Parliamentary briefing: Representation of the People Bill

Tuesday 1 September 2026

This briefing highlights key considerations ahead of Report Stage and Third Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. It outlines the Electoral Commission’s position on its key measures.

The Electoral Commission is the independent body which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK. We promote public confidence in the democratic process and ensure its integrity, and we support participation in elections through our public awareness and democratic education work. A key part of our role is to advise Parliament on legislation relating to elections and the regulation of political finance.  

We will continue to provide independent advice to parliamentarians on the contents of the Bill, based on published evidence and our expertise. This will include more detailed information on individual clauses during the Bill’s passage through Parliament.

Once the Bill has been passed into law, we will work with voters, electoral administrators, political parties and campaigners to ensure everyone involved in elections understands and is prepared for the changes. 

Key considerations

  • As recommended by the Curriculum and Assessment review, the curriculum should be changed to help prepare young people to cast their vote confidently. All children should have the opportunity to participate in democratic education throughout their time in school.
  • Changes to the voting age also need to be implemented in a way which carefully manages the pressures on election teams.
  • Implementing automated or automatic registration and including forms of voter ID more likely to be held by younger voters would help ensure young people are registered and able to vote once enfranchised. 

Key considerations

  • Implementing automated and automatic registration systems will help reduce the large number of eligible voters unregistered, as shown in countries around the world. Recent pilots in Wales successfully identified and added just over 14,500 new voters to registers, including a significant number of attainers – with high accuracy.
  • We welcome the Welsh Government laying regulations to enable automatic voter registration for Senedd and local government elections. However, the development of parallel systems across the UK creates a potential risk of divergence, which may lead to voter confusion and poor value for money.  
  • We urge the UK's governments to continue to work closely together at all stages of legislation and implementation to learn from each other’s experiences and ultimately align their AVR systems for the benefit of administrators and, most importantly, voters. 

Key considerations

  • Introducing bank cards as voter ID will weaken security. This is because bank cards do not have a photo, so it is harder for polling station staff to verify a person’s identity.  
  • We have previously recommended introducing ‘vouching’ or attestation at polling stations. Canada uses ‘vouching’ at its federal elections. It allows registered voters with an accepted form of ID to vouch for someone who does not have accepted ID. As a result, it keeps a link with a named voter who can prove their ID.
  • The changes would also introduce significant differences between the requirements in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain, which could create voter confusion, although ultimately other arrangements in Northern Ireland are well-embedded.

Measures to improve candidate security

Further provisions relating to candidate security are in Part 6 of the bill. The Commission’s wider views are set out in the relevant section of the briefing.

Part 3 of the Bill proposes some key changes to improve the security of candidates and agents. It removes the requirement to publish election agents’ (including candidates acting as their own agents) home addresses, allowing them to protect themselves by choosing not to have their personal information shared in a way that could make them vulnerable to abuse.  

Removing the requirement in Northern Ireland for a poll clerk to shout out the name and number of everyone who they deliver a ballot paper to helps to protect voters from potentially unwelcome or intimidatory behaviour.  

The Bill also makes provision for candidates to complete and return a ‘police contact form’ with their nomination papers, so that the candidate can be contacted by the police in connection with matters relating to the candidate’s safety.  Ahead of the May 2026 elections, the Commission introduced candidate contact forms in nomination packs to support the sharing of candidate details between returning officers and the relevant police contacts.

Changes to the nominations process

Under current rules, a candidate must complete a set of nomination papers and sign a declaration of truth that the details they have provided are accurate. There is no requirement for a candidate to show ID as part of this, but it is an offence to provide a false statement on nomination papers.  

The 2024 general election presented new challenges to the nomination system, with reports of alleged fake candidates and multiple candidates of the same name. The Commission recommended strengthening the process requirements to deter candidates from misleading voters about their true identities.  

