Representation of the People Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

It is great to speak in a debate that has been so well-tempered, and mostly very thoughtful.

I start by welcoming the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Lib Dems have campaigned on that for many decades, so we are delighted that the Government have reached into our policy locker. I also welcome a lot of the work that will be done under this Bill around donor transparency—the idea of knowing our donor. If we are all being honest, many of us, looking at the rules around the donations that we all seek and accept, think that someone could, if they chose, drive a coach and horses through them. When we buy a house or a car, or some other expensive goods, we often have to prove where the money has come from, so it is about time that we had the same rules when it comes to political donations.

In the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight a couple of areas where we need to go further. I am a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, the Chair of which, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), spoke earlier. The Committee has recently covered a couple of points that I implore the Minister to look into in greater depth. Our long-running inquiry on defending democracy looks at exactly the issues addressed in the Bill, and I would like to talk about two of them.

First, representatives from the National Crime Agency came before the Committee and told us that the law as set out—both the current law and that mooted by the Government in their strategy—does not give the agency sufficient legal grounds to investigate suspicious donations. The Minister can look at the evidence given to the Committee, but there are lots of behaviours that appear to be undemocratic, but after discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency, they are judged not to meet the threshold for breaking the law, either currently or if the Bill as drafted is enacted, so no further investigations are undertaken. There have been many instances when the National Crime Agency has been looking at something that is illegal and, in the scope of its activities, it has uncovered other activities that look “dodgy”, but it is unable to investigate further. That evidence was set out to the Committee, so the Minister can look at that.

Secondly, there are the issues around cryptocurrency, as other hon. Members have already raised. This is a frontier that is moving incredibly fast. On one hand, cryptocurrency has blockchain, so it is possible to look at the ledger to see where donations have come from. On the other hand, with multiple different cryptocurrencies, the ability to move funds in and out of cryptocurrencies in different jurisdictions on crypto exchanges that are held in jurisdictions with which we do not have good relationships, and the ability to use AI to split large donations into tiny donations, spread them out across hundreds of different crypto exchanges and cryptocurrencies, and then reform them into microdonations, this frontier is moving incredibly fast and we do not understand it. For that reason, the Chair of the Committee wrote to the Secretary of State last week asking for a moratorium on cryptocurrencies, and I urge the Government to look into the issue—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Justin Madders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I will not, because of the time. The British Social Attitudes survey shows that a majority of all political supporters are in favour of proportional representation, and of course, it is pragmatic and will improve our politics—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Florence Eshalomi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I do not think I will get the time to say this at the end, so I want to put on the record that the Government should set up a national commission to look at our voting system. Whatever our views on it, we no longer live in a two-party electoral system, and if our electoral system does not acknowledge that fact, we will have even more chaotic and unpredictable election results, as Professor Rob Ford says.

I welcome many of the changes introduced by the Bill. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the principles behind democracy. My view is pretty simple: we should make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible in our democracy to vote. Unfortunately, some political actors have moved us away from that basic principle in recent years with some of the measures that they have introduced. There are always trade-offs in supporting the security and integrity of our electoral system, but the introduction of photo ID in our elections was done in a way that placed an unfair burden on people going to vote, while not doing anything to support the integrity of our electoral system.

In the 2023 election—the first time voter ID was introduced—a nurse in my constituency was not able to vote because she did not have a valid form of ID. I am sure it is possible for people in this Chamber to argue that at some point between her 12-hour shifts, saving the lives of my constituents, she should have found the time to fill in the proper paperwork. That right to vote was taken away from her to stop a problem that the Electoral Commission consistently said basically did not really exist. There is almost no evidence to show that it ever existed, if only because it would be incredibly inefficient to provide that on a large scale. I acknowledge that there are problems with electoral fraud in our democracy, but there is almost no in-person fraud at the ballot box. The introduction of that law therefore had almost no benefit, and it is right that the Government are increasing the range of supported IDs.

In the same vein of making it as easy as possible for people to vote, I would like to support the changes to automatic voter registration, but I acknowledge some of the problems raised by Opposition Members. While I accept that it will not be possible to say that there will be full-coverage automatic voter registration by the time of the next election—that does not, in and of itself, create a problem—it would be good to have reassurance from the Government on two points. First, where there are constituencies that cross multiple local authorities, we must not have a problem whereby half the constituency has automatic voter registration and the other half does not. Secondly, by the time we come to the next boundary review, when it comes to automatic voter registration, there must not be incomplete coverage. Can we please have a commitment to a way of addressing that problem—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

There is a lot to welcome in this legislation that we are debating this evening. In my view, extending the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds is a statement of confidence in the next generation and a practical step towards a more inclusive democracy. As I have told my constituents, my support for 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote stems less from their being determined in adult, which has been contested this evening, and more from the need to balance our political debate. With a shrinking birth rate and an ageing population, the electorate are set to become more imbalanced over the coming years, so there is a practical reason for making this change.

