PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Representation of the People Bill - 2 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.

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

There is a lot of interest from Members across the House in this Bill, and that is no surprise, because we are all proud of our British democracy. Our democracy is a fundamental part of who we are as a country. The long history of this House has been punctuated by reforms that have strengthened it. It is precisely because of that evolution of our elections and Parliament that in a world where too many beacons of democracy have dimmed, ours still shines brightly.

As parliamentarians, we are more than caretakers of democracy; we are here to actively advance it and to protect it from threats. When hostile actors at home and abroad seek to sow division, using every means possible to undermine our elections, trying to destabilise the very foundations of our freedom and our democratic institutions, then we must act. That is why we are debating the Representation of the People Bill: to secure our elections against those who threaten them; to protect those who participate; to ensure our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters; and to strengthen and preserve our democracy for the next generation.

At the 2024 general election, Labour’s election manifesto committed to strengthening our democracy and upholding the integrity of elections. We campaigned on encouraging participation in our democracy, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote and improving voter registration, while fulfilling our pledge to strengthen protections against foreign interference, as well as to introduce rules around donations.

I have come straight to Parliament from Kingsbury school in my constituency, where the year 11 pupils were saying how much they are looking forward to being given the right to vote, so may I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing that forward in the Bill?

I thank my hon. Friend for her support for these measures? They were in the Labour election manifesto on which we both stood, and it is a great pleasure now to start to implement them.

We committed to these measures because we understand that in a democracy, people must be in control of their lives and their own country. However, because we live in a time of growing instability, conflict and change, we can best protect our democracy by making it more robust and more accountable.

There are some very welcome measures in the Bill. I intend to table an amendment to stop oil and gas giants making donations, given the pernicious role that they play in undermining the action that we need to take on climate change. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the amendment and the need to clean up our politics from abuse by fossil fuel giants?

We are tightening the rules on donations so that the system can be much more robust and has much greater integrity than is currently the case.

My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), published our strategy for modern and secure elections in July 2025. The strategy promised to restore faith in our democracy. It set out new tasks of future-proofing our democracy, keeping our elections safe, upholding our values and protecting against foreign interference. We promised to expand the democratic rights of young people and set a path towards automated voter registration.

I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Secretary of State recognise that when young carers and young adult carers get to the age of 16, they have potentially already been caring for a loved one for over a decade? They are emotionally intelligent and educated enough, and have enough life experience, to deserve the democratic right to vote.

That is a very appropriate intervention. My hon. Friend makes his point very well and I agree with what he has to say.

We will establish new safeguards on digital campaigning and allow digital voter identification. We will strengthen our elections against foreign interference, and we will protect those who put their name forward to stand in elections from harassment and intimidation. Today, this Government are making good on that commitment.

The UN’s definition of an adult is somebody who is 18 years of age. Restrictions on social media are being introduced to ensure that those aged 16 and above will be protected. I genuinely and sincerely ask the Minister, when it comes to reducing the voting age to 16, have the Government considered the UN’s definition and the way that people use social media, which might mean that they are taken advantage of or abused on social media?

Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the alarm that people feel about the idea of cryptocurrency getting into our democracy? Is there a ban on it in the Bill? If not, why not?

As always, my right hon. Friend raises an important point. There are huge concerns about cryptocurrency, not least because we cannot track where the funding has come from. We have charged Sir Philip Rycroft with conducting a review into these matters. His recommendations will be incorporated into the Bill as it progresses through the House, so that we can tackle the matter properly.

The reason the Bill extends the vote to younger people, aged 16 and 17 years old, is simple: it is because young people are our nation’s future. The voting age has stood at 18 since it was lowered from 21 by the Representation of the People Act 1969. More recently, the Welsh Government lowered the voting age to 16 for Senedd elections in 2020 and for local elections in Wales in 2021. The Scottish Government lowered the voting age to 16 for the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, and subsequently for all devolved elections in Scotland. The change in the Bill will bring consistency to the voting age for all statutory elections across the United Kingdom.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the same arguments that were made over 100 years ago about women not being fit enough to vote are now being repeated for 16-year-olds? The success that ultimately came from including women in the franchise should give us confidence that this is the right thing to do.

I certainly share the hon. Lady’s confidence that this is the right thing to do, and I thank her for making that point.

Why, if the Secretary of State is allowing 16-year-olds to vote, is he not allowing them to stand for Parliament? If somebody can vote for the lawmaker, they can be a lawmaker. That is the logical incoherence in his argument.

To correct the hon. Gentleman, it is not me, but the House, that would be allowing 16-year-olds to vote. If people can serve in the armed forces, they should have the right to help to choose their own country’s Government, who decide on matters of war and peace. We have just heard from the Prime Minister what an outstanding job our armed forces are doing.

The Secretary of State will remember that when we both served on Lambeth council, I had the absolute honour of introducing the youth mayor elections. Up and down the country, there are 16-year-olds in public office, including many young people allocating funds in some cases in excess of £25,000 to other community groups. Young people have the capacity and knowledge, and they are willing to serve if we give them the opportunity. Does he agree?

I always agree with my hon. Friend, and not just because we are friends. I remember her introducing the youth mayor scheme in Lambeth; it was a huge success and showed how keen young people were to be involved in decisions that affect them, as well as their ability to contribute to discussions and debates in a very meaningful way.

I will take one more intervention.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on extending the franchise. Has he thought about the 4 million people who live in this country and do not have access to voting? There are 22,000 of those people in Cambridge. This is a complicated issue, but has he given it any consideration? No taxation without representation is a powerful principle.

My hon. Friend will hear about that further along in my speech.

I need to make progress, or you will be angry with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are looking at automated voter registration so that about 7 million or 8 million people in this country who are entitled to vote but do not have the vote can do so. We need to ensure that as many people as possible who are entitled to the vote can exercise it.

The Bill allows prospective voters to register in preparation before they turn 16. As we extend the franchise in this way, we will focus on data protection. Information can be shared only in very limited circumstances, and we are bringing forward a new offence of information being wrongly disclosed.

To ensure that all our eligible young people can participate, we are introducing a new duty on local authorities in Great Britain and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland to support looked-after children with their new right to vote. Local authorities and HSC trusts in Northern Ireland will have a duty to raise awareness of how to register and to provide assistance to help them do so. Extending the franchise is not simply “job done” with this legislation; we need to actively support young people to exercise their right to vote. We will offer young people the information and support that they need to do precisely that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) was saying a moment ago, up to 8 million people in the UK are either registered incorrectly or not included on the electoral register at all. Many of them find out only when it is too late, so they are denied their opportunity to vote. Our current process is out of date and has not kept pace with the world that we live in. We will replace this complicated, bureaucratic system with a modern, automated alternative that is as simple as possible and easier for voters to use. To get there, the Bill will allow pilots that test new and innovative approaches to electoral registration. Automated registration is already working in many countries: the examples of Germany and the Netherlands show how easy it can be.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

Let me make progress; I have given way a lot.

Similar reforms are already under way in Canada and Australia, and the time is right for us to follow suit. As we move towards automated registration, we recognise that we must look again at how the open register operates. Under the Bill, those registering to vote will be asked if they wish to opt into the open register, rather than opt out, as is currently the case.

There is also a moral dimension to this matter. We know that the least likely to be registered are those on low incomes, more often renting and more often younger. Our democracy is strongest when everyone can and does participate, and that is our aspiration.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way one last time.

This is an important point. The Secretary of State must be aware that large numbers of homeless people very seldom vote, because they do not have a point of registration unless they can find a church or somebody is prepared to host them. Is there a possibility that we can make arrangements for people who do not have any fixed abode but nevertheless are equal citizens like the rest of us and deserve the right to vote?

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That is not currently part of the Bill, but I am always happy to keep the position under review. We want to remove obstacles to those seeking to vote and stand in elections. These measures include absent voting and a new power to obtain information to help people to understand the election process better.

The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but in these times of profound change, that includes acting to defend our democracy. There are too many loopholes that allow foreign money to enter and seek to influence our politics. For instance, British voters face more stringent rules when donating to political parties than companies do—even shell companies and companies that are not based in the UK.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way to my hon. Friend later.

We know already that illicit finance can damage people’s trust in politics, and maintaining the confidence of the electorate is imperative. That is why we are requiring stronger checks on significant donations, requiring more transparency from those making donations and ensuring that only companies with a legitimate connection to the UK can donate to those involved in UK politics.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).

We in Northern Ireland have a particular, perhaps peculiar circumstance in that we have a border with the Republic of Ireland. We have political parties in Northern Ireland and political parties in southern Ireland that are the same parties, but in different jurisdictions with different responsibilities. Can the Secretary of State indicate what controls there will be to ensure that money does not traverse the border in such a way that disadvantages those of us in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who wish to have the democratic system and policies that we have here?

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.

Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

I am sure that Members across the House will have cases and instances that they are concerned about. This legislation intends to restore integrity to the system precisely because of those concerns. I will now make some progress so that others also have the chance to speak in this debate.

A key part of our changes is the “know your donor” principle, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for who is funding them. The existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is facilitating an illegal donation, but that will now change. As the independent Rycroft review concludes, we will consider its findings, and we expect to introduce amendments as the Bill progresses.

We will also improve the transparency of digital imprint rules, recognising that campaigns are increasingly digital and that regulation must keep up with that new reality. Transparency for electors over who is trying to influence their vote is a fundamental principle.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me if I make progress.

We are going further with our support for the Electoral Commission. The commission is the independent statutory body tasked with overseeing elections and regulating political finance in the UK, and its work is invaluable as the guardian of our democracy, but it requires stronger enforcement to meet today’s challenges, so we will strengthen its role and powers. Through secondary legislation, we will increase the maximum fine that the commission can impose from £20,000 to £500,000. We are also re-categorising administrative offences so that in most cases, they are punishable through civil sanctions; strengthening the commission’s powers to share information; and ensuring that enforcement is stronger, more responsive and collaborative. I have heard views from hon. Members regarding the commission’s strategy and policy statement. We recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the commission’s operational independence and ensuring it can carry out its statutory duties effectively, so we will repeal in full the power for Government to impose a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission.

We will legislate to protect the officials and staff who run elections, as well as those standing for election. We have all heard about the abuse, threats and dangers that scare people away from standing for election—many, if not most, Members in the Chamber will have their own stories and experiences. This has a chilling effect on our democracy, affecting the diversity of candidates and the quality of our political debate. We will not tolerate it any more.

The Government want people to feel safe and free to engage in our democracy; harassment and intimidation have no place in our elections. The safety and security of candidates and campaigners is essential to ensuring that the brightest and best put their names forward. That is why we will protect candidates, campaigners and office holders by adding a new, statutory aggravating factor for offences motivated by hostility towards them. I am calling time on the bullies and thugs who undermine our democracy. What is less well known is the effect that similar threats have on those who administer our elections—officials such as returning officers, poll clerks, and those responsible for counting the votes. These dedicated public servants perform a vital role in our democratic process, so we are legislating to disqualify from future elections anyone who seeks to harass, intimidate or abuse them in the course of their duties.

We have listened to, and reflected on, the experiences of recent candidates, and want to do more to support individuals to feel safe and secure in their homes. Under existing legislation, candidates can prevent their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but those acting as their own election agents do not have that option. The Bill will remove the remaining requirement for candidates to publish their home address, provided that they supply an alternative correspondence address. We will continue to work with our partners across central and local government and with the Electoral Commission to extend protections. I hope Members across the House will continue to work with us and share their experiences of how the authorities can best protect those who put their name forward.

I declare an interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference that investigated the security of MPs, candidates and wider elections. I put on record my gratitude to the Secretary of State and the Government in the round for the efforts they are making to ensure that, through legislation, regulations and other efforts, we do everything we can to protect our democracy from those who would intimidate candidates and everyone else involved, including officials. It is very important work, and everyone in this House and in our country has a responsibility to do everything they can to protect our democracy.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to others who were involved with the Speaker’s Conference. They have made a huge contribution to the shape of the Bill and the detail of its final version.

I support the Bill, but can we please ensure that the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland are funded, as are other statutory agencies? Not all these potential offences will be civil; some will meet the criminal threshold. We need to ensure that the statutory agencies responsible for capturing criminal evidence are funded to do so.

The hon. Lady is quite right—it is important that the agencies have the resources to carry out the functions that we require of them.

The final part of the Bill contains general provisions, including on powers and commencement. I can also confirm that we have written to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Senedd Cymru to begin the legislative consent process.

I will finish by expanding on the point I began with, about Parliament’s role in the evolution of our democracy. Every Member of this House wants to strengthen trust and confidence in our democracy. This Bill is not the first to carry its name—it was a Representation of the People Act that extended the franchise to male landowners, tenant farmers and shopkeepers in 1832. It was a Representation of the People Act that granted voting rights to working-class men in 1867. It was a Representation of the People Act that finally granted voting rights to women in 1918, and another that delivered equality of voting rights between men and women in 1928. Today, we debate the latest Representation of the People Bill, responding to our circumstances today.

In an age of change, with new threats to our freedom arising, we must stand up and tackle foreign interference head-on. In a society transformed by new technologies, we must introduce automatic voter registration, and in this country, where politics feels distant for too many, we must bring democracy closer to people. Britain will always be a democracy, because the people of this country will never have it any other way and because the choices of the British people must always lead our nation. This is a Representation of the People Bill inspired by tradition and legislating for the future. I commend it to the House.

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Representation of the People Bill because reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 is inconsistent with and contradictory to other aspects of the Government’s position on ages of majority and citizenship; automatic voter registration will lead to less accurate electoral registers and open the door to fraud; the Bill has been drafted without proper engagement with political parties; the Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in UK politics has yet to report; it does not include effective measures to tackle foreign interference from China and other hostile actors; and it believes that it would be preferable to proceed with a new Bill in the next Session of Parliament, following the report of the Rycroft review and proper consultation with political parties.”

When Parliament legislates on elections and the franchise, it is not passing an ordinary Bill; it is rewriting the rules by which MPs and, by extension, Governments are chosen and removed. Therefore, changes to those rules should be made carefully, after proper consultation and in full knowledge of the potential knock-on effects. While there are many elements of this Bill that we support, it unfortunately comes up woefully short when measured against the metric I have just outlined. It creates deep inconsistencies around the age of maturity; it risks weakening the integrity of the electoral register; it side-steps serious questions about foreign interference in our politics; it reduces protections against electoral fraud; and it has been introduced without proper consultation.

To start with the process, political parties were not properly consulted before these proposals were introduced. If the Government want to defend themselves against the accusation that they are putting their thumb on the scales for narrow party political advantage, this is not the way to do it. The Secretary of State should know that a quick phone call on the day before a Bill is introduced is no substitute for proper engagement. There is a long-standing convention in this country that Governments do not unilaterally impose changes to electoral law. When the last Labour Government brought forward major electoral reforms, they did so through working groups, a Green Paper, draft legislation and Select Committee scrutiny. That Government understood that legitimacy matters; this Government have chosen to put political advantage over consensus.

In 2017, I was fortunate enough to be selected in the ballot for a private Member’s Bill, and Oldham Youth Council asked that it be about votes at 16. They have seen votes at 16 go from being a campaign to being in a manifesto and, today, to being in a Bill on the Floor of the House. If they saw this coming in a manifesto, why did the right hon. Gentleman not?

I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers.

Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech.

I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right?

I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought.

It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill.

Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.

Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that 8 million people being either registered in the wrong place, or not on the register at all, is also an example of an inaccurate register? Would it not be better to have people over-registered—presumably they would then not turn out, because they had moved away or whatever—than under-registered and disenfranchised? Of the two inaccuracies, being unable to vote is the one we should be more worried about, if we believe in democracy.

The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.

Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that if the Government are going to push forward with auto-enrolment on to the electoral roll, it should at least apply to everybody at the same time, for the same general election? If not, they could be perceived by the British people as gerrymandering to get a specific result at the general election.

I will move on in a moment, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. If the Government’s contention is that auto-enrolment increases turnout, then turnout should be increased universally, or they risk being perceived as putting their thumb on the scales.

I take objection to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because surely if someone is a citizen, they should be able to vote. It should be as easy as possible—as easy as breathing—to vote, because a citizen has a right to vote. Every attempt should be made to make voting easier, not more difficult. If automatic enrolment helps people to vote, that is what we should do. Of course we need to be careful about it, though, and one of the reasons why this is a rolling programme, rather than putting it in place everywhere on the same day, is presumably to ensure that it is done properly. In the end, we should all want the same thing; British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, and nothing should get in their way.

