Representation of the People Bill
Monday 2nd March 2026
(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 410 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the official Opposition has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
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.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
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?
Steve Reed
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.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
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?
Steve Reed
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.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
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.
Steve Reed
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.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
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?
Steve Reed
Yes, we have absolutely considered that and we will continue to keep under review the important matter that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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?
Steve Reed
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.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
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.
Steve Reed
I certainly share the hon. Lady’s confidence that this is the right thing to do, and I thank her for making that point.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
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.
Steve Reed
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.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
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?
Steve Reed
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.
Daniel Zeichner
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.
Steve Reed
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.
Steve Reed
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.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Jeremy Corbyn
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?
Steve Reed
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.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
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.
Steve Reed
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell).
Jim Shannon
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?
Steve Reed
I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but the existing arrangements covering Ireland will continue.
Joe Powell
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?
Steve Reed
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.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Steve Reed
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.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
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.
Steve Reed
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.
Sorcha Eastwood
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.
Steve Reed
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
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.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
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?
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Lewis Cocking
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Emily Thornberry
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Kevin Bonavia
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?
Sir James Cleverly
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?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
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?
Sir James Cleverly
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?
Sam Rushworth
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Kirsteen Sullivan
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?
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Sir Ashley Fox
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The shadow Secretary of State is not giving way.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Kevin Bonavia
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
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.
Sir James Cleverly
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.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
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.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
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?
Rushanara Ali
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.
Florence Eshalomi
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?
Rushanara Ali
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.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
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?
Rushanara Ali
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.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
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?
Rushanara Ali
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
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.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
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?
Lisa Smart
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.
Sam Rushworth
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?
Lisa Smart
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.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
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?
Lisa Smart
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.
Martin Wrigley
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?
Lisa Smart
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
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.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
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.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
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?
Vicky Foxcroft
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.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
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.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
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.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point; this concern could easily be addressed.
Sir Gavin Williamson
I was hoping for the Secretary of State or his No. 2 on the Front Bench, but I will happily give way.
Emily Thornberry
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?
Sir Gavin Williamson
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.
Sam Rushworth
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.
Sir Gavin Williamson
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will reduce the time limit after the next speech to four minutes. I call Navendu Mishra on a five-minute time limit.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
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.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
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.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
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.
Zöe Franklin
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?
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
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?
Zöe Franklin
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.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
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.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
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.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
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.
Richard Baker
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?
Valerie Vaz
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.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
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.
Luke Akehurst
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?
Danny Kruger
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.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Why don’t you tell your party leader?
Danny Kruger
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—
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Danny Kruger
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—
Jeremy Corbyn
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?
Danny Kruger
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.
Stephen Gethins
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?
Danny Kruger
I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the principle that should be applied.
Danny Kruger
That is exactly what I think, and every British citizen should be able—
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
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?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
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.
Danny Kruger
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.
Danny Kruger
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.
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the work of Democracy Volunteers, which is a long established and well—
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
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.
Martin Wrigley
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?
Emily Darlington
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.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
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.
Florence Eshalomi
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?
Dr Spencer
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.
George Freeman
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?
Dr Spencer
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—
Luke Akehurst
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?
Dr Spencer
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.
Emily Darlington
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?
Dr Spencer
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.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
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.
Mike Martin
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.
Patrick Hurley
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.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
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?
Patrick Hurley
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.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
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.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
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.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
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.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
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.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
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?
Cat Smith
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.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
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—
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)
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.
Peter Swallow
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?
Justin Madders
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.
Emily Darlington
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.
Justin Madders
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.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
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.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
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.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
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.
Florence Eshalomi
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.
Emily Thornberry
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.
Florence Eshalomi
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—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To help more colleagues contribute to the debate, the speaking limit has dropped to three minutes.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
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.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
I strongly welcome this legislation. The proposals for votes at 16, streamlined voter registration and tightened political funding regulations are very welcome, and I applaud the Government for grabbing the bull by the horns. Others will want to address various aspects of the Bill, but for me the most pressing issue relates to political funding.
Hon. Members may be aware that, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I recently led a Westminster Hall debate on foreign political interference in UK politics. In preparing for that debate, I met various experts on political interference. What they told me has stayed with me and impressed upon me the immense scale and severity of the threat that we are facing, and I want to reflect on that aspect of the Bill.