The Bill makes a number of changes to the nominations process. It proposes requiring that the nomination paper be accompanied by prescribed documents providing evidence of the candidate’s identity. It introduces a new statutory declaration form that the candidate has not provided false information on their nomination.  

Part 3 also enables parties to withdraw support from a candidate up to 48 hours before the end of the nominations period and amends key deadlines for the nominations process.  

The Commission will support Returning Officers to manage changes in the nominations process, and update guidance for candidates and agents to reflect these changes.

Key considerations

  • Changes to the nominations process need to strike a balance between security, accessibility and workability.  
  • The new requirement for candidates to show ID would provide assurance that the person named on the nomination paper exists as a real person. But it would not necessarily ensure that this is the same person who has submitted the nomination or consented to be nominated. This could only be achieved by requiring nomination papers to be submitted in person, allowing a visual check of the ID, which would significantly reduce the accessibility of the nominations process and increase the impact on Returning Officers and electoral administrators.  
  • These new requirements must also be workable in practice. The proposed measures would place additional requirements on electoral administrators to check the validity of identity documents for every candidate at a critical point in the election timetable.
  • It is important that measures to enable parties to withdraw support maintain fairness to candidates and subscribers. Parties should be responsible for carrying out due diligence on their candidates before the nominations period. Late changes to candidates risk confusing voters, particularly if a candidate has already started campaigning and, depending on the timing of the withdrawal of authorisation, there may be limited time for candidates to obtain the necessary support from subscribers and submit new nomination papers before the deadline. 

Absent voting

More than 1.3 million people applied to vote by post at the 2024 general election. While most postal votes were received on time, some postal voters did not receive their ballot packs in time to complete and return them before polling day.  

The Commission recommended improvements to the postal voting system to improve the service for voters, including considering whether the deadlines allow sufficient time to process postal votes.

The Bill moves the deadline for applying for a postal vote from 11 working days before the poll to 14 working days, makes provision for Returning Officers to issue replacement postal votes from after the application deadline, and allows voters to cancel their postal vote to vote in person or via emergency proxy.

Key considerations

  • Other forms of early or flexible voting could give voters further alternatives to postal or proxy voting. The Commission has carried out feasibility studies on whether potential alternatives, like advance voting or mobile voting in places like care homes, could work for elections in the UK.  
  • The Government piloted two different flexible voting methods at the May 2026 local elections in England: early voting and voting at a centralised hub on normal polling day.
  • Our statutory evaluation found that the pilots were delivered successfully and received positive feedback from voters and electoral administrators. While uptake was limited, there was strong support for future flexible voting, particularly among newer voters. 

Key considerations

  • Clause 60 would apply the company donation limit separately to each recipient, so a company could donate an amount equal to their profit to a party and then donate the same amount to each of the party’s (or multiple parties’) MPs, councillors and candidates.  
  • For the profit-based limit to be at all effective, it must apply to the total value of a company’s political donations in a calendar year, regardless of the number of recipients. This could be achieved through a donor declaration, with minimal administrative burden.  
  • We agree with the Rycroft Review’s recommendation that the average (over two years) rather than total of company donations should be used for a profit test calculation. Using an average of profits would help to smooth the impact of natural changes in a company’s level of profitability, while avoiding the risk that exceptional profit reported in a single year could be used to set a limit for large donations in subsequent years.

'Know your donor’ checks

Political parties, candidates and campaigners are responsible for ensuring donations made to them are from permissible sources.

The introduction of ‘know your donor’ checks would require parties and campaigners to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the donations they receive. Such checks would give parties and campaigners greater confidence when deciding whether to accept donations.  

For example, parties and campaigners would need to take steps to make sure they have sufficient specific information about the organisation or individual donating to enable them to make a more informed choice. Such checks have existed for some time in charity law.

These new requirements should be introduced in a way that recognises the need for proportionality and limits the administrative burden on those accepting donations.

