Cat Eccles MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank those hon. Members whose excellent amendments I have put my name to. There are dozens of them, so I could not list them all, but they included amendments on electoral reform, capping political donations, crypto, and preventing domestic abusers from standing for election. Today, I speak in support of my new clauses 32 and 33, which would require candidates in parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales to obtain an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check. Public trust in politics is at a historic low. The National Centre for Social Research found that 79% of people surveyed believed that Britain’s system of Government needed significant improvement. That long-running survey, conducted since 1986, shows a marked decline in confidence in our political institutions over recent decades. The reasons for that decline are complex, but repeated cases of misconduct by elected representatives have undoubtedly played a part. In recent years, Parliament has seen a series of high-profile cases involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. In the last Parliament, several Members were suspended, sanctioned or forced to leave office following serious findings or criminal convictions. In 2023, it was reported that more than 50 MPs had been referred to Parliament’s independent complaints and grievance scheme for bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. The overwhelming majority of MPs and councillors serve with integrity and dedication, but the actions of a small minority damage the reputation of all of us in public life. The same principle applies in local government. Councillors often hold positions of public trust and responsibility, including things connected to safeguarding and child protection, yet there have been numerous examples of councillors convicted of serious offences or resigning following allegations of misconduct. We rightly require taxi drivers, teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals and many others to undergo DBS checks before they can work in positions involving public trust and contact with vulnerable people. It is therefore reasonable to ask why those seeking elected office should be exempt from the equivalent requirement. Of course, a DBS check is not a guarantee of good conduct—no safeguarding measure is foolproof—however, it would establish a minimum standard and set an important precedent. It would send a clear message to those seeking elected office that they should meet the same basic expectations that we apply to everyday workers. As elected representatives, we regularly interact with constituents, volunteers, parliamentary and political staff, and members of the public. We visit schools, youth groups, hospitals, care settings, community organisations and in many cases we come into contact with children, young people and vulnerable adults. In any other role involving that level of contact, a DBS check would be regarded as the basic and proportionate requirement. Since becoming an MP, I have been asked when visiting schools whether I have been DBS checked, and people have been surprised to learn that we are not required that have it. My new clauses are not about restricting democracy; they are about strengthening confidence in it. They are about safeguarding the public, improving standards in public life and helping to rebuild trust in our public and democratic institutions. My new clauses would require candidates to hold a DBS check prior to submitting their application to the returning officer, therefore placing no financial burden on Government or councils. I urge the Government to consider the proposals seriously. Will the Minister set out what further steps the Government intend to take to strengthen safeguarding, improve standards in public life and restore public trust and confidence in elected representatives?