We know that Russian money has already been used to influence and manipulate British politics. We know for a fact that Reform’s former leader in Wales took at least £40,000 in Russian bribes, a crime for which he is now serving a 10-and-a-half-year sentence—I hope he feels that his treachery was worth it. He is not the only Reform politician who has been singing from the Kremlin hymn sheet, but we can only work on the assumption that the others do so as a political choice, rather than as a result of financial inducement.
So we know that Russian money has already infiltrated our politics; what can we do now to prevent future betrayals like that of Mr Gill, and to defend our democracy? The Bill makes great strides in the right direction—restricting political donations from foreign companies is a hugely positive step, for example—but when malign actors want to subvert our democracy covertly, they will continue to do so, or will attempt to do so, and we must therefore be forceful in defending ourselves against all covert illegal donations.
One way for malign actors to dodge our defences is to donate to political parties using cryptocurrencies. The experts I have spoken with tell me that cryptocurrencies pose a new threat to our democracy, an opportunity for hostile states to bypass the laws that protect us and our political system from meddling. Only one of the parties represented in this place today accepts crypto donations. No prizes for guessing which one: yes, it is the same party once represented by Nathan Gill; the same party whose leader thinks that the west provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and regards Putin as the world leader he most admires. However, it is not just political parties that influence and shape our politics; so do think-tanks, and experts also suspect that Russian money is being used to fund think-tank activity in the United Kingdom.
The Government are taking a huge step in the right direction, and I will be proud to walk through the Aye Lobby tonight in support of the Bill. The threat facing us from hostile states is extremely serious, and it is critical that the Government act with strength to ensure that that influence is no longer there.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
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.
Liam Conlon
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?
Jim Allister
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.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
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.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
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.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
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?
Mr Bedford
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.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
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.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
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?
Emily Thornberry
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.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
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.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
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.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
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.
Caroline Voaden
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.
Helen Maguire
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.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
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.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
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.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
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—
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
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.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
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.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
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.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
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.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back-Bench contributor, Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
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.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
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.
Kevin Bonavia
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.]
David Simmonds
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.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
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 of teachers and give them the confidence to address this enhanced curriculum.
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 crossover Bill. The Committee stage will finish towards the end of April, but further stages will cross 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 country, 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.
Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)
Wednesday 18th March 2026
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 March 2026 - (18 Mar 2026)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow the Committee to deliberate in private about questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally—without debate. Time Witness Until no later than 10.05 am Association of Electoral Administrators; Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers (Solace); Local Government Association Until no later than 10.25 am Electoral Commission Until no later than 10.45 am Electoral Reform Society Until no later than 11.25 am Electoral Management Board of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru; Electoral Management Board for Scotland; Scottish Assessors’ Association Until no later than 2.25 pm Electoral Office for Northern Ireland; Electoral Commission Until no later than 2.50 pm The Politics Project; Yorkshire & Humber Policy Engagement and Research Network (Y-PERN) Until no later than 3.15 pm Professor Toby James, University of East Anglia; Professor Paul Bernal, University of East Anglia Until no later than 3.55 pm Democracy Volunteers; Councillor Peter Golds, Tower Hamlets Council; Richard Mawrey KC Until no later than 4.10 pm Henry Jackson Society Until no later than 4.40 pm Conservatives Abroad; Labour International; Liberal Democrats Abroad Until no later than 5.05 pm Full Fact; Demos Until no later than 5.35 pm Transparency International (UK); Dr Sam Power, School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies, University of Bristol; Spotlight on Corruption Until no later than 5.55 pm Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Wednesday 18 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Wednesday 18 March;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 March;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 March;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 April;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 16 April;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 April;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 April;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence on Wednesday 18 March in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6; Schedule 1; Clauses 7 to 19; Schedule 2; Clauses 20 to 48; Schedule 3; Clauses 49 to 52; Schedule 4; Clause 53; Schedule 5; Clauses 54 and 55; Schedule 6; Clause 56; Schedule 7; Clauses 57 and 58; Schedule 8; Clauses 59 to 62; Schedule 9; Clauses 63 to 65; Schedule 10; Clause 66; Schedule 11; Clauses 67 to 74; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 75 to 81; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 23 April.—(Samantha Dixon.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Samantha Dixon.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Samantha Dixon.)
