By Elect Her

The Representation of the People Bill is an important moment for our democracy. It recognises that participation matters, that access matters, and that electoral systems must evolve to reflect the society they serve.

We welcome that.

Expanding participation, modernising processes, and strengthening elements of electoral administration are all meaningful steps. They signal a commitment to ensuring that more people can see themselves in our democratic system and feel able to take part in it.

But access is only one part of the story.

For many women and minoritised candidates, the biggest barriers to political life do not sit at the point of voter registration or ballot access.

They sit inside the structures of political parties, in opaque selection processes, in inconsistent governance standards, in cultures that reward resilience over reform, and increasingly, in the digital spaces where abuse and intimidation flourish unchecked.

The Bill widens the door to democracy. It does not yet redesign the building.

At Elect Her, our Fix the System work has consistently shown that sustainable representation depends on infrastructure. It depends on whether

political pathways are transparent,
whether standards are enforced,
whether support is structured, and
whether online harm is addressed with seriousness and urgency.

That is why we are proposing a small, proportionate set of amendments to strengthen the Bill. These amendments do not mandate outcomes. They do not impose quotas. They do not interfere with party autonomy. Instead, they focus on transparency, accountability, and sustainable participation.

Together, they form a coherent package that strengthens democratic standards both offline and online.

We are working with incredible partners across civil society to bring these amendments, including Centenary Action, The Electoral Reform Society, The Jo Cox Foundation, 50:50 Parliament, The Online Safety Act Network and The Fawcett Society.

Our proposed amendments address a different layer of the system.

Together, they reinforce one another.

Our proposed amendments would:

Bring section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 into force to enable standardised, anonymised publication of candidate diversity data;
Introduce baseline transparency requirements for candidate selection processes;
Require registered political parties to maintain published codes of conduct and independent complaints mechanisms;
Ensure newly elected representatives are offered structured induction and support following election; and
Amend the Online Safety Act to require Ofcom to produce an Elections Code of Practice addressing online abuse and electoral harm during election periods.

**Each of these proposals addresses a different layer of the system.**

**Together, they reinforce one another.**

Why do these amendments matter?

Data is not a threat to democracy. It is a tool for accountability. Section 106 of the Equality Act already exists in law. Parliament passed it with the intention of enabling transparency about the diversity of political candidates. Yet it has never been fully commenced. Without consistent, anonymised data across parties, it is impossible to understand where barriers arise in the candidate pipeline or whether progress is being made.
Data is not a threat to democracy. It is a tool for accountability. It allows informed debate. It allows parties to reflect on their own practices. It allows the public to see whether representation is broadening or narrowing over time.
This amendment does not dictate who should be selected. It simply ensures that we can see what is happening.
Transparency must also extend to process. Candidate selection procedures vary significantly across parties and across local associations. For those already embedded in political networks, navigating these systems may feel intuitive. For those outside established circles, they can feel opaque and unpredictable.
Publishing clear information about how candidates are selected, who makes decisions, what criteria are applied, and how complaints can be raised strengthens confidence and reduces suspicion. It protects parties as much as it protects candidates. Clear processes reduce the likelihood of disputes, internal conflict, and reputational damage.
Once candidates are selected and elected, the system’s responsibilities do not end. Entering public office is one of the few leadership roles in public life without a guaranteed, structured induction. Yet the expectations placed on newly elected representatives are immense. They are expected to navigate ethical rules, safeguarding obligations, media scrutiny, digital risk, constituency casework, and legislative responsibilities often within days of being sworn in.
Structured induction is not a luxury. It is professionalisation. It improves performance, reduces preventable misconduct, and supports wellbeing. It also acknowledges what evidence has repeatedly shown: that abuse, harassment, and online intimidation disproportionately affect women and minoritised representatives. Supporting all newly elected representatives to understand reporting pathways, safeguarding standards, digital safety, and institutional resources benefits everyone.
The fourth amendment strengthens internal governance. Political parties are already regulated entities. They are required to comply with financial reporting and transparency rules under electoral law. Establishing baseline standards for codes of conduct and independent complaints mechanisms is a natural extension of that regulatory framework.
Confidence in political institutions depends on credible pathways for addressing misconduct. Where complaints systems are opaque or inconsistent, trust erodes. Clear standards protect members, candidates, and elected representatives alike. They reduce long-term legal and reputational risks and demonstrate that parties take standards seriously.
Finally, no conversation about democratic participation in 2026 is complete without addressing the digital environment.
Online abuse is not peripheral to politics. It is central to the experience of many candidates and representatives. Elections are high-risk periods for harassment, threats, disinformation, and emerging harms such as non-consensual deepfakes. Evidence shows that these harms disproportionately affect women and people from minoritised communities. They shape decisions about whether to stand, whether to speak, and whether to remain in public life.
The Online Safety Act already provides a framework for regulating online platforms. Requiring Ofcom to produce an Elections Code of Practice within that framework would clarify expectations on platforms during election periods and define “electoral harm” in a way that reflects lived experience. It would strengthen cooperation between Ofcom, the Electoral Commission, and law enforcement, and signal that democratic participation deserves specific protection.
Democracy does not take place solely in town halls and council chambers. It takes place on social media feeds, in comment threads, and in digital spaces where harassment can spread rapidly and at scale. If we widen access to politics without addressing online harm, we risk inviting people into environments that are hostile and unsafe.

These amendments are not radical.

**They are proportionate.**

Our amendments align with the Bill’s stated objectives of protecting participation and strengthening confidence in the democratic system. They do not redesign the architecture. They strengthen the foundations.

The conversation about representation is often framed as one of numbers: how many women, how many people from minoritised backgrounds, how many first-time candidates. Numbers matter. But numbers are shaped by systems. And systems determine who feels able to step forward, who is supported when they do, and who is able to remain.

If we want a political system that reflects the society it serves, we must examine not only who enters, but what they encounter.

The Representation of the People Bill moves us forward on access. That is worth recognising. But representation is not secured at the threshold. It is secured through transparent processes, accountable institutions, supportive cultures, and safe environments — both offline and online.

Fixing access is essential. Fixing the system is indispensable.

We believe this Bill presents an opportunity to do both.

We look forward to working with parliamentarians across parties, electoral bodies, and civil society partners to ensure that our democratic system does not simply invite participation, but is built to sustain it.

Because widening the door is only the beginning.