I also welcome the Bill’s provisions to improve voter registration and to protect candidates and electoral staff from intimidation and abuse. On voter registration, I particularly encourage Ministers to take seriously the work of the Migrant Democracy Project. I believe we should use this opportunity to extend the franchise to more adult residents, not just younger ones, given that there are 4 million people in this country who cannot vote in a general election at the moment. I also note the Bill’s intention to strengthen transparency and security around political donations. As has been discussed extensively, those are vital changes.

As many colleagues have said, there is something important missing if we genuinely want this Bill to create a fair, secure and inclusive democracy. That is, of course, the decision to not look again at the central mechanism that decides who sits in this House. Under first past the post, millions of people can do everything that is asked of them—they register, turn out and vote in good faith—but still end up without meaningful representation and a sense that their voice truly matters. It is arguably getting worse. In only the past week, many of us have been out on the doorstep at the by-election, and I spoke to many people who were actively debating how to stop a particular party and were using their vote to achieve that particular end, rather than voting for something positive and something that reflected their views and their policy aspirations. Surely we can do better than fighting elections on the basis of the best worst option, which is how so many people see it.

I want to put on the record my support for the work of the APPG for fair elections and to urge Ministers to genuinely look at the call for some form of a national commission on electoral reform, so that modern Britain genuinely considers how we can ensure that every vote counts.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

We know that to sustain a healthy democracy, we have to always look at ways to strengthen it. This Bill seeks to do just that, so I am pleased that the Government have brought it forward. By lowering the voting age to 16, we are expanding democratic participation and taking a vital step to strengthen and renew our democracy.

I have often been sceptical of those who say that young people are not interested in politics or do not understand it enough to vote. To Members of this House who suggest that, I simply ask them how often they visit schools in their constituencies. I have encountered students far younger than 16 who have shown more than a basic understanding of our political system. I regularly visit schools in my constituency and experience at first hand the political intelligence and impressive cross-examination of young people there. Last summer, I was pleased to host my first activism academy, inviting 16 to 18-year-olds to a three-day learning programme to understand what MPs do, how Parliament works, and the ways in which they can get involved. Our young people are politically engaged and understand the weight of the right they are being granted.

While I welcome the change, I am disappointed that it has not been coupled with a robust programme of civic education. While many 16 to 18-year-olds have a firm understanding of politics, without comprehensive political education, those who want more information are forced to seek it elsewhere and will likely resort to social media, which is riddled with fake news. I ask the Minister when they respond to outline what the Government have planned.

I very much welcome the provisions in the Bill that will introduce automatic voter registration, which is an important step to improve voter turnout. I would also like to see the Bill go the way of Australia, where everybody who is eligible to vote has a legal obligation to do so.

Finally, I would like to see the Bill offer more power to the electorate to recall their Members of Parliament—yes, you heard that right. I suspect this is not a suggestion that will make me popular with my colleagues, but I think we should all be more concerned about what our constituents think. At the moment, for an MP to be recalled, they must be convicted of a criminal offence that makes them eligible and they must have exhausted the appeals process. That can take years, and during that time their constituents are not getting the representation they deserve. Unlike recall procedures in other countries, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 does not allow constituents to initiate proceedings, instead relying on criminal criteria being met. Even then, a high threshold of petitioners is needed for a by-election to be triggered.

Over a number of years, MPs have been investigated for criminal offences or gross misconduct, and Members have failed to behave in a standard that is befitting of an MP. They have disgraced themselves, our profession and this House and, most importantly, they have failed their constituents. With trust in politicians at an all-time low, we need to show that we are willing to put it right. This is the Representation of the People Bill; it should seek to strengthen and improve the representation of British people by giving the electorate greater power to hold their MPs to account. The Bill is a great starting point for strengthening our democracy, and I hope the Government will not shy away from going further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Representation of the People Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

This Bill gives back what was taken away by the Elections Act. In my last few seconds let me say briefly that council officers run so many elections, and they do a fantastic job, but too often they are not given the financial support they need to do the work—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

As has already been mentioned, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, the British public increasingly do not trust their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, we must tackle this problem head on. That is why the Representation of the People Bill really matters.

As the Minister rightly noted—I welcome her to her place—this landmark piece of legislation introduces some of the most ambitious changes to Britain’s democracy for a generation, including tougher rules to keep dirty money out of politics and to safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of these measures is essential. They will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and each sends an unambiguous message that this Labour Government take the health of our democracy far more seriously than their predecessors.

Many of the safeguards needed against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already, but as we explored in some considerable detail in Committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I tabled new clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole.

Under existing rules, there is a complete absence of scrutiny of the funds that new parties hold upon registration. While new parties are required to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register, there are no checks on the permissibility of these funds. Members will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) launched a new political party, Restore Britain, no such checks were in place. Prior to the launch, Restore Britain was a political movement that may, or may not, have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. As things stand, that is entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent brand new political parties from sidestepping controls on donations by simply accepting as many donations and gifts as they please before registering.