It is easy to vote. Everyone has the right to vote. The right hon. Lady says that voting should be as easy as breathing; she is advocating for the removal of all electoral limitations and restrictions, whether that is the need to show ID, to provide proof of address, or to register. [Interruption.] There you go; the mask has slipped. If we take democracy seriously, we should want everyone who has the right to vote to be able to vote, but nobody who does not have the right to vote to be able to vote. Otherwise, the democratic process is meaningless. Safeguards must be robust, verification must be clear, and pilots should be transparent. Integrity is strengthened by accuracy, not automation for its own sake.

As for voter ID, let us look at the facts. At the last general election the vast majority of those who sought to vote were able to do so successfully and immediately, and public confidence in polling integrity has increased, so why should we weaken the system by allowing bank cards without photographs to be used as ID? A name printed on a card is not an identity check, and I am not hearing that the Secretary of State is advocating the checking of PINs at the polling station. The risks are obvious, and, indeed, the Electoral Commission itself has raised concerns about the security and practicality of expanding the lists of acceptable IDs.

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I need to make some progress, otherwise I will be told off by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Integrity is not just about integrity at the door of the polling station. At the time of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported widespread breaches of ballot secrecy. Parliament strengthened the protections for ballot secrecy through the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—and this is not “family voting”; it is breaking the law. If polling station staff do not intervene when a voter is directed by another inside the polling booth, if secrecy signs are missing, if offences are ignored, the problem is not an absence of legislation, but a failure to enforce the legislation. The vote belongs to the individual—not to that person’s husband, not to that person’s brother, and not to a community leader—and no cultural practice overrides the secrecy of the ballot box in this country.

The Secretary of State mentioned artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He was right to say that we are entering a new era, and we support the idea of digital imprints. The rules exist, but the technology is moving fast. We would support and are happy to engage with sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement, but that work should be done carefully and in consultation. Again, this is exactly the kind of issue that would benefit from cross-party engagement.

The centrepiece of the Bill—its big sales point—is the lowering of the voting age from 18 to 16. Both domestically and internationally, through the Children Act 1989 and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child respectively, we define 16 and 17-year-olds as children, so allowing votes at 16 can only logically be explained in one of two ways.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Well, let me at least make the point! I can see that the hon. Gentleman is itching. Calm; calm; calm.

Either the Government are intending to give votes to children, or the Government want to redefine 16 and 17-year-olds as “not children”. Now I will give way.

We have just heard the Conservative definitions of a child and an adult, but according to the law in this country, there is no single definition. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is 10, the driving age in this country is 17, and the voting age has gone down over the decades. Surely we should be thinking about what it means to be able to vote. By bringing the voting age down to 16, we are bringing that to people who have the capacity to vote and who actually will vote. There is also evidence out there that 16-year-olds voting in Scotland are more likely to carry on voting. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that will be of benefit to our country—to the United Kingdom as a whole?

The hon. Gentleman is factually wrong. We do have a legal definition of childhood, and there is an international definition of childhood. The Children Act defines 16 and 17-year-olds in the UK as children. The UN convention on the rights of the child defines 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So I ask again, do the Government plan to define this as giving votes to children, or are they now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

Not long ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, some of us went down to the commando training centre at Lympstone to see the Royal Marines’ passing-out parade. One of the brave young people there was just 17, and at the end of the parade he was told, “Marine, go off and do your duty.” At 17, he should be allowed to vote. Does the shadow Secretary of State not agree with me?

Sixteen and 17-year-olds can only join the armed forces with parental consent, and they cannot be deployed. Sixteen and 17-year-olds in the armed forces are children, which is why they are still in the education system, even when they join the armed forces. They are non-deployable, and they can only join with parental consent. Let me say yet again—third time lucky—that the Children Act and the UN convention on the rights of the child define 16 and 17-year-olds as children. So, for the third time of asking, are the Government saying that they are giving votes to children, or are they saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the answer.

On the basis of the argument that he is advancing, the right hon. Gentleman believes in children having sex, because the age of consent is 16—but I think that the mask slipped earlier when he said that this was gerrymandering and giving an electoral advantage. I wonder whether he will comment on why his party is so afraid that young people will not vote Conservative.

It seems that no Labour Members are willing to address the point that I have raised. This is a really simple binary choice. As I have said, both domestically and internationally, 16 and 17-year-olds are defined as children. I have asked this question multiple times, but Labour Members will not address it.

Perhaps the hon. Lady will have a go. Go on!

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the valuable contribution that young people in Scotland have made to the democratic process, first in 2014, when they were able to vote in the independence referendum, and subsequently in Scottish local and parliamentary elections? Does he value their contribution?

I value the contribution of people in this country whether they are or are not able to vote, but again, that does not address the point. I am going to move on now, because it is clear that Labour Members either will not or cannot address it. They do not seem to know whether they are giving votes to children or stripping childhood from 16 and 17-year-olds.

I will give way, but then I will move on.

Does my right hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the Government’s plans? They propose to lower the voting age to 16, but they do not propose to allow those same 16 and 17-year-olds to stand for Parliament, presumably because they are children.

I have tried on a number of occasions, but I have not received an answer either the Benches opposite or from the Benches to my left.

Order. The shadow Secretary of State is not giving way.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I respect him enormously, but there are a number of other points that I want to make. If he thinks he can answer the question that I have posed, let him do so. OK, here we go.

The shadow Secretary of State has asked, on a number of occasions, whether we agree with his so-called legal definition. The legal definition is always for the purposes of the law for which it is intended, so the Children Act definition is for the purposes of that Act, and what we are debating today is for the purposes of voting.

I take it from his intervention that the hon. Gentleman is now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds are not children. Is that his point?

I have tried to squeeze the logical underpinning of this proposal out of the Government, but I have not been able to do so, because I do not think they know what it is. If the Government are going to make the case for giving the vote to children, why 16-year-old children? Why not 15-year-old children? The Secretary of State chuckles, but why not 15-year-old children? The argument is that 16-year-olds have a longer stake in society, but if that is true of 16-year-olds it is, by definition, more true of 15-year-olds—and why not 14-year-olds, or 13-year-olds? Will he take up the proposal of Professor David Runciman of Cambridge University and give votes to six-year-olds?

As a society, we do not confer legal adulthood on children, and the law reflects that. Sixteen and 17-year-olds cannot buy alcohol. They cannot buy cigarettes and vapes. They cannot stand for election to this House or, indeed, to other statutory representative bodies. They cannot legally place bets. They cannot marry in England and Wales. They cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. They cannot go to war. They cannot consume pornography, and rightly so.

If the Secretary of State and his Government now believe that 16-year-olds should in fact be of civic and legal adulthood, they should simply say so and put in place the legislative changes to bring consistency to the statute book. Good luck to him if he wants to make the case for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the rights laid out in the list that I have just given. If the Government do not feel that 16 and 17-year-olds should have those full rights and responsibilities, this change appears to be selective at best and cynical at worst. Such a fundamental alteration to the franchise for UK elections should rest on broad consensus and careful reasoning.

Clearly this was cynical, but judging by the by-election in Greater Manchester, perhaps the Labour party, when it comes to giving votes to 16-year-olds, should be careful what it wishes for.

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am a believer in democracy, and being punished at the ballot box is a fundamental foundation stone of democracy. None of us should change the mandate for narrow party political advantage. I strongly suspect that the point he makes is right, but that is not the point that I am making.

This move will be perceived to be partisan and counterproductive. This Bill could and should be so much better. If the Government were serious about this issue, they would work cross-party to get it right, because democracy does not belong to Ministers; it belongs to the people, and the rules that govern it must be worthy of their trust. For that reason, we have tabled our reasoned amendment, and I invite the House to support it. I say to the Secretary of State that we will work with the Government to improve this Bill, but we reserve the right to vote it down during its later stages if the Government do not act in good faith and in support of the broader principles of democracy.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for introducing this Bill. I am proud to have worked on these important proposals in government and remain determined to ensure that we protect, renew and enhance our democracy.

Our democracy has inspired people and movements around the world. We are rightly proud of it, but as we have heard, democracy is hard won and fragile. Today there are forces that wish to damage our democracy and shake its foundations, with intimidation on the streets and disinformation online. Our democracy must be resilient and robust in the face of these threats, which is why this landmark Bill is so important. It represents the most ambitious change to our democracy for a generation by allowing 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in UK-wide elections for the very first time; by introducing tougher rules on political donations; by tackling the scourge of harassment, intimidation and abuse of those participating in public life, which is having a chilling effect on our democracy; and by improving our system of voter ID to encourage more people to engage with and participate in our democracy.

As we have already heard, votes at 16 is a historic opportunity to breathe new life into our democracy. If someone is old enough to work, pay tax and serve their country, they are old enough to have a say in how it is run, but that right to vote should be matched by the right to be informed and educated about our institutions, our politics and our policies. That is why it is crucial that we have high-quality citizenship education in our schools, and we must do more to connect with the millions of people who, as we have heard, are eligible to vote but choose not to take part in our democratic process.

I welcome the measures to strengthen the rules around political donations to address the risks posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democracy. I especially welcome the moves to introduce new “know your donor” and “follow the money” checks, and fines of up to half a million pounds for those who do not follow those rules, as well as the introduction of a UK connections test and increased transparency for corporate donations to prevent shell companies from funnelling dodgy donations to political parties.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about shell companies. Does she agree that it was really concerning that so many loopholes were left open by the previous Government, who allowed foreign money to reach the highest levels of our politics, often hidden by those very same shell companies? Indeed, this loophole was used by the Conservatives to accept hundreds of thousands of pounds from foreign-based donors, including £550,000 from Britannia Financial Group between 2019 and 2022. Company accounts show that in 2020—the year the firm donated more than £350,000 to the Conservatives—its ultimate controlling party moved from the UK to Switzerland. Does she agree that is a serious concern?

My hon. Friend makes the case for why it is crucial to legislate to close those loopholes, so that we can clean up our politics and ensure that the public have confidence in our political system.

Turning to the subject of cryptocurrency, we know that it offers a number of ways of circumventing donation laws, including by using multiple crypto wallets with different addresses or fragmenting large donations into smaller amounts through crowdfunding in order to bypass the reporting threshold, and by offering anonymity through the use of privacy coins. Ireland, Brazil and several states in the US already have bans on crypto donations.

The enemies of democracy are constantly looking at new ways to undermine our system. Unless action is taken now, the threat of foreign interference in our democracy will continue to grow. The Government have previously committed to taking action, and I am reassured to hear from the Secretary of State that action will be taken to ensure that cryptocurrency does not find its way into political donations. This Bill provides a very important opportunity to legislate, so I implore the Secretary of State and the Minister to make sure that, once the Rycroft review has concluded, we include in this Bill the changes necessary to ensure that we ban cryptocurrency donations, in order to reduce the threat of foreign interference in our democracy.

I turn to the subject of harassment and intimidation in our politics. Our democracy depends on the willingness of ordinary people to step forward, to knock on doors and to serve our communities, so the new powers in this Bill to allow courts to impose tougher sentences for offences involving electoral intimidation, and to remove the requirements for candidates to publish their home addresses, are necessary protections. Although parliamentary candidates have had the option of taking their home addresses off the ballot paper, local candidates have not, and this is an important change to protect them.

Most Members of this House and many candidates, regardless of whether they were elected or not, carry their own experiences of threats and intimidation. The July2024 general election saw a disturbing spike in intimidation and harassment, with Electoral Commission research revealing that more than half of candidates experienced harassment and intimidation. The Speaker’s Conference found even more evidence of harassment and intimidation of candidates. Tyres were slashed, families were targeted and campaigners were driven off the streets, while women and minority ethnic candidates were disproportionately affected. However, all candidates in different ways found themselves facing harassment and intimidation. We cannot go on like this. This was not heated political debate; these were organised attempts to intimidate people into silence. Many elected representatives do not discuss the harassment they have faced as it can trigger further abuse and compromise our safety.

I thank my hon. Friend for making a powerful speech. On that point, I know what she personally went through during the last general election, and many Members from right across the House have also had to face it. Does she agree with me that, if we do not address this, we will see good, locally rooted candidates feeling afraid to put themselves forward to enrich our democracy because of that fear and intimidation?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have heard many say exactly that. In fact, a number of us have ourselves wondered whether, if we had known what we know now about the state of harassment and intimidation in our politics, we would have stood for Parliament. Of course, we have to fight against these threats, because if we do not, the next generation will be put off politics. It is on us all to take action to make sure politics is a safe space in which people can operate and candidates can stand forward, whichever party they belong to.

The intimidation and harassment of elected representatives is not, of course, unique to one party or one group of candidates; it is widespread in a way that I had never imagined. The industrial scale of intimidation and threats we experienced in the run-up to the 2024 general election was unlike anything I had previously experienced, and I suspect the same applies to many other Members. There was organised disinformation and death threats in a campaign conducted with constant concerns for physical security and the security of campaigners and decent, law-abiding people who want to participate in our democracy. In my constituency and across the country, many brave campaigners stood up for our democracy and bravely fought against that hatred, but they should not have had to work in such a hostile environment.

This happens not just during the election cycle or election campaigns. We have seen Members threatened with murder and receiving death threats on a regular basis. We have seen local councillor candidates being threatened. When I was working on this strategy last summer, I received a threat to my life. Two weeks ago, I received another threat. Sadly, this is now commonplace, with too many MPs, candidates and local representatives experiencing this hostility. So we have to redouble our efforts to stop this hostility and the chilling effect it is having on our democracy. We must have a zero-tolerance approach to those who wish to undermine our elections in this way, and we have to work together on that across the parties.

It is not just the thugs on our streets; it is the hostile actors, which we heard about in the Front Benchers’ speeches. Hostile actors are exploiting online platforms to flood the debate with disinformation and deepfakes. Disinformation online fuels intimidation, hostility and violence offline. That has been the experience of many of us during the last election and subsequently. The toxic ecosystem is connected, and this Bill begins to address that reality, but we have to do more. Alongside this Bill, we need the Government to do much more to tackle the very serious threat of foreign interference through the use of online platforms, not to mention the proliferation of online threats and the failure of platforms to take action. That means more action to stop platforms allowing threats and online hostility against those in public life and our citizens.

I would like to add to that list of issues that need to be tackled. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the role that the media play in our politics, the Government have a responsibility to think long and hard about what we do in that space?

Absolutely. We all have such a responsibility, and I know of plenty of journalists in the media, particularly female journalists, who are being threatened and intimidated as well. This is a wider societal issue about making sure we can express ourselves freely and protect freedom of speech, but also protect those operating in our media, those in our politics and public life and, more widely, those participating in our democracy.

Does the hon. Member agree that what also fuels the division and the attacks on politicians is when some individuals, including Members of this House, express that they are driven mad by the sight of black and Asian people in different spaces in our society? Does she agree that that should stop, and that all Members have a responsibility to call it out?

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. We have to take action against racism, anti-Muslim hatred, antisemitism and other forms of hostility and hatred towards particular groups in our society, especially those with protected characteristics. There are laws in place that need to be enforced, and those laws are often breached online. We must ensure that we take responsibility and show leadership in the way we conduct ourselves. Otherwise, we are going to see those with protected characteristics being driven out of public life. I am seeing that already in local communities and of course in our Parliament, because of what we are experiencing.

In conclusion, our democracy is fragile, and it must be supported and strengthened in the face of rapid change and the threats from foreign interference. It is our duty to be stewards of our democracy, leaving it in a better place than we found it. It is at the heart of our liberty and our citizenship, and we must defend it, nurture it and future-proof it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Our liberal democracy has become acutely vulnerable. Trust in our politics is being pulled apart at the seams. We face a flood of foreign money, and powerful men who hate our democracy, whether in silicon valley or the Kremlin, are working hard to undermine our social fabric and to interfere in our public life. Sadly, this Bill does not meet that moment and falls woefully short of the fundamental changes that our democracy urgently needs, even if we Lib Dems welcome some of the measures in it. We will be voting against the reasoned amendment and in favour of Second Reading, in the hope that the Bill can be substantially strengthened as it makes its way through Parliament.

I fear that the Government have not faced up to the crisis before us. Public trust in our political institutions is in freefall: 67% of the public think that politicians are just in it for themselves. It is no wonder that so many people who would make fantastic elected representatives are put off standing for election and take their talents elsewhere. The Electoral Commission has recorded growing dissatisfaction with our democracy and, frankly, I understand why. Westminster has been rocked by scandal after scandal, with partygate, the news that former Reform UK Wales leader Nathan Gill had been taking bribes to advance a pro-Russian agenda in the European Parliament, and the revelations about Peter Mandelson’s shocking conduct. We need root-and-branch reforms to our political system.