The Chair
Before we start, do any Members wish to declare any interests in connection with the Bill?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I know some of the witnesses through non-parliamentary activity. When they sit down, I will explain to the Committee my connection to them.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has supplied one of the witnesses for this panel.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
In the interests of transparency, I have met various witnesses in other settings in my official capacity as shadow Minister.
The Chair
We now hear oral evidence from the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, and the Local Government Association. As I have said, we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.05 am. As I have indicated, Ms Yule is on her way and will join us as soon as she is here, but we are very pleased that Councillor Bentley and Mr Stanyon have been able to join us at this point. Would you both please introduce yourselves? I will then open the meeting to questions from the Committee.
Councillor Bentley: I am Councillor Kevin Bentley. I am the senior vice-chairman of the Local Government Association.
Peter Stanyon: I am Peter Stanyon, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators.
Paul Holmes
Q
My first question is a very broad one for both of you. Have the Government given you enough time to prepare for the changes proposed in the legislation? Secondly, the Government propose bringing in automatic registration. Can you outline some of the challenges or problems that might result from that? Thirdly—to get my questions out of the way—there are proposals to allow, for example, bank cards and non-photographic identification as voter ID at the polling station. As the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, do you have a concern about that? Do you perceive that the secure ballot process could be harmed as a result of those changes?
Peter Stanyon: I shall take those in order. There is never enough time to introduce significant change, albeit that the very fact we are into the parliamentary process now is really important so we can look towards getting the Act in place. It is clear that, in lots of places, the Bill is setting a framework for what will come, and we are pleased that the officials who we are working with are already working on the secondary legislation to go alongside it. The devil is very much in the detail when it comes to how that will be delivered. Much depends on how we can deliver the policy intent behind the Bill, so that the polling stations and administrators can deliver it in time.
I think that the significant change will be noted. Friction is the wrong word, but there may be some clunkiness in certain areas where we are not quite clear where we are going with the overall detail at this stage. That is being worked up. We would always echo—we are pleased to hear the Government echo it as well—the Gould principle of trying to make any legislative changes six months ahead of any major poll. If we can get that to nine months or 12 months, it will make registration even easier.
We do have some concerns about the timescales around the introduction of voting for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those timescales do not mirror what happened in Scotland and Wales, where, in broadbrush terms, there was a year’s lead-in for 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote at elections. In this Bill, it becomes almost automatic, and that could mean that the preparatory time for getting everybody on that we want to is not there in quite the same way as it was for Scotland and Wales. We hope that that can be looked at, so we get it in a more measured way and do not miss individuals out simply because of the timetable—although we fully appreciate the reasons why.
On automatic voter registration, we have looked at what happened in the pilots in Wales. There is some learning, but it is a very broad area at this stage. What are the data sources that we are looking at? What is the process to be followed? How does that interrelate with the current individual electoral registration system? A lot of communication will be needed to understand these parts of the principles.
Interestingly, one of the things that came out of the pilots in Wales was the lack of understanding of the need to be involved in the electoral process. It becomes a much wider communication process about, “These are the benefits of doing so.” We cannot solve all problems with the introduction of that sort of system; there are a lot of things needed alongside that. I do not know if Councillor Bentley wants to come in before I come on to the voter ID pilot.
Councillor Bentley: I am happy for you to continue, and then I can answer all three questions.
Paul Holmes
Q
Peter Stanyon: We have severe reservations about bank cards being added to the available lists. The simple reason is that when voter ID came in in the first place, it set the bar by being very clear that photographic ID is required in polling stations. We are unsure about what can come through, because our understanding at this stage—again, this will become clear as the secondary legislation rolls through—is that it will not be a full name on a bank card. For example, it can be an initial. How can you guarantee that it is the right person before you? If you have a photograph—regardless of whether that is the right or wrong policy—at the end of the day you have something to hang that on going forward.
The other challenge is the range of bank cards that are available. What is a bank card? We all know the major institutions, but there are lots more out there now. That adds a degree of confusion for the staff in polling stations. There could be a tension there, which we see already. Someone might bring in their passport, for example, and the staff do not deem that to be of a satisfactory level. Then they produce a bank card, and it is accepted. There is a counterintuitive nature to that side of things, so we do have significant concerns with regard to that part of the system.
