Representation of the People Bill

Debate between Peter Lamb and John McDonnell

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

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment.

I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate.

I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same.

As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system.

My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections.

New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system.

We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.

[Peter Lamb]

May I express my delight at my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) making it on to the Front Bench? She is going to do a fantastic job.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I had 14 years in local government, and I was very involved in electoral administration in my area. So much of what we are talking about today involves the Elections Act. I was appointed to chair the Local Government Association working group that went through it, which was a cross-party group. By the end, we came up with a consensus viewpoint: based on the evidence and expert testimony we received, very little of that Act was thought to make much sense. I will not insult Conservative Members by saying that it was a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, but if they were going make a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, it would have looked exactly like the Elections Act.

The basis on which they argued the case at the time was personation. It is vanishingly rare that people actually turn up and try and pretend to be anyone else at a polling station. I will deal with that in just a second, but I must respond to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), at the start of this debate. We knew that the Opposition would say something to try to explain why widening the franchise or making it easier for people to register to vote was a bad idea, but I was not expecting that. It was a good thing we had free hearing tests in Parliament just before recess, but I did not need one: the dog whistle across the Chamber was so loud that it was apparent to all of us.

When Reform eventually turned up to say something, it was the exact same talking points. Conservative Members will not rebuild their party by aping the Reform party. Parties have had this issue time and again; what they are doing might play well within their own ranks, but it will not rebuild their party with the country. Although I have never voted for the Conservative party, I know that there are many moderate Conservatives who must feel a great deal of shame at what is happening to their party, which is driving towards the right and away from common-sense positions.

Personation is vanishingly rare in our system. The reality is that someone would need to know that a seat was on an absolute knife edge to make it work at all. They could not do it as a single person going around all the polling stations—they would need hundreds of people to go around with them. It could not be rigged in a way that would not leak out; they would run into someone in the process. They would need decades of marked registers, which are available to purchase only for six months after an election. Someone would need so many people and to run such a well organised campaign, and even then, they could just get unlucky in the process. I can confidently say that personation has never changed the result of any national election, and it is very unlikely that it has affected a local seat.

What has caused a real problem—personation is not a real-world problem—is foreign interference in our political system. We know there are people who we may soon be at war with who are trying to intervene directly in our elections. We know that questionable money is a problem. Frankly, Russia was pretty happy to give the Conservatives money at one point. We know that tens of thousands of people have been turned away from polling stations since the introduction of voter ID. We know that millions of people are not registered. One in seven eligible voters is not registered in our system, and individual voter registration helped to make that the case. Disenfranchisement in our system is an absolute travesty, and this Bill gives control back to the British public by re-enfranchising them.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Peter Lamb and John McDonnell

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I want to argue the case for Wessex. [Laughter.] No, I don’t.

I originally came in to support new clauses 67 and 68, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb), on the licensing of cabs and others. Unfortunately, he had problems printing out his speech and arrived late, so he is unable to speak directly to them, but I am sure he will intervene on the subject.

Things have moved on since we first drafted new clauses 67 and 68, and I am really grateful. The Government have brought forward a series of amendments—new clauses 49 to 54, I believe—that deal with national licensing. That is a huge step forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) eloquently put the arguments for why those provisions are needed, and moved the argument on as well, because out-of-borough licensing is the big issue that is hitting us at the moment.

I declare an interest as a member of Unite—it is in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The genesis of our involvement is that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley and I convened a meeting of cab drivers who were all members of Unite. The GMB has taken an important role in this as well. It is the first time I had seen a united front of cab drivers, with black cab drivers and other drivers representing all areas of this sector of the economy united in this one demand on proper national licensing and out-of-area provision.

[Peter Lamb]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to move these provisions forward. I will relay the key points of our agreement on this issue. The key challenge is that since the Deregulation Act 2015, we have a system in which councils no longer know who is operating in their area, on what basis they are operating, and what standards they are operating on. I am directly familiar with how the system has shifted as I was a member of the licensing committee from 2010 onwards. Most significantly, councils have no power to enforce or investigate when things go wrong. City of Wolverhampton council really needs to go and investigate the entire country because of the way in which the systems are operating.

If we are not going to have a national system, the only way we can get back to a system where someone has the confidence that if their daughter gets into an Uber tonight, the council will know who she is, can intervene if she is in danger and will investigate if something goes wrong, is by returning to national standards, and by having a situation where local licensing authorities can once again control who is starting or ending in their patch—not having people coasting in from out of area.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend got a good part of his speech in anyway. That is exactly what came out of the meeting with the cab drivers themselves. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton North, they put an emphasis on the Casey report and raised their concerns.

My understanding of the Government’s intention is that, having inserted national licensing into the Bill, there will be a rapid consultation on how it will work—that will be excellent—and, with regard to the out-of-location measures, there will be further discussions about the whole licensing regime for cabs. As the Minister said, the legislation is that old that it goes back to the horse-drawn Hackney carriage in the 19th century.

The one point I want to make is that this is a matter of urgency. Everyone I have spoken to feels that it is a matter of urgency because of the vulnerability of passengers. As has been said, the vast majority of people who work in the sector want to provide a good service, which is why they are lobbying so hard for national standards, but there are some rogue operators and they are putting people at risk. We are only as good as the last serious case of abuse in the system. That is why I emphasise to the Government that this is a matter of urgency. If it requires a separate piece of legislation, as I am advised it probably will, we need to ensure that we have spoken to the Leader of the House. I think that, on a cross-party basis, we would give that legislation time and priority, as the dangers are so hefty.

New clause 13, which some of my hon. Friends will talk about, reflects what is happening outside this House: a movement in local communities to have more control of their local community, particularly through local environmental controls. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Government are resisting new clause 13, but maybe the spirit of it will go into the other place. All it is asking for is a review of how the Localism Act 2011 has worked.

I supported the 2011 Act—it was about empowering local communities. The movement that is building for people to assert control over their local areas is significant, and the Government need to take that into account. Perhaps, as the debate moves forward, the Government will look more appreciatively on an amendment like new clause 13 in the other place.