The Government claim to be modernising our democracy, but this Bill does not fix our outdated system, which continues to reward the most cynical members of the political establishment at the expense of everyone else. Where is the new accountability for politicians; where are the robust measures to really stamp out corruption and interference; and why is there nothing to address a voting system that was out of date a century ago, undermines accountability and is profoundly unfair?

Of course, there are worthwhile measures in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for votes at 16 for decades. We have seen that succeed in Scotland, and we are proud to have helped secure that provision in this Bill. Young people pay taxes, face the consequences of political decisions and care deeply about the future of their country. Denying them a vote was always difficult to justify.

But this is far from enough to revive our democracy. As young people approach the ballot box for the first time in the next election, we must ensure that they, and everyone who can vote in our country, feel confident. I recently met students from Marple college in my constituency. They will be voting for the first time at the next general election. We talked about what they needed to be ready to cast their votes. They are already articulate, well-informed on politics and enthusiastic. It is our responsibility to ensure that they feel confident to participate, confident that they will not be bombarded by disinformation, confident that their vote will count and confident that the system they are being asked to be a part of is fit for purpose. They should be confident, too, that their civil liberties will be protected. We welcome the move towards automatic voter registration. We think it is a step in the right direction and we will support it, but it must fully respect people’s privacy as well as their right to vote.

To take a glaring example, new voters will still have identity papers demanded of them whenever they vote. That was implemented without decent evidence by a Tory party long out of ideas and full of cynicism. The Bill could have and should have been used to scrap the Conservatives’ voter ID scheme altogether. According to the Electoral Reform Society, 16,000 people were turned away from voting in 2024—against just 10 convictions for impersonation between 2019 and 2023. Which of those is really the greater threat to our democratic life? That is symptomatic of a Bill that is remarkably thin and all too timid, even in enforcing its own provisions.

I am baffled as to why the Government will not further strengthen the Electoral Commission in the face of historic threats to our democracy. We very much welcome the removal of the commission’s strategy and policy statement, but the commission itself says that while it

“welcomes many of the changes set out in the Bill, some provisions need to be strengthened to...better protect the system from foreign interference.”

We should remember that this regulator is not currently truly independent. Under the Elections Act 2022, the Conservative Government gave powers to Ministers to dictate the “roles and responsibilities” of the Electoral Commission in achieving the Government’s policy priorities. That made a mockery of the idea that politicians should not be able to interfere in elections, and it paved the way for any future Government, of whichever political hue, to rig our system. It is truly welcome that the Secretary of State announced plans to reinstate the independence of the commission by scrapping the strategy and policy statement. That should ensure non-partisan fair play in our elections.

It is on donations and foreign interference where the Liberal Democrats find the Bill to be most wanting. The case of Nathan Gill should stand as a stark warning about the levels of attempted interference we now face. The gaping holes in the Bill will allow foreign money to continue to flood in and infiltrate our democracy. For instance, using company revenue rather than profit as the test for determining whether a business has sufficient connection to the UK to make political donations, is too weak a safeguard. It can be too easily gamed. Spotlight on Corruption points out that the cap on corporations currently does not have teeth and should be focused on profit. A company turning over significant revenue in the UK, while being effectively controlled from abroad by interests hostile to our democracy, could still make donations under these provisions. That is not good enough. Foreign regimes and their political elites should have no business in our democracy whatsoever.

There has, rightly, been a lot of talk on both sides of the House about restricting and capping foreign donations, and how they are regulated. Does my hon. Friend agree that we also need to look at how foreign individuals and foreign states use social media to influence and change election results?

My hon. Friend is entirely right that one of the big ways foreign individuals can influence our democracy is through money. The other way is through influence, using money from companies, often not owned in the UK, that control a lot of the information that British citizens see. He is entirely right to make that point.

The lack of a cap on political donations is a fundamental gap. Although the Bill introduces transparency and due diligence requirements, more transparency alone is not enough when individuals and corporations can still donate unlimited sums to political parties.

A moment ago the hon. Lady referenced Nathan Gill. I share her abhorrence at what Reform’s leader in Wales did in taking bribes from Russia, but it was already illegal—it was a case of being caught. What does she suggest that the Bill should do to prevent those sorts of illegal activities from happening?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for allowing me a bit of space to expand on this point further. Companies should have to prove profit in the UK, not just revenue in the UK, to be able to donate. There is a real danger that money from abroad, from state actors and non-state actors, can be funnelled through third-party campaign groups—think-tanks and others—as a way of trying to influence our democracy. It is entirely possible that very wealthy individuals or state actors abroad put money into think-tanks, which then put money into political parties. That is the sort of thing I would look to amend as the Bill makes its way through the House. Unlimited donations mean unlimited influence. They corrode public trust and distort political priorities. Until we cap donations, we will continue to have a democracy that is for sale.

Finally, there is an extraordinary irony that, despite its grand title, the Bill does not even touch the root of unfairness and distrust in our democracy. It does nothing about a first-past-the-post voting system that was outdated decades ago and is a millstone around the neck of our democratic life. This electoral system consistently delivers results that bear little resemblance to the actual preferences of the electorate. Millions of votes count for nothing.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she not agree that, since the House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill which I presented in December 2024, and since the Labour party voted overwhelmingly for a motion to bring in proportional representation at one of its conferences, there is a wide acceptance that it is time to scrap first past the post, which does not deliver the results that people vote for? Is the Bill not an enormous missed opportunity?

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I applaud the work she has done during her time here to move the case forward for a fairer, more representative voting system. The Bill is a huge opportunity and I look forward to working with colleagues across the House on how we can strengthen it and make it even better.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the single transferable vote system is good enough for selecting Select Committee Chairs and the alternative vote system is good enough for mayors, they should be good enough in other elections, too?

I do. I fear it would try the patience of the House if I were to get into that level of detail about my favourite voting systems with my hon. Friend—we only have a further three hours of this debate, so I will press on—but I do agree with him that there are more representative ways to elect our representatives that we should look at.

We Liberal Democrats will continue to press for proportional representation so that we can finally make every vote count. It is a matter of basic fairness. No Bill claiming to modernise our democracy can be taken seriously while it ignores this question. Worse, it does not even introduce elections for our second Chamber, leaving the House of Lords unreformed, unelected and, in the current climate, frankly indefensible. Peers face no meaningful accountability to the public whose lives they affect.

The Bill takes some limited, but sadly too timid, steps in the right direction. It fails to seize the opportunity to rebuild trust and make our vulnerable, brittle democracy more resilient. We look forward to working constructively to strengthen it during the parliamentary process, because we must be more courageous and ambitious than the Bill currently is. We must stop taking our democracy for granted.

Members will have noticed that we have many, many more Members on their feet than we have time allocated, so we will start with a five-minute limit.

May I start by saying how happy I am to be contributing to today’s debate? Members who have been in the House for a while will know that I am a long-term advocate for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Over the years, we have had many robust debates on the issue. Some may even remember when I was successful in my very first private Member’s Bill ballot, way back in 2015. As a brand new MP, that was very daunting and I can chat privately to any Members who might want to hear about all the gaffs I made at the time. Once I got over my initial nerves, it did not take long to decide to put forward votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, alongside decent political education.

During the 2014 Scottish referendum campaign, which many people have mentioned, when 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote for the first time in Scotland, I was hugely impressed—not surprised, just impressed—by how well informed they were and by how seriously they took their voting responsibilities. I knew I had to play my part in pushing the issue up the agenda.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the 2014 referendum experience. After that, I brought a section 30 order before the House to give the Scottish Parliament the power to lower the voting age to 16 for local council and Scottish Parliament elections. I can tell the hon. Lady that there is nobody in Scotland now suggesting that we would go back to a voting age of 18. Is that not the acid test for the strength of our case?

I completely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman has articulated so well.

At the time, some saw this as a controversial topic for a private Member’s Bill—I am sure there have been more controversial topics since. [Laughter.] It was not the first time that this issue had been pursued; I believe there had been 18 or 19 other attempts to take such legislation forward. I am proud that the Labour party committed to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in our manifesto, and that now the Labour Government are delivering on our promise.

Young people’s voices matter. If they can pay taxes, why should they not have a say over how they are spent? If they can have a child, why should they not have a say over their future? If they can join the army, why should they not have a say over the defence of our country?

When I visit schools and colleges, I am always struck by how incredibly thoughtful and articulate the students are. When I visited Christ the King sixth-form college in Brockley a few weeks ago, we discussed everything from social media and the cost of living to housing and international issues, and one student told me she was running to be young mayor of Lewisham—which, by the way, is the longest-running young mayor programme in the country, having started in 2004. This year we had 42 candidates and voter turnout was 59%—higher than we get in some by-elections. Despite that, when election day comes, those same young people are told that they are not old enough and therefore do not get a say. They can pay taxes, have a child, leave home, and join the army, but they have no say over their future.

Maturity is not something we magically achieve on our 18th birthday. We do not test the political knowledge of 40-year-olds before they enter the polling station, although some might say we probably should—just joking. We do not deny the vote to those who choose not to follow politics closely. Democracy is not about passing an exam; it is about inclusion, equality and trust.

Countries all across the world are lowering the voting age, including Austria, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Cuba, Nicaragua and Ethiopia. However, many of the countries letting young people vote at 16 also have strong civic education, so I urge the Minister to ensure that political education forms a strong part of the changes that take place. My private Member’s Bill made provision for improved citizenship education.

Research shows that when people are given the vote earlier, they are more likely to develop a lifelong voting habit. If we want to reverse the trend of declining turnout, especially among younger people, the answer is not to keep them out, but to bring them in. This is not just about improving turnout, though: when we deny young people the vote, we send a message that the opinions of the next generation matter less.

Yet young people are deeply affected by the decisions we make in this House. When we talk about getting more young people into work, we need their voices. They should be seen as part of the solution, not part of the problem. When we have local students in my office to do work experience—from Addey and Stanhope and Deptford Green schools—they are interested in how politics works, how it affects their lives and how they can champion the changes they desperately want to see. They are the ones who will inherit the world we shape today. Ten years on from my first private Member’s Bill, today is the day we ensure that they have their rightful place in shaping their future.

There was much in what the Secretary of State said at the start of his opening remarks—about the threats to our democracy, and the challenges that we face—that I very much agree with. However, I worry that the Bill does not go in quite the right direction to deal with those threats, and with the challenges presented by Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. They are all nations that wish to undermine our democracy, and there is tentative evidence to show that all of them are already trying to do so by influencing our democratic structures. However, it feels as though the Bill is more about gestures than substantial change.

Changing the architecture of democracy should be done incredibly thoughtfully and carefully, with proper consideration and consultation. There are areas on which there will probably be a great deal of agreement; on others, there may be some disagreement. What is required is a thoughtful conversation that involves all.

I will pick up on a number of areas where there are deep vulnerabilities in the Bill. Automatic enrolment superficially sounds like a great idea—something that I think many in this House would happily support. However, there is no clarity about how it will be rolled out across the country. At the next general election, it will be available in some parts of the country, but not others. We will effectively have two distinct electoral rolls. I am not sure how that will go. I am not sure if it will even survive judicial review, but then I am not a lawyer, and the Secretary of State probably has considerably more recent experience of judicial review than I have. To me, it looks very vulnerable to challenge. It is important that the Secretary of State sets out clearly how the issue of boundaries will be dealt with, which will, of course, be addressed straight after the next general election.

Of course, if we are to have auto-enrolment in certain parts of the country—which will be chosen, I presume, by the Secretary of State, as opposed to this House—then, hypothetically, he could select areas where auto-enrolment would be beneficial to the Labour party. I am sure the Secretary of State would never be so partisan as to do that.

We have heard this argument a couple of times, and the right hon. Gentleman is making it well. He is making a grave accusation. Surely the easiest way to put this argument to bed would be for the Secretary of State to simply intervene on the right hon. Gentleman and state that auto-enrolment will be rolled out in all areas of the country before the next UK general election.

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; this concern could easily be addressed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I was hoping for the Secretary of State or his No. 2 on the Front Bench, but I will happily give way.

Let me do the best I can. Is it seriously the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that a Labour Secretary of State might introduce auto-enrolment in areas where that will help Labour? Is he therefore saying that the more people who vote, the more Labour is helped? Is that his central argument?

No. It is important that the Bill does not define which areas will have auto-enrolment. In theory, constituencies or areas that have a greater propensity to vote Labour—or used to—could be prioritised. We would like clarity from the Secretary of State on this point, and I am happy to give way to him, so that he can provide it. In fairness, if every area of the country were to have auto-enrolment, that would reduce or eliminate the risk, but this is a concern. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will address that with absolute clarity.

The issue is not just the legislation; it is the perception of where the Government are going. The Secretary of State got himself into some difficulty when the Government were seen to be trying to take away the right of people to vote in local council elections. I am sure that he has a good heart and was acting with the best of intentions, but the perception was different.

Under first past the post, every seat is a different contest, so I am still confused about why the right hon. Gentleman feels that enabling more people to vote will be beneficial to the Labour party.

The hon. Gentleman is both confused and hard of hearing. I also pointed out that straight after the next general election, the Electoral Commission will redo the boundaries for the whole country, and that will be based on the electoral roll for every single constituency and area across the country. Certain areas will have auto-enrolment and other areas will not. That will have a significant impact on the redistribution. I hope that has helped the hon. Member’s confusion. [Interruption.] I will move on.

There is a fantastic opportunity here, which the Secretary of State could seize, to end the automatic right of Commonwealth citizens to vote in this country. That right is not available to UK citizens in Commonwealth countries. The only country where there is an automatic right for UK citizens to vote is the Republic of Ireland, and that arrangement is reciprocated in the UK. There are up to 2.7 billion people on this globe who, on moving to the United Kingdom, could have the automatic right to vote here. That should be looked at very seriously. As the Bill moves through the House, I ask the Secretary of State to look at the option of addressing this open access to our democracy for anyone in this country.

I will reduce the time limit after the next speech to four minutes. I call Navendu Mishra on a five-minute time limit.

Democracy is valuable. It is hard won and always worth protecting and defending. Stockport played a major role in the 1819 Peterloo massacre, when a large contingent of local protestors marched to Manchester to demand voting reform.

I believe that we must always look for ways to make our democratic system more accessible, more inclusive and more representative. Giving young people the chance to have a say in the future of our country is important. Decisions that the Government make now will not only affect young people today but have an enduring impact on their entire life. As such, it is only right and fair that young people are able to play a role in our democratic system by voting.

I want to thank Michelle McLaughlin MBE and her team at Stockport college for their outstanding work in enrolling students on to the electoral register. The college automatically registers students to vote as part of the enrolment process. That simple administrative step removes barriers for young people and makes participation the norm, rather than the exception. Trafford and Stockport College Group was the first further education institution in England to launch this type of voter registration service for 16-year-olds, ensuring that more young people across Stockport engage with the democratic process at an early age. This is exactly the kind of proactive approach that we should be encouraging nationwide. The team would be grateful for a ministerial visit, given the work that they have done in this area.

Sadly, women and minority ethnic representatives have faced a shocking increase in threatening behaviour directed at them in recent years. My understanding is that women of colour have the worst abuse and threats directed at them. Abuse, threats and intimidation of any kind are simply unacceptable. They risk deterring people from taking part in public life or putting themselves forward for elected office. I welcome the important measures to protect candidates, electoral staff and campaigners from intimidation and abuse.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) made an important point about people experiencing homelessness. They should have the right to vote too, and I thank him for making an intervention about that. I support his suggestion that we help more people who are experiencing homelessness into our democratic system.

I would like to say a few words about standards in public life, in the light of the recent Gorton and Denton by-election. In February 2026—just last month—a Tameside council report found that a member of the infamous “Trigger Me Timbers” WhatsApp group had made racist comments towards me. They questioned my accent and my looks and ridiculed me. More importantly, they did the same to many members of the public and Labour’s membership. As reported by The Guardian and the BBC, this person was a major participant in the group. The report found that a “reasonable person” would find their remarks about me racist. This person was a Labour councillor at the time, and a former Member of this House and a current Member of this House were active members of that hateful WhatsApp group. Sadly, I had to find out from the press that Tameside council had commissioned that report, and that a ruling was made about the participant’s behaviour against me and others. As is to be expected, this has had an enormous negative impact on my family and me.