We may be opening up the ID possibilities for 16 and 17-year-olds, but we would much rather see us take more of a digital ID-type approach—for example, by having a digital VAC, or voter authority certificate. Most of the time, I bank using my phone rather than my bank cards. Will it have the effect that we are looking for? We have significant concerns about adding additional confusion, despite the fact that we understand the reasons why the policy was put forward in the first place.
Paul Holmes
Q
Councillor Bentley: I do agree with that. Of course, bank cards can be cloned and other people can get hold of them. There is no photographic evidence, as we know, and I agree with everything my colleague has just said about that. Another element that we have not considered is: if someone should use a bank card fraudulently to vote, whose fault is that? Let me be clear that there should be no blame whatsoever on polling staff, should that take place. If this goes ahead, that needs to be made very clear.
Anyone can obtain a bank card. You can have “K Bentley”, “Kevin Bentley” or “Kevin Paul Bentley” on those bank cards. For all I know, there may be other Kevin Paul Bentleys—there probably are—and they could use those cards. You have heard why I think that is not a great system. With voter ID, you need photographic evidence to be able to prove someone’s identity, and people can register via their local authorities.
May I tackle some of the other questions as well? I think you have heard a very good answer about there being enough time. There is a cost element to it as well, and, being from the LGA, you would expect me to say that any extra burden put on local government should be funded properly. We require extra staff to be able to do that, and the extra responsibility for 16-year-olds adds extra pressure to staff—that is not a comment on whether 16-year-olds should vote, but staff would need to be brought in to do that above and beyond their normal duties to run elections, so it needs to be thought about.
On automatic registration, all I would say, and this is just an observation, is that in this country we have the right not to vote, and therefore we need to be very careful about people being put on there automatically. I think that needs to be tested with the public more; we need the public’s opinion on whether they want to be registered automatically. That is a comment, rather than me saying whether we are for or against it, but we need to ask the public what they think about it further.
Paul Holmes
Q
“bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment”
could be used as voter ID, as we do with loans and the like. We understand that it is not a brilliant amendment, because we do not believe that that part of the legislation should be included at all, but do you think that having a bank card with a hard credit check would make any difference to the process, or—this is probably for you, Mr Stanyon—would it be better if that was not included in the legislation?
Peter Stanyon: I think the latter in terms of the uncertainty. The difficulty in putting that in place is that the individuals dealing with this at the polling stations are effectively volunteers. We already have a list of 23 versions of voter ID available, and it is quite a complicated process. Ultimately, if a bank card is presented and it is to the standard that the staff have been trained to receive, they will accept it, so the hard credit check thing will be more for the central control of the election than it would be for the staff at the station.
Councillor Bentley: I agree. I think that it is difficult to have that included, but I would re-emphasise that if it is, you must be very clear that it is not local government staff who will be at fault if someone commits an offence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Q
Peter Stanyon: The first thing to say is that, as an association, we are pleased that the vast majority of the Bill echoes what we put in our blueprint following the last general election; there were lots of issues with the actual mechanics of the election. There are the more high-profile things such as votes at 16 or automatic registration, but if you ask an administrator, we are more concerned about the mechanics of delivering the election.
It is accepted that the timetable will not extend beyond 25 days, and there are lots of reasons for that. However, we feel that the moves to alter the deadlines for nominations to be received and to move the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications go a long way to providing that wiggle room within the elections timetable. That will allow administrators to work with their suppliers to get postal votes out and to ensure that there are no issues on that side of the process.
There are lots of things in the Bill regarding the status of the returning officer in the local authority, and we echo the view that it should be a senior officer of the local authority. How that will be policed is another matter, but it gives the local authority the ability to assist the returning officer, because they will have that punching power within the local authority itself.
There are also lots of things about the postal vote replacements that were learned at the last general election. We are very reliant on third parties; once a postal vote leaves the control of the returning officer, Royal Mail will do all it can to deliver that, but there will be breakdowns in the system. The fact that the Bill gives the ability to put the elector back first in those situations is really important, because it is not their fault if they have not been able to receive a postal vote.
There are lots of really good bits in the Bill. The only areas where we have concerns relate to things I have mentioned already: bank cards, some things around the nominations process and the identity checks being proposed, and the lead-in time for the 16 and 17-year-olds. Those are the three big areas that we have concerns about. The rest of it makes absolute sense in terms of the mechanics of delivering the election and should address some of the issues that were quite high profile at the last general election.