We recommend strengthening the risk assessments by adding a requirement to consider any other factors a reasonable party would consider relevant. The current drafting allows donees to rely on a defence that they did not consider a risk factor to be relevant when deciding whether to accept a donation.

Key considerations

  • ‘Know your donor’ checks should be proportionate and workable, to avoid placing an administrative burden on donees. The thresholds at which a risk assessment is required should be changed so that the regime is sensitive to the varying levels of risk faced by different donees. The Government should consult with the regulated community over which factors should be considered in such a risk assessment. It is important that their practical experience and expertise informs the legislation so it is workable.

Unincorporated associations

Unincorporated associations are associations of individuals who have joined together to carry out a shared purpose. 

The Commission has highlighted weaknesses in the political finance regime as regards unincorporated associations for many years. Currently, they are not required to verify donor eligibility, and there is no bar to individuals outside the UK being members of an unincorporated association. This means they could make lawful donations using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas.  

Changes proposed in the Bill would prevent unincorporated associations which are subject to reporting requirements from making political donations funded by impermissible donors.  

The Bill’s provisions would also improve transparency around the funding of unincorporated associations - meaning they will need to register and start reporting the money they receive once they hit a threshold of £11,180 and report any gifts over £2,230.

Key considerations

  • Extending the Electoral Commission’s remit to include enforcement of the rules for candidates and local third-party campaigners would create a more proportionate, consistent, effective and joined-up regime covering both the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act and the Representation of the People Act, while retaining criminal prosecution for the most serious cases.
  • Further changes are needed to simplify the requirements for candidate spending returns, so that candidates will not need to send copies to two separate individuals or organisations in future.

Decriminalising administrative offences

In 2013, we recommended that criminal offences that relate to essentially administrative requirements should be reframed as civil in nature.  

Decriminalising administrative offences would create a more proportionate enforcement system, where legislation targets those actively seeking to evade regulation rather than criminal enforcement efforts being directed toward low-level offences that could be better addressed through the Commission’s advice or guidance.   

Key considerations

  • This proposal aims to make sanctions more proportionate and reduce the ‘chilling effect’ which may deter volunteers or less experienced individuals from taking on roles such as treasurer or election agent due to fear of criminal prosecution resulting from inadvertent mistakes related to reporting or filing paperwork.

A more effective and proportionate regulatory toolkit

We have a number of powers to enable us to apply a proportionate enforcement approach. Still, there are areas for improvement to support a stronger, simpler and streamlined regulatory system.  

The Bill proposes providing the Commission with more proportionate regulatory tools, including increasing the maximum fine for political finance offences and improving how we share information.

Currently, the maximum civil fine for breaches of political finance law is £20,000. This was last updated in 2009 and does not reflect the scale of donations and spending in modern campaigning, which can involve almost a hundred million pounds for the largest political parties.  

Improving how we share information with other organisations would allow closer collaboration. This would cover how we share information with the police and other regulators to support their functions. It would allow us to work with partners more efficiently.

Key considerations

  • Increasing the maximum civil fine for political finance offences to £500,000, in line with the fine for offences at Scottish referendums, would support a more proportionate and effective sanctions regime that would better deter non-compliance.

Key considerations

  • We strongly welcome these provisions.  
  • Further changes may be needed to improve candidate safety, beyond the measures in the Bill. Social media platforms must do more to remove abusive content and develop improved screening tools to identify perpetrators.  
  • We recommend that the Government consider creating a clearer new overarching duty on platforms operating in the UK to cover a wider range of risks to elections, to ensure they take action to mitigate risks and protect legitimate political debate, particularly during critical election periods. This would help provide clarity and a shared understanding of the actions platforms are required to take during elections, and provide a clearer basis for Ofcom to take enforcement action if those actions are not taken.
  • Democratic education must also play a part in tackling abuse by reforming citizenship education to prepare young people to participate in democracy.

Page history

Cyhoeddwyd gyntaf: 1 Medi 2026

Diweddarwyd ddiwethaf: 1 Medi 2026