Can the Minister tell us what more the Government intend to do to strengthen standards for elected representatives, both at local government and parliamentary level? That could include tougher sanctions for serious misconduct, a mandatory code of conduct, and accessible routes of redress for victims of such appalling behaviour. I am in a very privileged position—I am a Member of the House of Commons, and I am able to deliver this speech and make my points clear—but many members of the public, and many lay members of the Labour party, do not have that same opportunity. I hope that the Minister will listen to my comments.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. It makes important progress in strengthening participation and protecting candidates, but it could go further in lifting standards among elected representatives. Everyone, especially elected representatives, has a responsibility to treat all people with respect, regardless of their views, background, appearance or culture. We should expect that from our colleagues, but sadly that has not been my experience. I am saddened to say that in my view, the Labour party has not dealt with this in a very good way. I would like to end by thanking everyone at Stockport council’s democratic and electoral services team. They do a really important job for our town, and I am grateful to them.

I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate on such an important Bill that represents a long-overdue modernisation of our democratic framework, but the Government should be in no doubt that we Liberal Democrats will push them to go further, faster. For decades, my party has campaigned for young people’s voices to be properly recognised, so I am delighted to see the voting age finally lowered to 16. This change will enfranchise around 1.7 million 16 and 17-year-olds, giving them a say in decisions that shape their future.

Since becoming MP for Guildford, I have visited many schools across my constituency and spoken with young people whose thoughtful, informed questions make it abundantly clear that they are more than ready to participate in our democracy. While some may argue that 16 and 17-year-olds lack world awareness, I fundamentally disagree. With pre-registration from age 14, and with the right safeguards, we can build lifelong democratic habits and help close the participation gap.

We Liberal Democrats also welcome measures in the Bill that protect our democracy from the corrupting influence of dark money. The new “know your donor” requirements and tighter rules on corporate and unincorporated association donations are essential to prevent foreign interference and restore trust in how politics is funded. We will call for further important changes to strengthen the Bill in this area.

However, the Bill misses a vital opportunity to fix our broken electoral system. First past the post is unfair, outdated and increasingly indefensible.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that we need a radical reset of democracy in our country to reinvigorate trust, which has recently been lost? We need to cap big donations, bring in fair votes, and abolish the ludicrous voter ID scheme from the last Government.

I wholeheartedly agree. I urge the Government to listen to the 60% of the public who want a fairer voting system, including members of their own party, and take very seriously the case for proportional representation.

I declare my interest as a member of the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and I welcome the inclusion of our recommendations in the Bill. We live in a time when abuse and threats deter talented people, particularly those from under-represented backgrounds, from standing for public office. I am pleased that the Bill will better protect candidates and their families, but we must go further. We need to update section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes to smear candidates. Technology is moving rapidly, and those intent on undermining our democracy are moving with it, so we must future-proof this legislation.

Looking across this House, I can see that we have made real progress in reflecting the diversity of the communities that we serve, but there is still far to go. The Bill is an opportunity to enact section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires political parties to publish diversity data. It has long been a Liberal Democrat commitment, and I pay tribute to organisations such as Centenary Action that have campaigned tirelessly for such transparency.

I urge the Government to reinstate the access to elected office fund in England, which was scrapped in 2020. The Bill claims to support disabled candidates, yet it offers no financial mechanism to make that a reality. Wales and Scotland already provide such support, so why not England?

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the accessibility of elections for disabled candidates and voters. Disability charities have made the point that there is some way to go in ensuring that our elections are truly accessible for disabled people. Does she agree that it is important that the Bill does that?

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to do more to ensure that everyone is able to take part in voting, particularly those with visual impairments.

It is an anomaly that Wales and Scotland offer support for accessing elected office, but England does not. Why does England not have that fund? We must ensure that people with disabilities are not prevented from standing to represent their communities.

I am pleased that I will be serving on the Bill Committee, and I look forward to working constructively with the Government to strengthen the Bill so that our democracy is truly safe, fair and representative of all.

The Bill introduces timely reforms, such as extending the right to vote to young people, and it addresses the rising and ever more concerning issues of harassment and intimidation. With foreign interference expected to intensify the deterioration of the international security environment, and given the threats posed by wealthy donors, crypto and AI, I encourage the Government to go further. That is where I will focus my remarks.

Last September, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy heard from Spotlight on Corruption that there has been foreign interference in 21 elections across Europe in recent years. Research from a 2022 US intelligence assessment estimated that Russia has spent $300 million on political influence in 24 countries. Beyond direct state influence, there is the issue of obscenely wealthy donors and corporations. Corporate donations have tripled over the last three elections in the UK, rising from £14 million in 2017 to £42 million in 2024.

Beyond those challenges, the Bill introduces valuable provisions. The political finance reforms are good, and it creates a new “know your donor” requirement to ensure that political parties conduct the necessary due diligence. It requires parties to verify that companies that wish to donate can demonstrate sufficient revenue and a qualifying connection to the UK or Ireland, and it will enable the Electoral Commission to issue significantly increased penalties—up to £500,000. I would like the Bill to go further on business and corporate donations. I want there be a longer qualifying period and a profit measure to protect the system more against phantom businesses and shell companies.

Elsewhere, our Committee is calling for a temporary moratorium on accepting crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance and stronger systems. We want the Electoral Commission to have stronger powers, including the ability to compel financial institutions to provide information relating to funds connected to donations so that they can be investigated more fully. We want a single police lead for political finance and foreign interference, and a review into the sentencing of political finance offences.

Personally, I think we need to look more at the role of think-tanks and how they are funded. I would like the Bill to go further, with a longer qualifying period and profit measures to protect the system. I want a donation cap on corporate and personal donations. I want consideration to be given to amending the schedule of penalties to make it more proportionate to the donor’s wealth. We must ensure that the fees and salaries that companies pay MPs in whatever field, but particularly in media, fall under political finance regulations.

I absolutely welcome the Bill. We need much tighter regulation across our political finance, including to address the interference with which states and individuals wish to influence our democracy. I very much look forward to working with the Ministers in the coming weeks.

This is an important Bill, and I support some of the aims and aspirations that the Secretary of State set out at the beginning. I also share many of the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly).

All Members take representing children seriously. In the five times that I have been lucky enough to be elected, my first pledge has been that I will serve everybody in the Mid Norfolk constituency, including and particularly those who do not have a voice and need to be spoken for, and I always reference children. With the gentlest and greatest respect, I say to colleagues who are in danger of suggesting that if we do not pass this Bill, we are signalling that we do not care about young people that that is not the case. I was elected to this House quite a long time ago, and I know that there is the danger that well-intended legislation can have unintended consequences that we later regret.

Given that time is short, I will focus my comments on my own experience of having been, I think, the first parliamentary victim of an AI deepfake video attack. I will point out some of the obvious gaps in the law that that has made clear to me, and the danger of political disinformation and serious disruption to our politics. Having consulted widely in the past four or five months, I want to make a particular point about the importance of protecting all people—not just politicians—against having their identity stolen. That is a fundamental issue in a digital age.

For colleagues who were doing other things on that day in November, let me say that when I found myself the victim of an AI deepfake attack, my phone went hot and I suddenly found myself being called all manner of names that I could not possibly repeat to this House. It was quite clear that I was suddenly at the heart of a media storm, and I had no idea what had caused it.

I then saw the video. It was indeed a video of me in my Westminster office, wearing my customary tank top, waving my hands around and speaking—not dubbed—about my decision that, because the political party that I am proud to represent and serve had let this country down, I was joining Reform. Leave aside for a minute the ridiculousness of that proposal and the insulting suggestion that somebody who prides himself on taking his politics seriously and thinking about the philosophical basis of it would join a rabble based only on pub populism, the more serious issue is that my constituents were deeply confused and democracy in my constituency was disrupted.

When I contacted Meta, the platform on which that scurrilous, mischievous and disinforming information had been published, it said to me, “Well, it doesn’t breach any of our guidelines.” I understand the importance of protecting our vulnerable young children from grooming and protecting people from economic fraud, but I put it to the House that seriously misrepresenting an elected Member for the purposes of political misinformation and disruption is an important issue and should not be allowed. It should be a breach of Meta’s guidelines.

When I spoke to the police, they admirably did take it seriously. In fact, they encouraged me, with the Crown Prosecution Service, to bring a test case, but I would have had to have made the case compellingly that I was suffering psychological damage. Now, I may well be suffering psychological damage, but I am not going to tell the people of Mid Norfolk that I cannot take a joke. It is really important that we in this House defend humour and satire—they play a really important role in our democracy—but this is different.

I support the amendments that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), a fellow member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, is tabling to stop political disinformation, but is it not time that we passed a law to protect all citizens against having their identity stolen? Everybody in this country should go to bed at night not worrying that they may wake up in the morning and find that somebody has stolen their identity, whatever the purpose.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). I thank the Minister for engaging with Members. We now have a Bill of seven parts, 81 clauses and 11 schedules. On young voters, I hope that the team will work with the Department for Education so that young people understand the democratic process. Some schools do it, but it is a matter for everyone.

That is an important point. In Scotland, education did not happen to the extent that it should have, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has made some recommendations. I therefore very much welcome what the Secretary of State said, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that colleagues in the Education Department recognise its importance?

That is true. Our Education Department does a fantastic job, but this work needs to be extended to every single school, and perhaps made compulsory, so that when young people get to vote, they know the difference between misinformation, disinformation and the truth.

On voter registration, valid points have been made about what forms of ID can be used. Those need to be extended, especially as 16-year-olds may have different forms of ID when they get the vote. Auto-registration is welcome, and so important—it was the poll tax that stopped people going on the register—so it is good that Government gateways will be used to ensure people are on the register.

I think that the Secretary of State has missed a trick: I would have liked compulsory voting, but maybe that is a step too far. In Australia, where they have had it since 1929, the turnout is 90%.

On campaign and political expenditure in relation to donor money. I like the Electoral Commission’s idea of a donor declaration, with the total donation listed for the entire year and based, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, on the company’s profits, not just on revenue. Some organisations can operate as a company but not generate enough money to make donations and therefore be open to outside influence. That measure would defeat the mischief that the Bill is trying to deal with. We need to lift that corporate veil.

I am delighted that the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement has now been revoked—that was to be the main part of my speech. A Government of any kind should not be interfering with the Electoral Commission. It should get no direction from a Government. I remember saying that it was unnecessary and not proportionate during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. At the time, every Committee of the House that looked at it said that there was no evidence for it. I am really pleased by this revocation.

The commission is accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. At present, it has 10 members, five of whom are picked by the Speaker, with the other five ex officio. Unlock Democracy is arguing for more lay members on the commission. I do not know whether those should be lay members as we have in other Committees, or if it should be extended to other political parties so that it should be politically neutral.

I am really pleased that the Electoral Commission has got its independence back. I hope that the Bill will get us the public information and publicity needed to encourage people to exercise their civic duty to register and to vote.

Let me start by expressing my commiseration with my former hon. Friend—he is still my friend—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was inadvertently confused with somebody who might want to join the Reform party. It is difficult to imagine a Member less likely to want to do that, or indeed to be received by the Reform party, than him—I am sure he is happy to hear that. That is perhaps except for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—but he once had his own problems with counting votes in a Conservative party election.

I am not going to address the absurd suggestion of votes at 16 as that has been well dealt with by other hon. Members. In particular, there is the obvious point suggested by hon. Members that because young people can sign up to join the Army when they are 16, they should be able to vote. The fact is, they can join the Army not to go and fight, but only as a cadet, and only with parental consent. To anybody suggesting that that somehow means that they should be able to vote, I invite them to suggest whether they think their parents should also be giving consent on how they vote in the voting booth. I think not. I will however come to family voting in a moment.

I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the absurdity that he sees in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote. What is it about them that he feels disqualifies them or makes them less able to make a democratic decision than an 18-year-old?

We already prevent young people at that age from driving, from buying cigarettes and alcohol, and from standing for Parliament. We already conclude that they are not responsible enough in general. Obviously, many are far more responsible than adults, but the conclusion is that they are still children and that they should not be exercising this vital responsibility in respect of our whole democracy until they are 18.

I will quickly mention the Rycroft review. May I stress on behalf of the Reform party how much I welcome the review? Many hon. Members rightly mentioned the disgraceful episode of a former Reform MEP taking bribes from a foreign state. It is absolutely right that we look closely into the circumstances that allowed that to arise. We will wait and see what the review comes up with, but it is quite right that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we do not have foreign financial interference in our democracy.

Why don’t you tell your party leader?

That is our party position.

The importance of ruling out foreign interference in our democracy has been made repeatedly in the debate. Let me actually address the glaring foreign interference that we have, and which we saw in Gorton and Denton last week. I am sorry to say that it has not been mentioned in the debate so far. We have been talking about one disgraceful incident while mass abuse of our democracy has been going on.

It appears from the evidence of independent observers that as many as two thirds of polling stations had compromised voting in that election last week. As many as one in eight votes may have been cast under coercion—under pressure of family voting. That is a deplorable state of affairs, and it should be the focus of the whole House to understand what happened.

It is important that we speak truthfully and honestly in this place, so I will say what is clearly true and what we all know: we are talking about south-east Asian communities, as has been clearly and objectively demonstrated in the past. We are talking about people taking their orders on how to vote from mosques and from clans—often direct from Pakistan. We are seeing the criminal abuse of democracy by Labour—

Will the hon. Member give way?

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will finish the point and then certainly give way to both gentlemen.

We are seeing the criminal abuse of British democracy by Labour, and now by the Green party. This malignant new force has now occupied—

The hon. Gentleman has just made the most extraordinary allegation about an electoral process last week: he suggested that 12% of all votes were somehow or other invalid because of pressure that he claims was put on them. Has he got any real evidence, or is that just an easy assertion to make to grab some headlines on social media and elsewhere?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is absolutely right that we have this debate. I am citing evidence provided by Democracy Volunteers, the independent observers who were present in the polling stations last week. It is important that we look into it. It is obviously impossible to tell definitively at this stage exactly what went on, but it is clear from these independent observers that serious abuse seems to have been practised.

May I first congratulate the Green party on its significant majority and its win? It is not my party, but I will congratulate it for that significant win over Reform and the Labour party. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that every single UK citizen, regardless of their faith or ethnic background, has as much right to cast their vote as any other, without fear or favour?

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the principle that should be applied.

It did not sound like it.

That is exactly what I think, and every British citizen should be able—

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman accuse a political party in the Chamber of a “criminal abuse of democracy”. Did I hear that correctly? Is that remark in order, or does the hon. Gentleman—I use that word loosely—now need to back up his allegation with some hard evidence?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am hoping that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) will reconsider his words and withdraw them.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry if I inadvertently suggested that it was a party that was abusing our electoral system. What I am actually suggesting is that there is abuse of our electoral system through an influential network that applies in these constituencies. That appears to be the case.

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the resounding victory of my hon. Friend the new Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) in the by-election was a victory for hope over hate? And does he not recognise that he sounds like an extremely bad loser?

I should have started by congratulating the new hon. Member on her personal victory. I am, however, very concerned about the circumstances in which many of those votes were cast. I am not plucking this concern out of the air; it is clearly apparent that there is widespread concern, and this is not the first time that it has happened.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the work of Democracy Volunteers, which is a long established and well—

Order. I call Emily Darlington.

The most personal form of power each of us has is the power to choose. When we mark our ballot, we exercise something profound and meaningful: our power to decide freely what kind of future we want, and that choice belongs to each of us. But today it is clear that our power to freely decide our future is under attack, not because our vote has been taken away or because of voter fraud, but because the environment in which we make up our minds is being deliberately distorted. Hostile states—especially Russia—are investing in digital tools designed to confuse, divide and destabilise us. At the same time, big tech has built systems that reward the strongest reaction: rage over fact, speed over accuracy and repetition over reflection. One seeks to weaken us, the other profits from whatever captures our attention, and together they distort the spaces in which many of us now make up our minds.

We have come together to put forward amendments that would help the Representation of the People Bill to continue to maintain democracy as we expect it to. We already accept the election rules that require us to regulate spending, prohibit impersonation and enforce transparency. We choose to do that because our democracy is too important to leave unguarded, and the digital space where so many of our choices are now formed should be no different. If our duty is to protect people’s power to choose, these five things must follow.

First, we must identify the crime. At the moment, lots of laws apply, but if it is not specific, it is hard for law enforcement to act. We must codify that the existing laws will apply to these digital behaviours, with a recognition that these are serious offences with serious consequences.