Councillor Bentley: Anything that encourages people and makes voting easier has to be welcomed. That is very important.
I will pull out two things in addition to what my colleague said. One thing that we are learning about now —it has started to happen for the first time—is re-registering for a postal vote. That needs to be much better co-ordinated and to have much better communications. We are seeing already people who have not re-registered because they did not realise that they needed to. It depends on the local authority and how and when they communicate, but more of a national campaign would be helpful in all that.
The other piece is around harassment during elections. It is a specific part of the Bill, but I think it is very important. While freedom of speech is very important in our country, freedom to harass certainly is not. That needs to be emphasised to people. What is being proposed is right, but we need to emphasise that more. People should be encouraged to stand for public, elected office, but we hear anecdotally that many are put off by the harassment they receive on social media and so on. Freedom of speech is very important; freedom to harass certainly is not. I would like to really see that emphasised within the Bill. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Q
Emily Yule: Yes. Thank you, and apologies; transport got the better of me this morning. I am Emily Yule and I am representing Solace, which is a membership organisation representing returning officers and senior officers within local authorities.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Emily Yule: There are a number of things that we are really pleased to see within the Bill, particularly the extension of protections around abuse and intimidation to returning officers and their staff. That is an increasing area of concern; we are having more and more reports of that kind of behaviour at quite significant levels.
The Chair
Mr Holmes, did you want to ask Ms Yule anything? I will then come to Ms Smart.
Paul Holmes
Q
Welcome, Ms Yule. The other witnesses would argue that the Government’s intention is to make voting easier and extend the franchise. I put to you the question I asked them earlier: do you consider that local authorities and chief executives have been consulted enough at this stage—notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has to go through its passage—about the proposals in the legislation? Are there burdens that you are not quite sure you can meet yet on behalf of your members?
Emily Yule: On behalf of Solace, I have been involved in lots of conversations around the development of the strategy and the Bill. We have really appreciated that collaboration and that ability to influence the design of the provisions. I always say that the devil is in the detail, so implementation is going to be really important. Chief executives, returning officers and electoral registration officers need to have a clear understanding of the timelines for implementation and the guidance, so that we can ensure consistent application of those new provisions.
In my view, consistency is what builds credibility and trust in the democratic process. At the moment, I do not think that there is huge concern among the sector that any of the items are undeliverable, but we would, of course, always ask for resourcing to be considered and any new burdens funded to put those implementation plans in place.
Lisa Smart
Q
I have two strands of questioning; one is around timing. The Bill proposes some changes around postal votes and bringing forward the dates for postal votes. We have seen too many people miss out on their opportunity to vote because of some of the issues relating to Royal Mail that you talked about, Mr Stanyon. That is particularly acute with those living overseas for a time, whether they are serving in the armed forces or otherwise.
We all welcome the bringing forward of the dates, but can you say a little more about how many of those issues will be addressed by changing the dates for postal votes? Are there other measures—for example, allowing people to print their own ballot papers or to submit their vote at overseas embassies or consulates—that you would see as useful in enabling more people to vote?
Peter Stanyon: In terms of the practicalities of the proposed time changes, the best evidence I can give is from the last general election—the parliamentary election a couple of years ago—when you saw significant spikes in applications towards the end of the period. The date is currently 11 working days before the poll; it is proposed to move that to 14. That has meant that there is a big pinch point—not just for the electoral registration officer, who has to process the applications, but because the Elections Act has brought in additional identity checks that now need to be done for postal voters.
Currently, there is almost a perfect storm 12 and 11 days before the election with registration applications and applications for postal votes. Moving that deadline slightly further back allows the same work to be done—checking identities and physically getting the data to the printers—so that the packs can be produced and got out three days earlier than they can now. That will not go every step of the way to solving the overseas issue, because you are still talking about 12 or 11 days for ballots to go out and back; you are relying not just on Royal Mail but on overseas postal services as well. To answer the first question, this is a positive step, but it must be seen in that light—it is moving in the right direction, but it will not solve every issue that has been identified.
