The long-awaited Representation of the People Bill was laid before the House of Commons on 12 February 2026. This followed the Government’s earlier policy paper, “Restoring Trust in our Democracy”, published in July 2025, which outlined the Government’s bold aim to “usher in a new chapter in our democracy, reflecting our principles, and restoring faith in our politics”. The paper pledged to extend the right to vote to 16-year-olds for all UK elections, work towards and test new methods of automated voter registration, add digital campaigning safeguards, extend the range of voter ID, implement safeguards against foreign interference, better protect candidates facing harassment and intimidation, and to hold elected officials to higher standards.

The Bill seeks to implement many of these objectives, whilst leaving some aims for later secondary legislation. It is no overstatement to say that the proposals have the potential to radically alter the practice of elections and electoral administration in the United Kingdom. This post will address some of the most notable proposals (and omissions), but further inspection is undoubtedly required given the breadth of the Bill.

This post argues that the proposals are comprehensive and are generally positive in the attempt to enhance voter engagement, transparency and fairness, but the Bill is a missed opportunity to address some of the other pressing concerns of the day impacting electoral events and administration. Moreover, the Bill adds to the already complex and deeply fragmented web of electoral law that exists, starkly demonstrating why consolidation of the law in this area is urgently needed. Electoral law and administration increasingly resembles a game of Buckaroo, whereby additional burdens are continuously added to an already creaking system. This piles pressure on electoral administrators and risks undermining the most basic requirement of a democracy – to hold free and fair elections – at a critical moment.

The Bill’s Contents

Part 1 of the Bill, which reduces the voting age to 16, is understandably the headline-grabber. This will extend the UK-wide parliamentary franchise, the local government franchise in England, as well as the franchise for council and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland, for the first time since 1969 when the age was reduced from 21 to 18. In Scotland 16-year-olds have been able to vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections since 2015, and in Wales the same has applied for Senedd and council elections since 2021. Arguments for and against lowering the voting age have generally focused on what people are otherwise legally able to do (or not to do) at that age, whether that be taking on employment, serving in the military, consenting to sex, consuming alcohol or cigarettes, driving a vehicle and so on. It is estimated that 1.7 million individuals will become eligible to vote and young people will be able to apply to register to vote from the age of 14.

Part 2 is though arguably even more significant, at least in terms of the amount of people who may be impacted, as this gives effect to the aim to make automatic voter registration easier. It is estimated that up to 8 million people across the UK are incorrectly registered or not registered at all. Rather than instituting a full nationwide implementation of automatic registration, powers will be given to the UK’s electoral registration officers to access existing government data in order to register voters automatically. In addition, authorities will be given powers to run electoral registration pilots which the Electoral Commission will subsequently evaluate. Success in this area has already been demonstrated within the UK as there have been recent registration pilots in Wales, with four local authorities automatically registering 16,000 people.

Part 3 of the Bill amends the practice of voting in several ways. First, following the introduction of voter identification requirements in the Elections Act 2022 for voters in Great Britain, the Bill will extend the range of acceptable ID to include UK-issued bank cards. This will certainly reduce the risk of disenfranchisement, but it may undermine the policy as a whole and challenge the security of the ballot given the absence of a photo on these cards, and the possibility that people with the same name and initial live at the same address. This Part will also tighten rules concerning the use of digital ID and remove the requirement to publish candidates’ home addresses, enhancing their safety.

Part 4 addresses the political finance system and will tighten rules on donations to help prevent foreign interference. This can be seen in the context of recent speculation that Elon Musk was set to donate $100 million to Reform UK through one of his companies’ UK subsidiaries. The Bill will ensure that only companies with a strong connection to the UK or Ireland can donate to parties and candidates, by requiring them to be headquartered in the UK and owned or controlled by eligible UK electors. Moreover, donations will be limited to a sum equal to a company’s revenue in the UK, but as the Electoral Commission has observed, there would be nothing to stop a company donating an amount equal to their revenue to a party and then donating identical amounts to individual MPs and candidates. Rules governing unincorporated associations will also be tightened by reducing the thresholds for when they must register and report gifts to the Electoral Commission.

Part 5 of the Bill enhances the role of the Electoral Commission in several ways. The maximum civil fine the Commission can issue for breaches of finance law will be raised to £500,000 to better reflect the scale of donations and spending in modern campaigning. The Bill will also extend the power of the Commission to investigate and enforce certain political finance offences relating to candidates and local third-party campaigners, removing this power from the police, as there are concerns of disproportionate action or a lack of enforcement. These would take the form of civil sanctions, such as fines, rather than criminal sanctions which could include imprisonment.

Finally, Part 6 deals with harassment and intimidation. The Bill will make it possible to disqualify from holding office those convicted of intimidating or abusing electoral staff, which already applies in respect of candidates, campaigners and elected office holders. The Bill will also introduce a statutory aggravating factor to allow tougher sentences for some election-related offences when motivated by hostility.

Opportunities Missed

The Bill is comprehensive and the value of it should not be understated. That said, given the Government’s ambition to “reclaim Britain’s democracy as an aspiration for the rest of the world”, this may have been a wasted opportunity in several respects.

