undue influence, and to deliver a housing and planning system that puts people before profit.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

The Representation of the People Bill makes much-needed changes that I am very pleased to support. The Bill, and the Government amendments we are discussing, show that this Government are taking protecting our democracy seriously.

Government new clause 72 would introduce a ban on donations using cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is unregulated and untraceable money, and we are right to take it out of our democracy. The amendment would place a moratorium on those donations—a non-permanent ban—until regulation can be put in place, but I have heard some very compelling arguments today for introducing a complete ban. Any hostile foreign actors wishing to disrupt our democracy are able to fund that disruption through cryptocurrency donations. There is no way to trace them, and any political party that takes crypto donations should take a long, hard look at itself. There is clearly a risk that they are taking money from those bent on harming our country.

Government new clause 116 would put a cap on donations from overseas electors, so that those who do not live in or contribute to this country cannot unduly sway our elections. Our democracy is not the business of individuals and organisations that are based abroad. British democracy should be in the hands of the people who live here and contribute, not those of rich individuals who choose to live elsewhere. That should be something that all parties can agree on, but sadly, it is not. I know that some parties have benefited from foreign donations a little more than others, and perhaps do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place again—because he is never here, is he? He never engages properly with legislation—not only on winning the most pointless by-election in history, but on the fact that his party broke the UK record for the single largest individual political donation by a living person. Some £9 million was donated by one person, a Thailand-based businessman, in one donation. With foreign friends like that, no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton has no need to spend time in his constituency. The new clauses I have spoken to will strengthen our democracy.

Votes at 16 have also been discussed today. The Conservatives say that 16-year-olds are not mature or wise enough to vote. I disagree; I do not think there is a clear correlation between age and wisdom. All of us in this Chamber speak to people of all ages. Some of the best questions I have ever been asked and some of the best suggestions I have ever heard have come from the 16 and 17-year-olds at the local schools and colleges I have visited.

I think the most compelling argument for votes at 16 is that it gets people in the habit of voting. Most 16 and 17-year-olds will still be at school, at college or in some sort of training. Voting is a way to show people how elections work. I know adults who have never voted simply because they did not understand how it worked. I have had to talk them through it, saying, “You go with your ID. You will have a list, and you will mark a box with a cross. No, you do not tick it. That would make too much sense.” If we get people involved in democracy at a younger age, they are more likely to be lifelong voters, and that is really important.

However, this Bill does not address the most pressing issue for our democracy, which is the glaring problems with our current voting system. It is clear that first past the post simply does not work anymore. That is why I am calling for a national commission on electoral reform. I know that the new clause has been ruled out of scope today, so I will not speak any further on it, but if anyone would like to talk about the problems with first past the post and the potential for a new voting system, please do get in touch. It is one of my favourite subjects.

I want to speak briefly against new clause 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I am puzzled by the idea that leaflets in other languages are somehow detrimental to our democracy. I used to live in Spain, and I was in a minority among Brits, because I actually spoke Spanish. Some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish, but I know from experience the difference between being able to understand a language and being able to understand the political nuances, the history, and the code used in political text, which can be different. We want to expand participation in our democracy, so I think it is perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. I note that only 0.3% of people in Britain do not speak English. It is a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately, this place is yet again being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis in reality.

[Several hon. Members rose—]