As far as overseas electors are concerned, this has been an age-old issue. I was thinking the other day that I have been in the industry for over 40 years—that is scary—and I have seen significant change in that time. Overseas electors have always been an issue because you are physically getting the ballot paper to them and back. It is an area that can be investigated, but we need to be careful about it. Could you have things such as printing your own ballot papers? Could you have an overseas electors constituency, which would make things slightly different? Could you have online voting, for example? I am not proposing any of those. It is an area that needs to be really thought through: what is beneficial to the elector or the voter, but also what is suitable for the system we are trying to maintain?
At the moment, the system is very paper-based and secure, but we already know it has those issues. This is not a new thing; it is just that there are far more postal voters than there used to be. The issue has been here for the whole of my career.
Councillor Bentley: All I would add to that is timetabling and making sure there is enough time for local authorities to do the printing. I am reminded that the cancellation of a whole slew of elections was proposed and then suddenly they were not, and everyone is on catch-up to make sure it all happens. They will do it, because we have brilliant staff in local government, but it is not always about them—it is about the suppliers for the printing, the paper and all the rest of it.
Provided that time is built in to make that happen, then this is a good thing. Anything that makes it easier for people to vote and participate in elections has to be a good thing. Postal voting is increasing, but we must build in the correct timetable so that authorities can get the printing done.
Lisa Smart
Q
From my experience of being involved in elections, there is sometimes a lack of clarity on who to go to with problems—is it the RO or the police? Is there a uniformity in how the law is enforced? Different police forces have different experiences or resourcing levels when it comes to pursuing somebody breaking election law. Can you talk about how you see the Bill addressing any of those issues or about areas where you think it could have gone further or been clearer?
Emily Yule: Some of that is already being addressed in practical terms. There has been a lot of joint working between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the police and local returning officers to make sure that those contacts within police forces are very visible, and that you know how to get in touch and report issues.
Our members still experience a disparity in the level of engagement in different force areas, but we see a commitment coming forward to try to balance that out. There is a critical part around communication with candidates, agents and others involved in the electoral process, so that they really understand. There is a guidance element about when it is a returning officer issue, when it is a police issue and when it is an Electoral Commission issue. The Bill has an opportunity to consolidate that good practice, but it is emerging and we have started to see it coming through in recent elections. As the specific, dedicated officers within police forces build up knowledge of electoral process, offences and issues, that will only increase.
Councillor Bentley: I pointed out the issue of harassment in my first answer, by which I meant harassment of both candidates and officers. Clarity of the law is very important, as is people understanding what is an offence. It is important for the police to have that clarity as well. You do not have police officers here, at least not in this session, but they have a difficult job in working out what is just a disagreement and what is harassment. That happens in elections.
We must not forget that a lot of this will take place and has taken place on social media. We need to make sure that the law is very clear. I am in favour of the harassment bit being in the Bill—it needs to be highlighted. However, we need greater clarity about what is an offence and what is not.
David Simmonds
Q
Secondly, new clause 37 is about the provision and use of election materials in non-UK languages. We heard a great deal about that in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, when cross-party concern was expressed. What should the Bill say? Should that new clause be part of it? Do you have an alternative body of evidence suggesting that a different approach is required?
Councillor Bentley: I would put in a plea for village halls, because they are vastly used and other organisations cannot use them for that entire day. If you are going to make changes to the electoral system, there needs to be clarity around that in advance. We do not want knee-jerk reactions so that suddenly all plans are off, then on, then off, then on again. We cannot have that. We need to be clear if elections are going to change.
We are going through a great period of local government reorganisation, which may happen on other occasions. We need early indications so that we can prepare properly—not only the people organising the elections and the candidates, but people who may think that they can use their village hall or school and suddenly cannot. We need to have clarity in advance. It cannot be left to the last minute.
On languages, from an LGA point of view all I would say is that it is important that everyone entitled to vote has the ability to understand what is actually happening. I think that is a fair way of putting it.
Peter Stanyon: I echo the comments on timing. The word I often use around elections is “certainty”. For scheduled polls, you usually plan six months in advance. In reality, I think a lot of the authorities carried on during the on-off period when the local government polls were rescheduled recently. Parliamentary elections have six or eight weeks’ notice; you are doing six months’ work in eight weeks. It puts on pressure. Going back to the earlier point on the timing of postal votes, for example, anything that gives two or three days in a timetable is a huge benefit—not just for administrators, but for the suppliers who deliver those things.