Secondly, we must shine a light. If a video is artificially generated to impersonate a candidate, voters have the right to know. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has described his own experience in this regard. We need much higher levels of disclosure and labelling of where information comes from, so that people can better understand what they are seeing. That is why we need more regulation and transparency around political advertising, with all paid digital advertising being kept publicly available in a library so that it is open for all to see.

Thirdly, we must demand that major platforms play their proper role in society. These platforms shape what millions of people see during an election and they must be accountable. These amendments would enable Ofcom to demand action from these platforms, unless they want to face major consequences, by making electoral offences a priority offence under the law. With our success in forcing Grok to take action on notification, we know that we can act to protect people. No platform is too big or too powerful.

Does the hon. Member agree that our joint hon. Friend from the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), was woefully let down by Meta when he attempted to get his own video taken down?

I completely agree. I think we all agree, no matter what side of the House we are on, that a misrepresentation of that kind distorts the electorate’s views. The reality is that it should be taken down. I think we can all agree on that fact.

Fourthly, law enforcement and regulatory bodies must have the power to act. The Electoral Commission must have more power to investigate, with real-time access to the platform data that is vital to understanding the impact of algorithmic systems and the role of inauthentic behaviour through bots. Regulators must have the power to compel major platforms to take action, including in the case of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk. We need to have a standard way to let the public know about incidents when they happen. They need to be informed.

Fifthly, these rules must apply year-round. One of the reasons that Meta will not take that content down is that we are not in an electoral period. These online methodologies are so powerful because they recognise the truth that we make our choices not just in the election period; we are making up our minds all the time. Let us get our election law in line with that reality.

Finally, we are proposing an amendment that goes to the core of how we treat each other. We must take action to reduce the abuse of candidates. I commend Mr Speaker and his Conference for their important work on this issue, because we all know too personally where this leads. Not only have we already lost beloved colleagues and friends to violence, but we also lose the talented people who will be put off from running in the first place. This is a robust set of choices that we in the Chamber can make to protect the future that we live in together. They are not about shutting down arguments or preventing someone from speaking their mind; they are about protecting the space for each of us to make the choice freely, and for those spaces to be filled with genuine discourse and arguments.

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who has spoken passionately about the risks of democratic interference. I know this is something that she has thought about in great detail. She may be aware that during the passage of the Data Protection Act 2018 we had an amendment to help to facilitate digital watermarking, which in this space would help not only with the copyright AI issue but particularly with the risk of democratic interference. Authenticity in communications is so important.

In my contribution to this debate, I want to talk about votes at 16. It is an incredible privilege to live in the United Kingdom and to be a citizen of the UK. One of our privileges is that we have a long-established history of free and fair elections, and many of our ancestors fought pretty hard and made great sacrifices to get the voter franchise that we have at the moment. Voting is really important. It is important as an adult act for a citizen of our country. Voting matters. That impact matters. Voting is part of the contractual relationship that we have with the state. As citizens of our country, we have a right to vote and to influence the decisions made on our behalf by our representatives, whether that is at local or parliamentary level.

I am concerned that taking away the adultness of voting, by saying that children—people below the age of 18—now have that expanded voter franchise, will diminish the status of voting in our country. It will take voting away from being an act where someone has to pass an age barrier to be recognised as an adult in our society.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, and I know that he speaks with a lot of clarity and authority. He visits schools and colleges in his constituency, as many of us do. Does he agree that, as Members, we have meaningful, impactful discussions with those young people, and that those young people should be enfranchised to vote?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I think there is a difference between representing people and people having the ability to vote for us. If we were to take that argument to its ultimate conclusion, it would expand the voter franchise not only to every single age but to non-citizens. I do not know if people agree with that—[Interruption.] It will be interesting to hear if that debate expands. I am sure that many people under the age of 18 have the decision-making capacity, maturity and ability to vote, but this debate is not about that. It is not about someone’s ability to vote; it is about whether they should vote and the status we afford to voting enfranchisement.

My hon. Friend is making an interesting argument that voting should be defined not by age, but by a contract of citizenship. Could he share what he thinks those criteria might be—living in the country, paying tax or working here?

One of those criteria should be that one is an adult, because voting is an adult act, and the other criterion should be citizenship. We do not have time for a debate today on how we approach citizenship in the UK and what that actually means, but if we start trying to unravel—

Does the hon. Gentleman’s reference to citizenship imply that Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, who have been enfranchised for about 100 years, should be disenfranchised in this country?

I am not making any sort of comment on that. My point is very simple: it is citizenship and age. If we are to apportion the respect to voting that we absolutely should—I think all of us in this House think voting is a critical thing to do—giving it the status of being an adult decision, as opposed to one made by children, is also important. To not do so is fundamentally anti-democratic. It diminishes what people have to go through in terms of the status of voting compared with other decisions. Voting is more important than being able to buy a beer, have a driving licence or join the cadets. Voting is absolutely critical, and that is why it is so important that it should be seen as an adult act, not an act that is within the scope of being a child.

If we were to link voting with brain development and maturity, that would mean that men get the right to vote about five years after women. Should we base it on that science?

The point the hon. Member makes illustrates exactly why we have to use an adult citizenship criteria, not one based on capability or ability, because the moment we start to do that, all sorts of awful things risk happening. People should get the right to vote in the UK if they are a citizen and if they are an adult, and that is it. We should never put at risk someone’s right to vote because of considerations about their cognitive ability, and that goes in both directions.

People should be careful what they wish for in making arguments to remove adult status and citizenship from voter enfranchisement. They may not like where they end up.

There is much in the Bill to welcome. Extending participation, improving voter registration and strengthening the integrity of our elections are all steps in the right direction, but in the time available, I want to concentrate on one thing that this Bill could do but does not. While it improves aspects of participation, it does not address the way that votes are translated into representation in this House.

The electoral system we have was not designed for the political landscape we see today. When the modern party system was taking shape a hundred or so years ago, the assumption was that British politics would continue, as it had previously, in a two-party framework. As we all know, that is not what we have today. The country has changed; our politics has changed. Our politics has become more fragmented, and our democracy —our democratic system—must be able to change with it to accommodate that changed reality. It is increasingly common for Members of this House to be elected without majority support in our own constituencies. It is increasingly common for voters to feel compelled to vote tactically, rather than with their hearts, and to vote against the outcome they do not, rather than the one they do, want. As a result, it is increasingly common for people to question whether their vote is meaningful in any sense at all.

This is the key point: in an election, if someone has to vote against what they do not want, it poisons our whole democratic well, because voters feel that they end up with something they have not chosen. They have made a negative choice, rather than a positive choice.

The hon. Member makes a valid point, and I hope the House listens.

It is not healthy for our democracy to be like this. I am not suggesting that individual Members lack legitimacy, but that the system itself is losing the confidence of the people we represent. It is for those reasons that there is a strong case for seriously considering alternatives to the first-past-the-post system. The alternative vote, for instance, would retain the constituency link, local accountability and the principle that each area elects its own representative, but it would also ensure that those elected to this place do so with a majority of support from our voters in our constituencies and not merely a plurality.

The hon. Member talks about the legitimacy of the voting system and the votes nationally not being proportionately represented here. Is the example that he is using the current Government, which got 34% of the vote but has 63% of the seats in this House?

The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) talked about poisoning the well of politics, and that was a great example of making a partisan point when it was unnecessary to do so.

The alternative vote would also allow voters to express their genuine preferences. It would strengthen the mandate on which we are all elected to this place. It would have completely transformed in a positive way the two by-elections and the by-election campaigns that we have seen in this Parliament. Instead of appealing to voters to keep the worst candidate out of office, which happened in one of those by-elections, we would have an appeal to voters on a more progressive and positive basis.

As a way of getting to that position, I want to express my support for the proposal to establish a national commission on electoral reform. A commission would allow the evidence to be examined properly. It would allow the public to engage seriously with the options available to them and would allow any future decisions to be made on the basis of broad consensus.

The Labour movement was founded on the principle that the working class should have a meaningful voice in the decisions that impact on our lives. That principle remains just as important today as it was when my party was founded. Ensuring that our electoral system reflects the realities of modern Britain and commands the confidence of those who we represent is part of honouring the tradition of my party and movement.

As I say, this Bill contains many welcome measures, but we should also be willing to recognise that strengthening democracy is an ongoing task. Supporting a national commission on electoral reform and giving serious consideration to reforms such as the alternative vote would be a measured, responsible and sensible step in that direction. I hope that this House will approach that question in the same spirit of democratic renewal that has served our country so well in the past.

Although it would be churlish to deny that this Bill is a step forward, it is important to look at what it is a step forward from. I am one of the few Members of the House who sat through the Elections Act 2022 and went through it line by line in Committee. Along with colleagues who now sit on the Government Benches, we were united in saying that that Tory election Bill was an affront to democracy. But now in power, Labour has taken that affront to democracy and, rather than ripping it into a million pieces, is doing what Labour seems to do best: take the very worst of Tory legislation and make it slightly less offensive. Although elements of the Bill will improve existing legislation, and we will therefore support it, this is not what we were promised, and I fear that it will be seen as a huge missed opportunity.

We very much welcome the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK general elections, which would bring this place in line with Scotland, which has enjoyed that for more than a decade and where it has proven to be an unqualified success. We also welcome efforts to clamp down on dark money infiltrating UK politics. Shining a light on the murky world of Westminster political donations is long overdue. The Labour party has been promising that since 1997, so I think we had best put it in the “I’ll believe it when I see it” pile, particularly given that the scandal of dodgy donations that has now disgraced the Labour party, through Labour Together, continues to swirl around Labour MPs.

As an Opposition party, one of our biggest arguments with the Tories was about the introduction of voter ID. We argued that it was a solution to a non-existent problem. The now Prime Minister was right when he said that it would lock people out of democracy. Yet now that Labour is in power, rather than scrapping the entire scheme, it has chosen to keep it and merely increase the number of acceptable forms of ID, knowing full well that the scheme disadvantages ethnic minority communities, the young, the homeless and the elderly.

My problem with the Bill goes beyond what is in it; it is what is not in it. The rejection—once again—of any form of proportional representation is a scandal. The fragmentation of UK politics is happening at pace. The Government’s refusal to consider proportional representation is dangerously short sighted. Parliamentary elections have become a race to achieve 34%, because, as we know, that is where landslides happen. There could be a reality check coming after the next election, when a party whose Members sit not a million miles away from me, and which refuses to play by the rules, achieves a huge majority on barely a third of the vote. I urge the Government to reconsider their opposition to proportional representation. If they do not, we could all live to regret it.

The Bill is deficient in several other areas: there are still weaknesses and loopholes in political finance, registration must be rolled out much quicker, there must be much tighter cryptocurrency regulations, and yet again, for whatever reason, the Labour party has decided to ignore the abomination of democracy at the other end of the corridor. The Bill is a million miles from being perfect, but on the basis that it is a very small step in the right direction, we will support it.

I welcome the Bill, particularly the parts that will deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote, introduce automatic voter registration, and widen the list of accepted forms of voter ID. By taking those steps, the Government are improving the way in which our democracy runs and our citizens engage with it.

There are ways in which the Bill can be improved, however. I will talk about unincorporated associations. Although such associations are used legitimately by some, they can also be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, and there is potential for them to be used for foreign interference in our political system. Transparency International UK found that, of the £40 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million came from unknown sources under the existing rules, so it is certainly time for change. That is especially true since the previous Government took the opportunity in their last few years to increase the thresholds for the reporting of political donations from unincorporated associations, which was a thoroughly retrograde step—one that I am very pleased we are addressing today.

The Bill takes welcome steps to prevent unincorporated associations from being used to conceal donations from impermissible sources, and to reduce the level at which they must register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. However, the reporting threshold for all those measures remains unnecessarily high. The criticism of our current system is not only that it allows dark money into our political system, but that it is unnecessarily complex and confusing. The Government should take the opportunity that the Bill presents to tackle both issues by reducing the reporting threshold for unincorporated associations to £500—equal with the permissibility threshold. To deliver maximum transparency, I urge Ministers to consider whether the Bill should require information to be published on the purpose and activities of unincorporated associations, as well as who controls them.

Let me touch briefly on my work as vice-chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Last year, we published a report into the 2024 general election, and made recommendations to the Government, some of which are reflected in the Bill, which I welcome. During the Committee’s inquiry, I asked the chair of the Electoral Commission why our elections are held on Thursdays. I was told that it is simply tradition. That might seem a minor point, but the 2024 general election saw the second lowest turnout since the introduction of universal suffrage. In that context, we need to pull every lever available to us to make it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. I am sure that we have all stood on a doorstep at night, unsuccessfully asking someone who is tired after a long day at work and a really long commute, and who needs to put the kids to bed, to go to the end of their street and vote.

The Government should consider international evidence from places such as Australia, where elections are held on weekends, to determine whether a change in the day of the week would increase turnout—in much the same way as they have looked at international examples to conduct a pilot on flexible voting. I welcome that modernisation of the way in which we run our elections. Moving the election day to the weekend would likely have a really positive operational benefit, as it would free up more schools to act as polling stations.

I close by stating my support for the consideration of compulsory participation in elections. When we consider the balance of rights and responsibilities, I do not think it too much to ask people to go along and participate in democracy every few years.

The Bill makes important improvements to how our elections are run, but updating the machinery of elections is not the same as renewing our democracy, and we desperately need democratic renewal if we are to restore faith in the system.

The greatest weakness in our system is not administrative; it is structural. It is the first-past-the-post problem. We are running a modern, multi-party Britain on a 19th-century electoral system. First past the post routinely produces majority Governments on minority votes, millions of wasted votes, and safe seats—if they are even a thing any more—in which outcomes are effectively decided before polling day. For the average voter, it means that, because of where they live, their vote may not matter. The result may not reflect how the country voted, and people may feel pushed into voting tactically, rather than honestly.

About 70% of votes make no difference to the result. If someone’s chosen candidate has already won, their vote does not count. If they vote for a losing candidate, their vote just disappears into a void. In Gorton and Denton, tactical voting sites were openly directing voters on how to stop one particular party. Understandable though that desire may be, when people feel that they have to consult a website to figure out how to block someone, rather than simply voting for who they believe in, that is not democracy.

The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) pointed out some of these ideas. If we stick with first past the post in an increasingly fractured multi-party political landscape, we run the very real risk of the next general election results looking much like a random number generator. We know that manufactured majorities weaken legitimacy, disproportionate outcomes fuel cynicism, and large groups of permanently unrepresented voters create fertile ground for anger and extremism. At a time when democratic norms are under pressure globally, that is not a technical flaw; it is a structural vulnerability. We know that there is a better way.

After moving to proportional representation, countries like New Zealand, and indeed Scotland, saw more representative Parliaments, higher engagement among previously marginalised voters, and stronger public confidence that votes actually translate into seats. Comparative research consistently shows higher turnout and stronger feelings of political efficacy under proportional systems. PR is the missing piece of this democratic puzzle. It would reduce tactical voting, strengthen legitimacy, and align Parliament with the country as it actually is. It is not about party advantage; it is about democratic integrity.

So, yes, let us modernise registration, protect candidates and tighten transparency, but we must not pretend that updating the management of elections is the same as strengthening democracy. When millions feel that their vote does not count, when Governments are handed sweeping power on minority support, and when voters feel forced into tactical calculations instead of honest choices, that cannot be said to be a free and fair democracy.

If we really believe in representation of the people, then every vote must carry equal weight. Anything less leaves us with a democracy that functions procedurally but fails morally. Let the Representation of the People Bill ensure that the will of the people is truly represented.

Those of us who are in this Chamber on a Thursday morning know that we sometimes have questions to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission then, and I say that because in the last Parliament, as an Opposition MP, I was a spokesperson for that Committee. It is the only time in the parliamentary week when Members pose questions to an opposition Member to answer. That is an important point, because it highlights the fact that the Electoral Commission is not answerable to Government, of any colour; rather, it is answerable to Parliament, because it is a regulator like no other. It regulates politics, and it therefore holds a very special status.

I also served in the last Parliament on the Elections Bill Committee, and I saw there what happens when political parties use legislation for political advantage. I am really pleased to be able to say that the Bill before us contains many of the important democratic principles that I have been speaking about for the last 11 years in this House, and I am excited to vote for it on Second Reading this evening.