We should not wait until formal registration before asking questions about the true origin of major political donations. My amendment would mean that any new party would have to subject any funds it holds of over £250,000 to post-registration permissibility checks. Having already raised such proposals in Committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that no loopholes of that kind remain in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting for any significant funds that parties hold on registration. That will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny.

As we look ahead, I hope that the Minister will hear not only enthusiastic support for the Bill, but the strength of feeling across the House that it must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat we currently face. We must rebuild trust in our democratic institutions and protect our democracy from corrupting influences, deep-pocketed individuals and unwanted foreign interference. This landmark Bill, with the right changes, is our opportunity to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am reluctant even to mention this, because all the Members here are so highly experienced, but when mentioning another Member in the Chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior warning, so that they have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal in real time.

I am looking for Luke Akehurst, but he is not here, so he has missed his turn.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It is the bedrock of our society, and we have got to defend it at all costs. In that spirit, I am delighted to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she will do a fantastic job.

We need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This Bill makes provision to ensure that we give protection not only to candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, but to electoral staff. I am sure that many of us in this place can point to times when we have been intimidated while out campaigning. Civil and robust debate is important, but it is very different from intimidatory behaviour. We require changes to keep pace with the changing world we live in and the increasingly digital life that we experience, so I note new clauses 41 to 47, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), to prevent online harms. Online harassment or worse is growing exponentially year on year. AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation being circulated on social media and other forms of online harassment are simply unacceptable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the preservation of Members in this Chamber, particularly women, who suffer even higher levels of abuse.

The spirit of those new clauses is spot on, and I am pleased that the Government are taking these issues seriously through the Online Safety Act 2023 and through the defending democracy taskforce. I am also pleased to see the Government establishing an AI-labelling taskforce, and as the Bill passes through the other place, I hope that the Government will continue their work to further tighten up measures in this area.

For very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate those risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key. We know that only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.

Cleaning up political donations is also vital. One critically important clean-up—we have heard about it today—is of cryptocurrency. I have spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about the crypto world as it stands today. Rules around the sector need to be watertight before it can be safe to allow contributions to political parties from cryptoassets. Crypto, in my view, has a place in the future of the UK financial system, and there are many in the UK industry who are working hard for tighter, more appropriate regulation to get that moving, but for now, the anonymity in the political donations world is simply not acceptable, as it creates the risk of a significant reduction in transparency. I believe the measures in the Bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy.

To conclude, I want to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules that update measures that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces, and they have to pay taxes if they are working. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be most exposed for the longest period to good or bad decisions made by future Governments. We must start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their minds. I have met some incredible young people through work experience in my office, and through my youth days and visits to schools. At my last youth day, 70 pupils—the clear majority, with only two against—were in favour of votes for 16-year-olds. Even the teachers, the people who know the children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age in which young people can have a proper say on their future. Democracy has endured because of its ability to accommodate change, and we are now in a rapidly changing world. The changes we need to make to protect our democracy for years to come are vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I will extend the time limit because we have gathered some time. Mark Sewards now has six minutes.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks.

However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from.

I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation.

I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should

“more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.”

If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge.

It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Third Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I remind the House that this business has to conclude by 8.3 pm, and that the shadow Front-Bench team may wish to speak on it.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill strengthens our elections and takes a stand against hostile actors at home and abroad who seek to threaten them. It extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and automates voter registration. It protects candidates and officers, and introduces new, tougher rules around political donations.

The legislation reflects the commitments made in our strategy for modern and secure elections, which I published as Secretary of State in July 2025. It also now delivers much of the Rycroft review on foreign interference. It meets our manifesto commitments and sets the foundations for a new model of politics that is both stronger and fairer.

I reassure the House and hon. Members that during the Bill’s passage we have committed to returning to various issues in the other place. I look forward to a strengthened Bill returning.

I will briefly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who have carried the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who delivered much of the policy that led to the Bill.

I also thank those hon. Members form across the House who have contributed to debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Opposition and those who took part in the Bill Committee. It would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). As he said in Committee, the Bill is “groundbreaking” legislation, and I most certainly agree. Finally, I thank my team in the private office, all the officials at the elections directorate in my Department, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who have worked so hard to produce the Bill before us today.

The Bill will leave our politics stronger and fairer, and all those who have contributed to its drafting and passage should take huge pride in having done so. The measures are the next step in the evolution of our democracy, strengthening our institutions and processes to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.

As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.

I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.

As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.

Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her opening remarks on Report of the important Representation of the People Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), repeated—I am sure inadvertently—misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election, despite the fact that it was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester police found no evidence of criminality. What steps can be taken to ensure that the record is properly corrected?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.

[Katie Lam]

It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.