Going back to the earlier point on harassment, intimidation, translation into different languages and things like that, there needs to be a wider understanding of what elections are all about. We are living in a modern age, but elections are very much based on paper and pencil. They are trusted, in the main, but at the end of the day it is about making clear what the electoral process actually is. Some of the feedback we received about recent by-elections was simply about a misunderstanding of what the process is. There is an obligation on returning officers, the Electoral Commission and local authorities to do what they can to explain it, but there is also an obligation on candidates and parties to understand the changes coming in.
We almost need a reset, to say, “What is the best way of engaging with voters to give them what they need?” I am sure Emily will echo this point, but the one thing that an RO will not want to get dragged into is any debate about whether something is crossing a line that they do not have control over. There are very, very strict boundaries at the moment. I will not say it is a safe place for returning officers to be, but it means we have the certainty to say, “That is a police matter,” or “That is a commission matter,” or “That may be a planning control matter,” for example. It is about taking a step back and learning about how we deliver elections, and that goes right from young people all the way through the system. It is also about having a reset, to say, “Where are we now?” because there is lots of misinformation flying around from various sources.
Emily Yule: I echo Mr Stanyon’s points about the different sources of information. The Electoral Commission and the returning officer must be the trusted source of information for the democratic process for electors. We would, of course, welcome any provisions that improve accessibility and engagement, but it has to be within those boundaries of trusted and credible information.
In terms of changes in electoral law, we always seek a six-month implementation window. Any change to this system will bring an element of risk, but our very skilled administrators and leaders across elections know how to deal with change and address it, and they will deliver safe elections. But having a six-month lead-in provides that security. I will repeat a comment that Solace often makes on behalf of its members: we would ask for indemnity for returning officers when any changes are brought in very close to an election, which may result in issues that are not any fault of the returning officer.
The Chair
Ms Chowns, we only have three minutes left, so I may not be able to come to others. Please be brief.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Peter Stanyon: Within the bounds of making sure the system is trusted, which goes back to the points that Emily made. Yes, it should be as easy as possible, but that cannot be at the cost of the integrity of the system.
Dr Chowns
Q
Councillor Bentley: Yes, it does, but don’t forget that we have the right not to vote in this country. I make the same point again: we should test that with the public. It is their information we are talking about, and we should test that with them. It does make it easier, yes, but I think it is a question for the public to be consulted on.
Dr Chowns
Q
Councillor Bentley: It is not, but you are automatically taking their data, and I think you need to ask permission for that.
Dr Chowns
Q
Councillor Bentley: Perhaps I should answer that first. It should be no problem to prove who you are—if you want to vote and take part in the democratic process, why shouldn’t you? I happen to vote by post, but if I did not, I constantly carry a driving licence, or I could find my passport. If you do not have either of those, what should you have? You can apply for a voter authority certificate from your local authority. I do not see harm in doing that, and I think it keeps everyone safe when they go to the ballot station and makes sure that the person voting is the person entitled to vote.
Dr Chowns
Q
Peter Stanyon: Yes, but I think the system in place has been developed to allow voter authority certificates and the like to be there to provide a safety net for those individuals. This is a difficult one for me to answer, because it comes into a policy area and involves personal views. The crucial bit from an administrative perspective is that whatever system is there for voter ID provision has to be smooth for the voter, and that could definitely be improved with the introduction of digital ID, for example.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions of these witnesses. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for their efforts in getting here this morning.
Examination of Witness
Vijay Rangarajan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Electoral Commission. Again, we must stick to the timings in the sittings motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. If anyone wants to ask our witness a question, it would be helpful if they indicated that early, because then I am more likely to be able to come to you and keep things moving. Could the witness identify himself for the Committee?
Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Chair. I am Vijay Rangarajan, chief executive of the Electoral Commission.
Paul Holmes
Q
What is your view, as far as you are able to give it, on the fact that the Government have gone forward with landmark and quite detailed legislation, but at the same time have asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review of campaign finance and foreign interference, which bears no resemblance to what the Government are proposing during this legislative process? Have you made representations to the Government that this legislation should be paused until we have the conclusions of Dr Rycroft’s review?
Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you for the question. No, we do not think the legislation should be paused, partly because of the timing issues that you covered with the previous witnesses. Unless this legislation goes through fairly swiftly, there is little chance of the crucial changes it makes being in place in time for the next general election or beyond.