Among the Bill’s measures is the expansion of voting rights to 16 and 17-year-olds. We have heard some quite bizarre things said about that so far this evening, some of which were really quite remarkable. The Bill also includes bank cards among the forms of ID that can be used to access voting. For those who were not in the last Parliament to see the Elections Bill go through and become the Elections Act 2022, let me say that time and again, Conservative Ministers told us at the Dispatch Box that if people need ID to collect a parcel at the post office, they should need ID to vote at a polling station; but if we want to collect a parcel at a post office, we can use a bank card for that, so this is completely in line with the arguments made for the introduction of ID, and I would expect the official Opposition to support expanding the relevant ID to include bank cards.

It is important that we come together on upholding confidence in democracy, because confidence in democracy is not very high in this country right now. That is why it is so important that expanding the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds goes hand in hand with working with our colleagues in education to ensure that those young citizens are equipped to vote, and have the necessary support. Already, young citizens in Wales and Scotland have the right to vote, and bringing English and Northern Irish citizens into line makes logical sense.

I declare an interest: I am chair of the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we are conducting an inquiry on votes at 16 to see what support young people will need to make the most of the vote, when they get it. The most important thing that young people are telling us is that they are concerned that their teachers do not feel confident enough to lead discussions in the classroom around politics. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must support not just our young people, but our teachers, and enable conversations about democracy, the voting process and citizenship?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. His APPG sounds very interesting. I am sure that those on the Front Bench heard those points, and I agree with them.

In my remaining time, I want to address the need to protect our democracy from foreign interference. In cleaning up politics, we need to address specific weaknesses identified. There is a very good blog by Professor Alan Renwick at the University College London constitution unit, which I would love to quote from, but my time is quite limited. He highlights that while the Bill introduces stricter eligibility criteria for company donors, there are still huge gaps regarding cryptocurrency and the potential for illicit funds to bypass traditional checks. We should be bold enough to start talking about a donation cap, too. There is no plausible argument against introducing caps on political donations to prevent a small number of wealthy people from exerting disproportionate influence.

The changes made in the last piece of legislation that went through this House on electoral law have left a huge vulnerability. That legislation abolished the 15-year rule we used to have, whereby citizens who had lived outside the UK for 15 years or longer lost the right to vote and to donate to UK politics. When that rule was abolished, there was no way for elections officers in councils up and down the country to verify that people claiming to have lived at an address in another constituency in 1976 actually did so, because those records were not kept past 15 years, as of course there was no point. Now, there are permissible donors to the UK electoral system who claim to have lived in the UK, and we have no way of proving whether they did. That is a huge vulnerability, and I urge those on the Front Bench to look again at that, and at closing that potential back door that we have left open to foreign money interfering in UK politics. We are an outlier in having this rule; in the Republic of Ireland, for instance, those who leave the country lose the right to vote after one year.

I would like to finish by saying that many colleagues have made the case for proportional representation, and this Bill would have been a great opportunity to set up a commission to look at all the different options that would be available to make sure that people feel that their vote counts, and that there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

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—

Order. I call Justin Madders.

While new technologies can often be a force for good and, when used correctly, can enhance political debate, accountability and trust, in practice they are too often having the opposite effect. Social media, in particular, has helped to fuel further division and facilitated levels of distrust, threats and intimidation towards elected representatives that have never been seen before. It has also opened our political system and discourse to the wider world, with other countries able to use platforms to influence and interfere in our domestic political debate in ways that were previously not possible.

Political discourse has become murky, and legitimate political debate has become distorted by misinformation, with people no longer even able to agree on basic facts. This represents an existential threat to liberal democracy. When misinformation spreads unchecked, abuse is normalised and accountability is lacking, confidence in our democratic institutions is significantly weakened. That is what our foes want.

I agree with my hon. Friend’s argument. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and a representative from Meta spoke to the Committee just last week. I was very concerned about their answers when probed on the work that needs to be done to protect social media sites from foreign interference. Does he share my concerns that social media companies are not doing enough to tackle this issue on their platforms?

In my experience, Meta does not care about the truth. We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about what he experienced, and I have had the same experiences: stuff goes up, it does not meet the threshold, it carries on and the lies continue to be propagated. Meta’s indifference is a danger to our democracy and that absolutely needs tackling.

There are long-standing rules on how political parties can use paid-for advertising in the offline world, but we have effectively gone from a situation where we have banal party political broadcasts on terrestrial channels to a virtual free-for-all online. That leads to deliberate distortions, misleading claims and half-truths being pushed into social media feeds with absolutely no checks on their accuracy and little recourse, as we have heard, to challenge their spread.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that although the Representation of People Act 1983 makes it illegal to misrepresent a candidate in an election, that offence is yet to be tested in relation to online misrepresentation? In fact, Ofcom and many platforms do not see themselves as being bound by that legislation.

The truth is that we have analogue laws for a digital age, and they are simply not fit for purpose. That is exacerbated by the fact that social media companies and their entire business models rely on outrageous comments to incentivise clicks. That amplifies the distortion of our political process and encourages the controversial, so we absolutely need to go further to tackle this issue.

The Bill already has provisions to tighten up rules on digital imprints on campaign material, but we need greater transparency for online political adverts. Some straightforward changes, some of which have already been supported by the Government, could improve transparency and fairness, and increase trust in our political system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has already said, the first of these is an advert library. We need an accessible database to act as a repository for all election advertising across all advertising platforms on the internet. This should include the content of the advert, the money put behind it to promote the content, the paying entity and who the content is targeted at. At present, those are all opaque, with the only libraries available being controlled by the media companies, which can choose to stop sharing access. As we have already heard, they are not really interested in ensuring that things are accurate or truthful when they are published. Similar models have been implemented in Canada and New Zealand already, and the EU will introduce its own later this month.

Secondly, the Government should introduce an amendment requiring candidates to follow a statutory code of conduct at elections, as well as including provisions to stop the intimidation and harassment of candidates, as was suggested in the Government’s White Paper last year. That should extend to commitments to telling the truth and not knowingly including misinformation in campaign material. Putting all that on a statutory footing and including steps on tackling misinformation will give it the teeth that it needs, because we cannot defend democracy if our financial frameworks remain as they are and our online spaces are unregulated. I welcome the proposals for “know your donor” checks. I recognise and encourage the enforcement mechanisms that will be introduced by the Electoral Commission, but we absolutely need to go further.

This Bill is a positive step. Votes at 16, greater enfranchisement and registration, checking cracks in our democracy and better protecting candidates are all really welcome things, but I fear that the experiences of the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk are where we will be in 2029 if we do not crack down on this now. I look forward to working with the Minister to explore ways in which we can make this Bill even better to protect our democracy and allow it to flourish not just now, but in the future.

Our democracy is fragile and cannot be taken for granted, and it has to retain the public’s trust if it is to endure. Many around the world are working very hard to try to erode that trust, so we must be equal to the challenge and ensure that we have the best legislation possible to meet that challenge.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that I like to start with the positives and the areas of common ground. I warmly welcome the fact that this Bill has come forward and a number of measures in it. It is very positive that the Government are taking forward votes at 16—something that the Green party has campaigned for since the year dot.

It is really good that there is some commitment to improving transparency on political funding. I very much welcome what the Secretary of State was saying earlier about getting rid of the political control of the strategy and policy statement over the Electoral Commission. I also welcome the increase in the commission’s fining capacity. Those are all really positive measures, but there is much more to do. We need stronger action to stop disinformation, get dirty money out of politics and improve trust in our political system.

Briefly, on votes at 16, let me say that 16 and 17-year-olds are engaged, active, interested and really passionate about the political system. It is right that they should be—they will have to live with the decisions that we make for longer than any of the rest of us—so I very much welcome the extension of the franchise. As young people themselves say, it is crucial that the investment is made in supporting political literacy, both in schools and more broadly, to ensure that young people—and all of us—have the political literacy to engage actively in the political process, which is an increasing challenge because of the grave threat of disinformation. We have heard from the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and a range of other Members about the problems, and there is a clear need to place duties on the large online platforms to ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is flagged and controlled.

While the Rycroft review is very welcome, it is not enough, and serious concerns remain about external influence on our politics. I repeat my call for a Mueller-style investigation into Russian and other influence on British politics. We need to know what attacks were made in 2016 and since so that we can have greater clarity and transparency over our politics.

I warmly welcome the points made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the importance of a transparent register of political adverts. We need to know who is saying what to who so that there is transparency, because currently we do not know that, and really disruptive and disinformative things are happening.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) said, we must have, at a minimum, a cap on donations and a full ban on crypto-donations. That is critical. It is really quite extraordinary that the Thailand-based crypto investor Christopher Harborne has been allowed to donate £9 million to Reform UK—I notice that its Members are still not here. We also need annual spending limits, so that our politics is not distorted by money being spent around the edges of elections, for example.

What else is missing? We need to scrap voter ID, which is a barrier to political engagement and has no justification, and we need increased investigative powers—more money and teeth for the Electoral Commission. It is a profound irony that the Representation of the People Bill does not tackle the fundamental problem with our representation. True representation of the people requires seats to match votes and every vote to count equally, so I call on the Government to take this opportunity to bring forward proportional representation. Ensuring that everyone’s vote counts equally is the principled thing to do, and it is the popular thing to do.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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—

Order. I call Florence Eshalomi.

I thank the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, for introducing this Bill. It contains many important areas that I hope the House will agree to on a cross-party basis, whether that is looking at automated forms of registration, lowering the voting age, expanding the list of voter ID, or—most importantly—making sure that we strengthen political finance and how we are all funded. I am proud to declare an interest, in that I was funded by trade unions and my local Labour party—long may that continue.

Many years ago, growing up not too far from here in Brixton, when I saw this place and heard people talk about decisions that impacted us and our communities, it felt like it was a million miles away. If we are honest, we have a system that sometimes feels rigged against us, where decisions are made to us instead of with us.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that we make participating in democracy as easy as possible? There is an inextricable link between high levels of deprivation and low levels of registration, and it is really important that we do all we can to make it as easy as possible and remove the barriers.

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Many people think that there are too many barriers for them to join the electoral register, when we all know that it takes a matter of minutes. I always say that if the council can send you your council tax bill before you have even finished unpacking, why can they not register you to vote in time?

A healthy and accessible democracy is not just about representation; it is about holding decision makers accountable when they do not deliver on their promises. That is why it is really important that we get this Bill right. We all know that trust in politics is at an all-time low, so at the heart of this must be an acknowledgment that voting is a right, not a privilege. When barriers exist that make it harder for people to vote, we must remove them, and the last Government’s introduction of the voter ID system did just that—it disenfranchised legitimate voters from making their voices heard. We have all knocked on the doors of many people on polling day who did not have the opportunity to register for voter ID before polling day. I have spoken to young people who did not understand why their elderly relative could use their bus pass to vote, but they could not use their Zip card—make it make sense! It is right that we take steps to end personation, but they must be proportionate to the tragedy of legitimate voters being denied their votes, so I wholly support the Government’s measures to widen the scope of voter ID to include digital ID and more forms of ID. I would welcome the Minister outlining some of those changes, and would be grateful to know whether they will include young persons’ ID.

Most importantly, I am happy to see votes for 16-year-olds—I am a long-time, passionate advocate for votes at 16. Conservative Members may be aware that the former chair of the votes at 16 APPG was a former Father of the House. One of the longest-serving and oldest Members of this House was a keen and passionate advocate for votes at 16, so there are some Conservatives who support this measure. It is really important that we consider how to enfranchise young people. Think about all the 16-year-olds in 2010 who saw the coalition Government triple the cost of their tuition fees overnight, who could not vote when they turned 18 in 2012. We must think about how to make sure people who are planning for their future have a keen interest in, and are able to exercise, their right to vote.

One thing about giving votes to youngsters at 16 is that there will be an election in their last two years at school, and politicians will be beating their way to the doors of these schools to go in and speak. Those young people will have an opportunity to learn about what they are voting for and how the structures work in a way that, frankly, their elders often do not know.

My right hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. We know that people who start voting at a young age will continue voting through the rest of their life. It is soul-destroying when we knock on the door of someone in their late 50s or 60s, and they say that they have never voted and do not think about voting. If we enfranchise these young people, the figures show that they will continue to vote throughout their adult life. It is important that we enfranchise more people and make sure that there are no barriers.

This legislation is not just about enfranchising people, but about ensuring fair representation. The Electoral Commission shows that as many as 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote, and that has a big impact on young people, people living in private rented accommodation, disabled people and recent home movers. It is important that we look at this issue. I welcome the Government’s proposals on automatic voter and direct voter registration. That is the right way to do it, and it will be important for the Government to outline how they will pilot the scheme. Can the Minister give assurances about when the pilots will happen and if preparation is happening? It is important that any successful pilot is implemented before the general election.

Can the Minister clarify how voter registration will impact different franchises for local and parliamentary elections? For example, will the system deal with qualifying EU nationals? We know that the scheme depends on when someone arrived and settled in the UK, or if someone is from one of the five countries with reciprocal voting rights agreements with the UK. Can the Minister outline how automatic voter registration will capture that?

Time is limited, but I welcome the fact that the Government have finally listened to my calls and those of many other Members in repealing the provision on the Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement. In 2000 the previous Labour Government set up the Electoral Commission as a guardian of our democracy, independent not just of that Government but of all future Governments. That independence is fundamental to restoring and keeping trust in our democracy, and it is right that we have no political interference in—

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

I agree with many of the comments that Members have made, and it is nice to see such communality on idea that we need proportional representation, that we need to get rid of dirty money, and that we need to abolish the possibility of foreign people buying our elections. We see in too many countries across the world that if people have the money, they can buy the votes, and we must not fall into that trap.

I welcome the introduction of votes for 16-year-olds. The children I meet at schools talking politics are engaged and understand what they are doing. I question whether we have sufficient digital voter IDs in the scheme for them to use. Personally, I would like to see voter ID abolished entirely, much as I would like to see the open register abolished entirely. However, the biggest thing I had complaints about after the last election was postal votes, whether it was postal votes too late in getting to people or postal votes being sent back and too late getting to the elections office. There is some movement in the Bill, but it is not enough.

However, we are completely ignoring a whole section of voters: our overseas voters. We heard earlier how the overseas mandate had changed. Now, instead of some 1.4 million overseas voters, we have an estimated 3.4 million overseas voters, and we need to change how they can vote. They are asking for the ability to self-print ballots from the system—that is possible; they do it in the Netherlands—and return them through embassies and consulates. That would enable us to reach these overseas contingents, and we should be encouraging them to take part in our elections, as they are entitled to do. Something like 200,000 registered for the last election, but there are 3.4 million people whom we have disenfranchised. The other big question that we have agreed on and talked through is how we deal with misinformation and disinformation and modern technology, which are distorting our electoral position. We have to make more of that.

On the whole, I would say that this is a reasonable start for a Bill. There is a lot more work to be done, but having heard Members on both sides of the House agreeing on the Bill, I think that together we can make it better, and fit for the 21st century.

The central point of the Bill is, of course, the franchising of 16 and 17-year-olds. I will not deal with that issue extensively, although I must say that I thought the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) essentially demolished the argument for votes for children. However, I want to look at it in a slightly different context.

Whether someone is 16 or 86, the whole idea of universal suffrage is that people have the opportunity, as equals, to elect those who make their laws, whether in a council, in this Parliament, or in some other institution. That is the fundamental point. Indeed, the secret is in the title: Representation of the People—representation in the election of those who then make our laws. But here is the problem. If the Bill is passed and you are a 16-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. If you are an 86-year-old in my constituency, you will not be electing those who make all your laws. That is because we are in the absurd position that in part of this United Kingdom—which boasts of universal suffrage, which boasts of equal rights across this United Kingdom—in not one area but in more than 300 areas of law, the laws are not made by those whom we elect; they are made by those in a foreign Parliament, the European Parliament, elected by the electorates of 27 other countries.

The hon. and learned Gentleman mentions Europe. Another key component of this Bill is transparency in funding, and he will know that the Constitutional Research Council donated nearly half a million pounds to the Vote Leave campaign in Northern Ireland—a company that does not disclose its accounts or who funds it. This Bill will correct that. Does he agree that is a fantastic move forward?

Yes, transparency in funding is important, and I will say something about that if I have time, but there is a more fundamental issue. Whatever their age, the hon. Member’s constituents, once they are given the vote, have a right to elect those who make their laws. My constituents and I do not have the right to elect those who make our laws in my part of the United Kingdom, and I challenge anyone in this House to tell me why it is either democratic or right that we should have universal suffrage on the basis of representation of the people, but that we should extract and remove from the people of Northern Ireland that fundamental right in 300 areas of law. That is perverse. It is wrong. The Secretary of State, in introducing this debate, said that this Government “will tackle foreign interference head-on”. Well, let them start by removing the foreign interference in making the laws in my part of the United Kingdom. That would be a very good starting point.