Arguably the most realistic and widely sought after measure that could have been included is to restore the independence of the Electoral Commission, meaning a return to the position prior to the Elections Act 2022. This Act controversially introduced a power to make a “Strategy and Policy Statement”, written by the government but subject to parliamentary approval, to set out the Government’s “strategic and policy priorities” relating to elections, with the “role and responsibilities” determined for the Commission to enable the Government to meet these priorities. As Alan Renwick has argued, “the idea that the government should be able to dictate to the Electoral Commission manifestly violates the principle of electoral impartiality”. Whilst the Government of today may have legitimate intentions, a government in future may not do so.

Second, given that the Bill addresses donations from companies and unincorporated associations, it could also have addressed donations from other sources. The Bill will make it more difficult for bumper donations to be made indirectly through companies, but there is nothing to prevent wealthy British citizens from donating vast amounts, even if resident abroad. In December 2025 headlines were made when Christopher Harborne, based in Thailand, donated £9 million to Reform UK, making this the largest ever donation by a living person to a UK political party. Comparable examples include £8 million donated by Lord David Sainsbury to the Liberal Democrats in 2019, and £10 million left by Lord John Sainsbury to the Conservative Party in his will in 2022. The imposition of a strict cap on donations might be excessive as it would restrict the free political expression of donors and may challenge the financial position of some parties, but a moderate cap may help to restore some public confidence in the political system given the perceived influence of the super-rich, whilst also addressing “cash for access” concerns. As this would be contested and strongly opposed by some, a high cap in the region of £1 million per year could be set initially to gain wider political support. With the exception of some trade unions, companies and individuals who routinely donate over £1 million per year, this would have no impact on most donors and it would still permit large sums to be donated over the course of a parliamentary cycle.

Much more radical reforms could also have been considered. For example, the Electoral Reform Society have repeatedly campaigned for the abolition of the first-past-the-post voting system and its replacement by a form of proportional representation. This would be a momentous change and it would necessitate a fundamental rethink of the link between MPs, their constituencies and voters. Such a demand is not unwarranted, with the traditional arguments for the status quo – that strong governments are elected and that we live in a two-party system – increasingly undermined in an era of multi-party politics. The Labour Party’s “loveless landslide” victory in the 2024 General Election further demonstrates the manner in which disproportionate results can be produced by the first-past-the-post voting system. Whilst the complete transformation of the UK’s various voting systems to proportional representation in this Bill would have been unrealistic given the scale of the change and the need for considerable planning, the Bill could have at least created an independent commission to examine its feasibility. A similar move took place in 1998 following the Labour Party’s 1997 General Election victory, when the Jenkins Commission recommended a mixed system of the alternative vote, combined with top-up seats, but no further action was taken.

Finally, given the increasing complexity of electoral law and the pressure it places on electoral administrators, much grander reform beyond the scope of this legislation is needed. The last serious consolidation of UK electoral law was delivered by the Representation of the People Act 1983, but since then the electoral legal framework has been regularly amended and expanded by subsequent legislation. At this point we need to take a step back and reflect.

Electoral Law “Buckaroo”

At 186 pages long, consisting of 81 sections and 11 Schedules, with much of it amending existing legislation, the new Bill is perfect evidence as to why electoral law as a whole is in urgent need of modernisation and consolidation. Running alongside the frequent calls for the modernisation of the UK’s electoral system, calls for consolidation in the law have come from influential stakeholders such as the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission, parliamentary committees such as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as well as advocacy groups such as the Electoral Reform Society.

Identifying the precise amount and composition of legislation governing elections in the UK is a difficult task and results vary considerably depending on the applicable criteria. For example, in an interim report in 2016, the Electoral Commission identified 17 pieces of primary legislation and 27 pieces of secondary legislation governing elections and referendums in the UK, raising this figure to more than 25 pieces of primary legislation by the time of its final report in 2020. Earlier, in 2015, the Electoral Commission had identified “more than 50 relevant Acts and over 170 Statutory Instruments that have a bearing on the delivery of elections in the UK”. In 2019, the Electoral Reform Society identified “55 separate Acts of Parliament and 227 other pieces of legislation relating to elections”. Whilst it is not clear on what precise search parameters or methodologies were used to identify such varying results, it is obvious that there is a voluminous and increasing amount of legislation governing electoral matters in effect today and that this is increasingly difficult to comprehend. The Representation of the People Bill exacerbates that problem.

Final Thoughts

The Representation of the People Bill will radically change several aspects of electoral law. As such, there is a need more than ever to abide by the Gould Principle, which demands that all necessary legislation should be implemented at least six months before the next relevant and impacted election. The Bill will be properly debated for the first time at the second reading held on 2 March 2026. It is expected to have been passed and its contents in place for the next UK Parliamentary general election, due no later than 15 August 2029.

The UK’s democracy and electoral system needs major reform. As is well-known, turnout at UK general elections has been suffering from sustained decline in recent decades. The 2024 general election recorded a turnout of 59.7% which was the lowest since 2001. In truth, turnout has never returned to the levels seen in the 1992 General Election which recorded a 77.7% turnout. Declining trust in UK governments also indicates disengagement and the need for further reform. Modernising electoral law, as this Bill seeks to, is clearly only one small part of the solution to this much bigger problem.

Thanks to Paul Scott and Leah Trueblood for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Ben Stanford, Senior Lecturer in Law, Liverpool John Moores University.

(Suggested citation: B. Stanford, ‘The Government’s Electoral Reform Proposals: Good Intentions, Unrealised Potential’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (23rd February 2026) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))