Finally, I want to make a point about foreign donations. This House may know that in Northern Ireland we have a party by the name of Sinn Féin, which has run a coach and horses through every regulation that has ever been made about foreign donations. Because the party operates in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it plays the rules of one against another. In a recent year it received £2 million from the United States, so what does it do? It filters the money through whichever country’s laws allow it to be most easily filtered, and then moves it north-south or south-north, as suits the party’s purposes. This Bill does not yet go far enough. I want to see it tighten those loopholes and make sure that travesty cannot continue.

As a solicitor who previously advised in this area, I am grateful to be able to contribute to tonight’s Second Reading debate. I welcome much in this Bill, including automatic voter registration; honouring our manifesto commitment to extend the vote in UK-wide elections to 16 and 17-year-olds, following in the footsteps of Wales; and rectifying some of the discriminatory impacts of the Conservatives’ Elections Act 2022, a piece of legislation that in many respects was a solution in search of a problem.

In the short time I have tonight, I want to focus on a theme that I have regularly spoken about: the threat to our democracy from foreign interference by both state and non-state actors, and the steps that we must take to cement our democracy from those malign forces. As has been said, these are not theoretical risks. We need only look at the former leader of Reform UK in Wales, who was previously in the UK Independence party and the Brexit party: Nathan Gill, who is now serving 10 and a half years in prison for eight counts of bribery. It is shameful that he took a minimum of £40,000 in bribes to make speeches in the European Parliament. He was meant to be representing Wales but instead did the Kremlin’s bidding.

I welcome the Government’s setting up of the Philip Rycroft review, and I trust that the resulting recommendations will be included in the Bill as it progresses through this place. In particular, I am clear that we should ban all crypto donations to political parties and individuals. To my mind, there is no legitimate rationale for donating via such means, unless the donor ultimately wishes to disguise their true identity.

I welcome the independence of the Electoral Commission, which was elaborated on by the Secretary of State, and the enhancing of its powers to provide clear deterrents against lawbreaking. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that the Government will ensure that the Electoral Commission has all the necessary resources it needs to do its job effectively and efficiently.

Improved co-operation between the Electoral Commission, the intelligence services, law enforcement and electoral authorities must be a priority. I have previously suggested to the Security Minister and I suggest again to the Minister that the Government should consider whether the recently announced policing reforms, most notably in setting up a national police service, may be a suitable vehicle through which to consider establishing dedicated police capability for electoral crime.

Finally, we must urgently deal with disinformation and online operations, as has been mentioned, and treat them as the core national security threat that they are. The Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the police need the resources to deal with the threat of personalised algorithmic feeds and AI-enabled manipulation that feeds misinformation about our elections. I would be grateful if the Government synchronised that with other ongoing Government reviews to ensure that this Bill is as robust as it needs to be to cement our democracy.

It is quite frankly absurd to grant children the right to vote, and even place 14 and 15-year-olds on the electoral register, all while maintaining the plethora of age-based rights elsewhere. Just look at the contradictions. A 16-year-old would be able to determine who governs the country, yet not able to enter legally binding contracts such as buying and renting property, purchasing alcohol or tobacco, or making independent medical decisions. It simply does not stack up, and Labour Members know it.

Even with these obvious inconsistencies, I do not believe that the Government have thought through the unintended consequences of this Bill. First, on turnout, younger age groups are historically less likely to vote. Lowering the voting age and bringing another 2 million individuals into the electorate will only compound the issue, and as we see turnout levels drop, there will be more questions about the legitimacy of our elections and electing our leaders.

Is not the real fear that young people are now able, through social media and other forums, to identify which political personality is telling the truth and which one is saying what is false, and the Conservatives are quite concerned that they will lose even more power?

If the Government get their way, young people will not be able to access social media anyway, so I am not sure the hon. Member’s argument holds up.

Secondly, other inconsistencies arise because the Government believe that those young people should be shielded. They should be shielded from fatty foods, smoking alcohol and, as just mentioned, social media, yet overnight—on reaching the age of 16—they are considered sufficiently informed to decide who they want to run the country.

Thirdly, and most importantly in my eyes, there is the issue of family voting. In the light of the recent allegations about the Gorton and Denton by-election, this raises serious concerns. Could lowering the voting age increase the risk of undue political influence in households? Could some young people face pressure to vote in line with family expectations rather than exercising genuine independence? Votes at 16, alongside watering down the rules on voter ID at polling stations, lead Conservative Members to question whether our democracy is being undermined still further.

To conclude, lowering the voting age is contradictory. It creates inconsistency in our age-based rights system. It carries the potential for serious unintended consequences for turnout and the legitimacy of our elections, political divisions and voter independence. Labour Members should consider these risks very seriously indeed, before inflicting lasting damage on our fragile democracy.

I have learned a great deal this evening, not least that, when we are debating legislation, Members should put in their name earlier than I clearly did.

I have the great honour of representing the people of Finsbury, and there is a great line of fantastic Members of Parliament before me, such as Chris Smith. Before that, there was Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, who in 1842 delivered to Parliament the Chartist petition with 3.3 million signatories, or one third of the adult population. We had huge demonstrations in Spa fields and Copenhagen fields to try to get the vote—unfortunately, just for men—but, nevertheless, that is how seriously we take democracy in Islington South and Finsbury.

However, 184 years later, I worry that I may be the MP who oversees the death of our democracy, and the reason I am so concerned—profoundly so—is foreign interference in our democracies. The Foreign Affairs Committee started looking at other countries—we thought this was just about other countries—and we visited many other places. I must tell hon. Members that the things we saw in Romania and Moldova would make their hair stand on end. However, this is not just in countries a long way away on the border with Russia, but in many others. I have spoken to people in Germany and France, and it is quite clear that there is an attempt to influence our democracies, and we are complacent—far too complacent.

We are very worried about that in the Foreign Affairs Committee, so we have taken the unusual step of asking domestic Ministers what they are doing about it. We are seeing patterns of behaviour and we are concerned that it is now happening in this country. It could blow up very quickly, not least in the next elections in May. The last thing we want is for those influencers to be there and then for us to somehow or other try to persuade the public, “Actually, you were unduly influenced.” Nobody will want to admit it once it has happened. We need to ensure we protect ourselves.

Many of my constituents have been in touch with me in recent months concerned about the impact of foreign money and foreign influence on our elections, particularly after the recent conviction of the former leader of Reform UK Wales for taking Russian bribes. I am sure those concerns will be shared by my right hon. Friend’s constituents. Will she join me in welcoming the measures in the Bill that will strengthen the rules on political donations, in particular the requirement that donations from companies must come from money made in the UK, rather than abroad?

Well, the penny does seem have dropped—or the crypto-coin has dropped—but the Bill is not sufficient. That is why the Rycroft review is really important. It will come out at the end of the month and I ask the Minister to undertake to publish it when it is produced, because we are on a very tight timetable. The programme motion suggests that the Bill will leave the elected House on 23 April, so if there are changes to be made, they will be made by the unelected House of Lords, which is unfortunate. I ask business managers to consider that.

Currently, there are seven Departments dealing with disinformation. The test I have is the 1,300 bots from a Scottish background—they seem very interested in Scottish nationalism in Iran. I have been asking various Ministers to deal with them. Who is taking them down? Who is responsible for taking them down? Of the seven different Departments, who is doing that? Those bots are still there—although they may now have gone because of the recent bombing. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that that is an attempt at foreign influence in our democracy and I am very concerned about it. I asked the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about it. He said he would look into it. As a result, I got three different letters from three different Departments all telling me three different things. We must consider this matter and ensure we tackle it properly. The Foreign Affairs Committee is producing an excellent report this month. I urge Ministers to read it, because it will contain recommendations which, unfortunately, I cannot go into today.

Finally, why are we allowing cryptocurrency into our democracy? Who wants to use cryptocurrency? Why can we not just use good old-fashioned cash, cheques and bank transfers like anybody else? Why do they need cryptocurrency? Because they want to cover up. It is the Russian currency of choice when it wants to bribe people. We know that from other countries and we know the way in which it is used. Just say no.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She rightly reminded the House about the role of the Chartists in Islington South. I remind her and the rest of the House about the role of Mary Wollstonecraft in the north of the borough, and of course the fact that “The Rights of Man” was written in her constituency at the Angel. Our borough has made a massive contribution to radical thought and radical development.

This debate should be much longer and wider, because we need to look at wider issues of democracy in our society. We have an elected House of Commons. We have an unelected House of Lords. We obviously have an unelected Head of State. We have a massive disparity in regional influences on political decision making. We do not really have regional government. We have mayors and a local government system that is essentially dependent on central government. We are not a fully democratic society by any manner of means. Indeed, this House of Commons is really meeting on sufferance of the Government. Its agenda is basically set by the Government. It is not an independent chamber of power over the Government; it is one that tries to hold the Government to account—there is a big difference. So we need to think a bit more about how our democracy could develop. Perhaps a good idea would be a commission on democracy, where there could be wide-ranging thoughts on democracy in our society.

The Bill contains a number of issues that I want to refer to quickly. I say that as a former agent in many elections, and as a parliamentary candidate in many more after that. The question of the funding of elections comes up all the time. Massive amounts of business money flows into politics both at election time and between elections, funding parties, so-called political interest groups and so on. We need to get a grip on this. Our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, and it is getting worse and worse with the levels of political influence and money that goes with it.

There is also the question of the power of the media between and within elections. We need to extend broadcasting rules into print media during elections. As others have said, we need to look very seriously at the damaging interests of social media and the algorithms that go with it, which direct political views. It is almost impossible to find out how much money has been spent on social media campaigning.

Lastly, I will turn to the right to vote. I have raised the question of homeless people having the right to vote; if we had a universal registration system, it would be much easier to ensure that everyone who is entitled to vote is able to do so. While I absolutely support votes at 16, I also think we should extend votes beyond just Irish nationals to those who are legally resident in this country and have a stake in the future of this country, and should be able to vote accordingly.

I, too, want to welcome the Bill; I think it has a lot of good measures. However, whether it becomes the watershed Bill that I think it could be depends on whether much of the debate we have heard tonight gets translated into successful amendments over the next couple of weeks.

We all have an ideal of democracy in this House, but we all know that democracy, too, is a system, and systems can be gamed, corrupted and undermined, not merely by force of arms, but by force of money: foreign money; dark money; money that is faceless, but has an agenda. That is the situation we have in this country today because we have allowed the activities of shell companies, alka-seltzer companies and unincorporated associations, with about £1 in every £10 coming into political parties now from some kind of dark source. All of this is overseen by a National Crime Agency without the resources to do the job and an Electoral Commission without the powers to do the job.

There are five changes that need to be made to the text of the Bill before us tonight. The first, as many have said, is on media systems. It is ridiculous that I can set up a trust in Dubai that is owned by a company registered in the British Virgin Islands and chuck tens of millions of pounds into a British TV station, which can then go on to pay politicians in this House. There are no rules and balances on that, which is ridiculous and needs to end.

Secondly, as many people have said, we need to ban cryptocurrency. We know that cryptocurrency is the vehicle of choice for the Russian intelligence services moving money into the bank accounts of western proxies. For a long time, the Russian intelligence services have had a strategy of what we might call “poodles on rubles”. Right now, we know they are moving about $30 million a year. We have to ensure that what has happened in Moldova does not happen in countries like ours. Banning cryptocurrency altogether—until, perhaps, one day in the future, the Electoral Commission has the power to police it—might be a good idea.

Thirdly, we have to ensure that only profits earned from British companies can be used for electoral donations. It is ridiculous that an individual like Christopher Harborne can take $70 million in Tether tokens before then making about £23 million-worth of donations into British political parties, with none of us in this House having any idea where that money has come from.

Fourthly, we need to ensure that the powers of the Electoral Commission have been transformed so that it has the power to initiate investigations before it has all the evidence it needs. At the moment, it needs to initiate an investigation before it can get the evidence, which is very difficult to do.

Finally, we need to ensure that there is a proper gateway to allow the Electoral Commission to share information with the National Crime Agency.

Our enemies are undermining us now not just by dropping bombs through the ceiling, but by trying to destroy our foundations. Regulating political finance is one of the ways we can stop that now.

The Bill presents a vital opportunity to pave a new way for politics —a politics that is good, honest and free from foreign interference.

I welcome many of the Government’s proposed changes, but the Bill does not go far enough. Loopholes can still be exploited, with foreign billionaires simply needing someone in the middle willing to co-operate and act as the middle man before a donation reaches the party’s pockets. Using company revenue rather than profit to determine eligibility for political donations is also too weak a safeguard against foreign money. Furthermore, the issue of cryptocurrencies has also not been addressed in this legislation, as many Members have said this evening.

International IDEA reports that 49% of countries worldwide place some kind of cap on donations to political parties. Labour must do what is right and use this Bill to finally cap donations to political parties. Free and fair elections are central to our democracy, so I am pleased that the Minister listened to my concerns when I met her last week, and the strategy and policy statement will now be withdrawn. This will ensure the independence of the Electoral Commission.

There is also the growing issue of disinformation, which this legislation fails to address. With the welcome change in voting age, even more of our electorate must now wade through online content and determine what is real and what is false. It is therefore imperative that we do not go into another election without robust, updated measures to tackle disinformation. As we consider voters, I am pleased to see changes to move the postal vote application deadline to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, and I hope that this helps our overseas electorate.

Finally, this Bill makes progress, but it cannot be the end of the road for electoral reform.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as our electoral system fractures into a multi-party system—we have traditionally had a system involving two parties in this country—there is a massive missed opportunity to use the Bill to introduce a commission that could bring forward a proportional voting system? That would ensure that we never again had a Government who won 62% of seats with only 34% of the vote.

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I believe that at recent Labour conferences, many Labour members brought up the same point.

This House must strive for a system that is bold and ambitious, and that puts everyday people at the heart of British politics. The legislation needs to go further to deliver for our constituents.

Last summer, along with the other North Lanarkshire MPs, I participated in North Lanarkshire council’s school placement scheme. Two young people, Scott and Shanna, joined my office. At the time, they were 17 and 16 respectively. They began by doing a six-week summer placement, but they now regularly contribute to our team. Even in a relatively young constituency office, they bring a fresh perspective. They ask different questions and challenge assumptions, and they do so thoughtfully and responsibly. I find it particularly abhorrent that they contribute so much to the work of my office and yet are not deemed important or skilled enough to vote.

We talked at length about this Bill and why it was so important. When I set about the task of writing this speech, we were thinking about why the voting age should be 16, rather than 17, 15 or 18. As I listened to the speeches of Conservative Members, I was reminded that at 16, someone can leave school if they want. They can work and can get a national insurance number. They pay tax if they earn enough, and they pay national insurance if they earn above the threshold. They pay into a state pension and the pot builds, but they might never see any of it if they do not live to reach the retirement age. They are expected to contribute to society, but are told that they cannot have a say in how that society is governed. This has been an important issue for me from the beginning.

It is clear that these young people are mature enough to vote—certainly no less mature than many who are 18, and we have never queried votes at that age. We all have talked about how important it is to engage with schools. We have also talked about the fact that the change has already happened in both Scotland and Wales, and the world has not fallen in. The other point that I want to raise is how we will make sure that we get young people who are leaving care on to the electoral register. That is important.

I welcome the Bill, but it needs to be improved to effectively strengthen and defend our democracy. First, it is essential that we replace our outdated first-past-the-post electoral system with one that is fair and proportional. Independent analysis found that the 2024 general election was the most disproportional in modern times. The fact that millions of votes did not translate into representation fuels dangerous disillusion.

Secondly, on money, last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill that would have put a cap on political donations and addressed donations made by foreign nationals through companies. It should be the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires, oligarchs or corporate interests, who decide our future in elections and referenda. Legislating for caps and stronger checks would align us with comparable democracies and would close the door on undue influence. We should also ban cryptocurrency donations; I look forward to the findings of the Rycroft review.

If this Bill is about representation, it must also be about the conditions in which voters form their views. Elections cannot be fair if voters cannot find and trust accurate information. Organisations such as Full Fact have proposed targeted measures to tackle the spread of misinformation, including stronger rules on political deepfakes, the establishment of a comprehensive public library of digital political adverts, statutory regulation of non-broadcast political advertising for honesty and accuracy, and a protocol for electoral information incidents, so that voters are alerted to serious interference or disinformation.

I am delighted to see the proposal for votes at 16. I would just add that enfranchisement must be accompanied by political and digital education programmes.

On overseas voters, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard evidence that postal ballots sometimes arrive too late to be returned. The Bill is an opportunity to pilot secure solutions, such as secure downloadable ballots, and embassy or consulate returns via diplomatic bags, and I urge the Government to look into the benefits of overseas constituencies.

People must be able to trust that their vote and voice matter. Let us use this Bill to ensure that it is the people of this country, not foreign malign actors, billionaires or algorithms, who decide our future at the ballot box.

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—

Order.

There is much that is positive in the Bill. I want to touch briefly on one point that we have not discussed much so far, which is strengthening protections for staff who work on elections. They are critical to the safe and transparent delivery of our democracy. As hon. Members have said, what is missing is something that would enable a fundamental change that restored faith and fresh thinking to our politics: a change to the voting system, to make it more proportional. One party, regardless of how good or bad it is, cannot hope to represent the huge range of ideas and opinions in our society effectively. This is not Lib Dem self-interest speaking, because in 2024 we finally achieved an outcome in seats under first past the post that was comparable to our vote share.

I would like proportional representation for many reasons. I would like it for the tactical voters whom I told in 2024 that I would campaign for a system in which they did not have to feel forced to vote for me. I appreciate that the Secretary of State may not be persuaded by my opinion, but perhaps he will be by an open letter about the Bill, written by over 50 leading academics, including Professors Tim Bale, Rob Ford and Vernon Bogdanor, which said:

“The collision of a multi-party electorate with a voting system designed for just two parties is creating new risks for Britain. If the government wishes…to protect and enhance the integrity of British democracy…it would be wise to engage with these risks.”

Many Labour Members agree with that. A majority of the 158 members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections are Labour Members. A record 60% of the public support proportional representation, up from 52% in 2023, which was itself a record at the time.

While votes at 16 is to be welcomed, I note that widespread research, including from the respected More in Common firm, shows that 78% of the voting public are disillusioned with politics. Labour’s 2023 national policy paper acknowledged that widespread alienation and distrust among voters. Alas, the Bill will not address that very worrying situation.

The Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, cited the German and Dutch good practice mirrored in aspects of the Bill. It is good that he did so. I hope that he will study further German and Dutch good practice; their electoral systems tend to deliver higher turnouts than ours, in a much more proportional manner. I appreciate that that is a big ask. If he wishes to prevent those 16 and 17-year-olds who will soon be able to vote from falling into the same democratic despair felt by many of us, I hope that he will start by supporting the call from the APPG for fair elections for a national commission on electoral reform.

I welcome the opportunity to speak, even if it is briefly, in the debate. Young people have often felt left out of discussions and decisions about their future, and have felt that their voices do not matter, so I welcome the steps that the Bill will take to standardise the vote age across all elections. In Scotland, the age for voting in a general election has been out of step with the age for voting in Holyrood and council elections since 2016.

While I welcome the steps towards increasing participation and accessibility, we must do more to expand representation. The last general election marked the first point in our history at which enough female MPs had ever been elected to fill the Chamber. There have been 695 female MPs since 1918; I am the 673rd. However, we have missed an opportunity. As we heard, section 106 of the Equality Act is still to be commenced. I know that the Government are committed to commencing it. When commenced, section 106 will improve transparency, accountability and consistency in how parties collect and publish candidate diversity data. By bringing greater transparency, that section will allow nominations across parties to be analysed consistently and transparently, putting a spotlight on the selection of women candidates and highlighting any disparities. Commencement is supported by Centenary Action, 50:50 Parliament, the Electoral Reform Society and Elect Her to ensure that Chambers across the country better reflect the communities that we all serve. Ahead of the centenary of women’s suffrage in 2028, I ask the Minister to reiterate that commitment today and to consider whether section 106 should be reflected in this Bill in the light of the commendable aim of strengthening our democracy.

Although I fear that this Bill may be remembered as a Bill of missed opportunities, I want to start with the substantial positives that I see in it. For decades, the Liberal Democrats have fought—sometimes alone, sometimes against the odds—for votes at 16. It is a progressive, pragmatic move whose time has come, and I warmly congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. I hope it will also be accompanied by stronger elements of the curriculum in democratic and civic education to support these measures, and I look forward to the Government’s proposals.

Automatic voter registration is also really important. Nearly 8 million people are not correctly registered to vote in this country. No matter how we look at it, that is just wrong and needs to be addressed, so I strongly welcome that measure too. I would also like to talk about protections not just for candidates, but for hard-working council staff. I have previously led a district council, and I have seen up close not only the dedication and hard work of the staff in our council, but the risks they are exposed to in an increasingly polarised environment. It is fantastic that they have been included in this Bill as well.

These provisions are genuinely welcome, but let me be blunt: this Bill does not go far enough. The truth, as every person in this country knows, is that our democracy is experiencing a crisis of public confidence, and we need real transformation. The measures on “know your donor” are steps in the right direction. Closing the loopholes for overseas donors and preventing the influence of people such as Musk and the Russian oligarchs matter. We cannot allow foreign money to buy British democracy, but the Bill does not go far enough in this regard. We need a donations cap—a hard limit on what any individual or company can give to political parties. Right now, billionaires can write cheques that dwarf the modest contributions from ordinary working people.

Cryptocurrency has been mentioned a number of times this evening, but the Bill is silent on it. While other countries wake up to the risks of crypto and its opacity, we are leaving the door wide open for cryptocurrency to become the new dark money. We need an explicit ban on cryptocurrency donations. Donations are only part of the picture, however. We still have first past the post—a voting system so distorted that it allows Governments with 36% of the vote to govern alone for up to five years. We see millions of votes cast that elect no one, yet the Government have proposed no reforms to introduce proportional representation, a system where every vote counts equally and every community gets a representative that reflects them.

Democracy may seem more fragile than it has felt in a generation, but it is by no means dead. It is a rare thing and it must be fought for, renewed and expanded with every generation. As a Liberal Democrat, I will not stop fighting for it until we have a system that gives every elector a real voice and kicks dirty money out of our politics.

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.

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

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.

I call the shadow Minister.

This has been a wide-ranging debate, some of which has focused on the generalities of our electoral system. Some Members may have forgotten that we had a referendum on the alternative voting system not so long ago, and the British people delivered a very clear verdict in favour of the existing system.

Let me be clear: the official Opposition will seek to work constructively with the Government, because although we recognise that the Bill contains significant deficiencies and areas of contention, we all acknowledge that our democracy is under a degree of pressure. A number of Members from across the House gave clear examples of foreign interference, for example. Our security services have presented clear evidence of its impact on political discourse in our country. On a day like today, when the Prime Minister has made a statement about events in Iran, and we acknowledge the history and the evidence of Iran’s interference in our democracy, it is particularly important that we are united in seeking to ensure the integrity of our electoral system.

Let me set out briefly the shortcomings that we will seek to address by working closely with the Government in Committee. We will do so following a period that has, to a degree, undermined voter confidence that the Government have their backs when it comes to ensuring that local authority elections go ahead. For example, I spent part of my evening in Westminster Hall, opposite the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), dealing with a debate about the cancellation of elections.

The first key point relates to the Government’s inconsistent position on the age of majority. Members from across the House offered evidence on why the ages of 16 or 18 were appropriate, but the Government recently voted within their own internal party processes to determine that an officer of a Labour local association must be at least 18—a measure supported and championed by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). We acknowledge in that small way, and in much larger ones mentioned by Members, that there must be a degree of consistency about the process, so that—[Interruption.] Members talk about being a taxpayer. People pay taxes in this country from birth, if they have sufficient income to pay it. It is not something that happens only when they turn 16 and gain their national insurance number. We take all kinds of different decisions as we reach different ages of maturity. This Government—and indeed previous ones—have tended to err on the side of caution, given the risks that we have identified. We must ensure consistency, so that the age of majority means something in our country.

A number of Members from across the House mentioned dark money and its influence on elections. I very much acknowledge those points, particularly in relation to cryptocurrency. Those who know about electoral history will recall the famous KGB gold that funded the Communist Party of Great Britain during the cold war. We know that there needs to be an acknowledgment that the world has changed. As well as potential economic benefits, crypto offers an opportunity for undue, inappropriate and potentially unlawful influence on our democracy. The Bill currently says nothing about that risk, but we must have appropriate and robust defences in place against it.

Let me touch a little more on the issue of foreign interference more generally. A number of Members referred to the situation with Iran. We remain concerned that the Government have still not added China to the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS—despite the fact that the Electoral Commission’s recent report described how China-linked organisations had hacked the UK electoral roll, which could have enabled them to influence our electoral processes on a large scale. We hope that amendments tabled in Committee—either by the Government or by the Opposition—will address that concern.

We remain concerned about failings in the Bill arising from a lack of consultation. When Governments have sought to change electoral law or to introduce new guidance, there has been a high level of engagement among political parties, parliamentary authorities and other stakeholders whose direct experience and international research can feed into processes that make the integrity of our electoral system greater. Clearly, this legislation has landed without that level of due consultation. In particular, the Government appear not to have consulted the Venice Commission, the international body that provides advice on electoral practice, which was certainly an organisation that we consulted on matters such as the use of electoral ID when in government. Given the importance that this Government place on international law, I would have expected that they would at least have engaged with that organisation and sought its advice before bringing some of these measures forward.

On the debate about the impact of auto-enrolment, we know from the experience in Wales, where this was piloted, that following the audits of that—the door-to-door canvassing of real voters—more than 16,000 people had to be taken off that electoral register because they had been incorrectly placed on it. Clearly, to fulfil the expectation of Members across this House, we need to ensure that we have a canvass of the voters that is accurate and that contains the names of people who are entitled to take part under our laws in our democracy, but that does not open the door to interference of any kind that would undermine the confidence that people should have.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the important question of how people who are homeless can have the opportunity to participate in our democracy, which also has the corollary question of how we can ensure that people are exercising their democratic vote once, and that the law contains appropriate measures to manage those risks.

Finally, on the point that the Government have made about the use of bank cards as a means of identification, we remain very concerned that there are many banks and organisations offering a no-ID account—all of us will have seen them on the local transport networks—and the ability to get a bank card without any identification requirement at all, specifically marketed at people who do not have the ability to demonstrate their connections to the UK. While that is useful in terms of the ability to pay bills and pay to access public transport, given that we place such a high value on the integrity of our electoral system, we must have appropriate measures in place to ensure that those who are voting have the right to do so.

Does the shadow Minister not accept that the crime of impersonation is vanishingly small in this country, so what problem is he actually trying to fix? [Interruption.]

I can hear voices challenging that, asking, “So a little bit of crime is okay?” We need to recognise a point similar to those made by Members across the Chamber about crypto. The world is changing. We have very significant and onerous duties for opening a UK bank account and proving our identity, but we live in a world where more organisations are coming to the market and saying, “We can provide you with that document, but without the need to meet any of those standards,” in exactly the same way as people are using crypto to transfer money around without the audit trail that we see with other forms of financial transactions. We need to make sure that our electoral system meets the test and that we can identify those exercising their vote in that way.

In conclusion, we have heard from across the Chamber a variety of different examples of improvements that could be made to the Bill. Some of those we as the Opposition will agree with, and some of them we will not, but I hope that Ministers will heed the calls from Members across the House, and particularly those of their own Back Benchers. I was struck by the observations and criticisms of the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) and the hon. Members for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), all of whom set out ways in which this Bill falls short of the minimum expectations that we would have for an appropriately modern and secure piece of electoral legislation. We will approach the Bill Committee in that constructive spirit, but I have to say that at the moment it certainly feels that a number of the measures are in this Bill specifically for the objective of the Government’s own electoral advantage.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for all their contributions. The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity, and one that we need to protect and uphold. The Bill marks a landmark moment in that process. I welcome the strength of feeling expressed by all Members today about the importance of upholding democratic practice, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to close the debate as the Minister with responsibility for democracy.

I will come to the points made in the debate shortly, but first I want to address the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) in his reasoned amendment. There is one specific point that I want to address. Opposition Members have tried to suggest that there was no proper engagement with political parties, but I do not accept that. Government officials have engaged in discussions with the political parties represented on the Electoral Commission’s parliamentary parties panel on the technical aspects of the reforms, and I am grateful for the time that party administrators have invested in these discussions. My predecessor wrote to shadow spokespeople across the House upon publication of the Government’s strategy for elections. They were invited to meet then, and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and I have tried again on introduction of the Bill. The Conservatives have not taken up our offer to meet on either occasion. However, I look forward to their engagement through the Bill’s progress.

Before I address the points raised during the debate, I want to remind hon. Members what the Bill seeks to do. This is a bold move to improve democracy in the UK through extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds at all UK elections, and through expanding the list of ID acceptable at polling stations to allow as many of those who are eligible to vote to do so easily.

The Bill seeks to improve and protect our electoral systems in this modern era through improving voter registration, moving towards a more automated system that makes it easier and simpler for people who are eligible to register to vote, building a fuller and fairer democracy in the UK.

The Bill will increase participation in democracy for all, engaging young people from an earlier age. It will also protect against those who seek to cause harm and weaken our democratic system. It also delivers on other manifesto commitments to improve and protect our electoral systems by strengthening rules on political donations, and by ensuring that political imprint rules are as comprehensive as possible.

As the regulator, the Electoral Commission plays an incredibly important role in upholding public confidence in free and fair elections, which is why we are expanding its role and powers. That will ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate.

The proposed changes to our political finance framework will safeguard against foreign interference, while ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns. The current system provides numerous opportunities for corrupt donations and manipulation to influence our elections, whether through foreign donations through shell companies or large sum donations with origins left unchecked. That status quo cannot continue. These measures have been developed to block malicious interference and to ensure the safety of democracy.

The Bill also updates electoral conduct and registration rules, making processes smoother for those running elections, with measures being informed by the strategic review of electoral registration and conduct developed in partnership with the electoral sector. Over recent years, we have also seen growth in harassment and in the intimidation of candidates, campaigners and, as Members have said, electoral staff. That is a direct threat to our democracy. Measures in the Bill move to protect all those who participate in upholding and delivering our democracy by treating such harassment and intimidation as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of offenders, while also building on existing legislation to disqualify such offenders from standing at future elections.

Let me turn to the points raised during the debate. I thank Members from across the House who have supported the measure on votes at 16, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) and for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). I reassure Members that citizenship will be taken on board from key stages 1 and 2 in primary education as a result of this legislation. The curriculum assessment review that is coming in will address the issue for teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.[Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 2WC.] (Correction)

I am not quite sure where the fears of the shadow Secretary of State come from on auto-enrolment, but I reassure Members that it is our intention to pilot these measures very carefully indeed to ensure that the robustness and integrity of our elections and our electoral register are maintained. The piloting measures that we take will be used carefully and proportionately.

Harassment and intimidation are a really serious issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), my friend and predecessor, who has endured significant harassment and intimidation. That is completely unwarranted.

It will be disappointing to some Members across the House that the voting system will not be changing as a result of this legislation. However, we take extremely seriously the issue of foreign interference, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). I refer Members to the independent review being conducted by Philip Rycroft, which will report this month. It is the Government’s intention to leave space for us to respond to recommendations that come out of that review as effectively as possible. That is a really serious issue that we need to address.

Similarly, misinformation and disinformation were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns). There are already measures in the Online Safety Act that require the removal of illegal content, but this issue needs to be addressed more forcefully.

Flexible voting pilots were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I draw her attention, and that of all Members, to the written ministerial statement issued today, which sets out the pilots that we look forward to seeing innovate in ways in which electors can address the vote.

I reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is a carry-over Bill. The Committee stage will finish towards the end of April, but further stages will carry over into the next Session of Parliament.

On the measure surrounding bank cards, which was raised by the shadow Minister, I reassure him that only UK-registered bank cards will be used. We want to do this because we accept that the vast majority of electors have them, including those of the ages of 16 and 17. Our financial system and the issuing of bank cards is one of the most robust in the world, and we will measure that.

Democracies across the world are at an inflection point. We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I urge all Members to step forward and embrace this opportunity. We must all choose openness and empowerment and to work hard to bring trust back into the system. By doing so, we close our system to those who would undermine that trust, stifle debate and twist our democracy for their own ends. This Bill is the next step in the evolution of our democracy, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.