There are a number of really quite urgent changes, particularly in the political finance area. We have been making recommendations since, I think, 2013 to tighten up on unincorporated associations, for example, and to look at the company donation provisions and at “know your donor” checks. We really welcome the fact that they are in the Bill, and we would like to go further in some areas. However, for those provisions to be in place—this is probably the tightest of the timing issues for the Bill—there will need to be the primary legislation, then secondary legislation, then guidance and then, crucially, quite a period of training and guidance for parties themselves so that they are able to get their systems in place and implement this in the financial year of a general election. That is a lot of steps to go through, so we would like to see this done fairly soon to alleviate, quite rightly, what the AEA and others just said on timing.
We also really welcome the Rycroft review. It looks as if it is going further than just finance. It may make changes; I think the Government have said that they will take that on board in the Bill. It is very helpful to have a look at the broader issues of foreign interference—for example, through online media and many other areas than just money. We see a whole range of threats, which the Committee may want to get into further.
Paul Holmes
Q
Could you give us your thoughts, if you have any, on the idea of a digital repository and whether there would be a role for the Electoral Commission, as the regulator, in ensuring that that information is passed on and the provisions are enforced?
Vijay Rangarajan: I think that the digital imprints parts of the Bill are very helpful indeed. We would also like to add the party—saying on the digital imprint which party had actually financed that area.
The transparency of the digital imprints regime has really helped. We run an imprints portal, and we had a lot of references to it, all of which were sorted out at the time. That was mostly small parties or candidates who just had not followed the guidance and not done what was required. I know that that comes as a real annoyance for other candidates and larger parties as well, but fast action through the imprints portal was actually more effective than a longer-running investigation or using criminal sanctions.
We also think that having some kind of a repository, for both imprints and a lot of wider digital material—for example, political advertising—is a real help for voters to see what is being said across the political spectrum. We are seeing a segmentation of elements of the political debate into closed online groups, and that can be quite corrosive of trust.
Paul Holmes
You will have noticed some scepticism from the previous panel—I do not think it is ungenerous to say that—about the proposals for using bank cards as a form of identification. In your role, do you have concerns about the Government’s proposals to water down photo voter ID?
Vijay Rangarajan: We are also concerned about the bank cards proposal; that is largely for the administrative reasons the previous witnesses set out, so I will not repeat those. We do see growing public support for voter ID—73% of the British public are now in favour of it, up from 65% in 2024—and the way we have implemented it has broadly worked. About 0.1% of people in Great Britain were unable to vote, because of voter ID, and it definitely put off some voters, so there is a slight cost to this. However, in Northern Ireland, after 25 years of voter ID, it has become part of the fabric of how people vote.
Rather than continually changing the system, it would be helpful to allow a broad range of voter IDs—which should probably stay with the existing security standard to maintain public trust—and give some stability to the system. In time, people will get used to it; we are already well above 90% of people knowing that they have to bring voter ID. Again, before this May’s elections, and before every election, we will run, in areas where voter ID is needed, a campaign to remind people to bring voter ID.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Minister. Broadly, we very much welcome the Bill. If I might go into a little detail about which areas, it picks up some of the crucial changes after the 2024 general election. For example, the change from 11 days to 14 days on postal voting will make a real difference, particularly in Scotland. We saw real issues about that in our post-poll report; I will not run through all of those, but the changes in the strategic review part are very important.
As I said, we very much welcome the changes on campaign finance. We would like to see that go further in the company donations area; our proposal is to use profit, not turnover, as the metric for what a company should be able to donate, and it should be able to donate that profit only once every year.
We strongly welcome the provisions on automatic voter registration, because up to 8 million eligible British voters are not on the register. That is even more important with the other part of the Bill—votes at 16—coming in. Being able to add attainers at 14 and 15, and then letting 16 and 17-year-olds be on the register, will remove a very clear barrier. Last week, we had “Welcome to Your Vote Week”, and that issue was raised quite broadly by youth organisations as yet another barrier for 16-year-olds. We also strongly welcome the elements on candidate safety, and they should all help.
Overall, it is a very strong welcome: the Bill is necessary, and it picks up some long-standing recommendations, as I have said. We also warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to repeal the SPS—the strategy and policy statement—for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. The Bill will never completely fix everything. I think this will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, so there is a never-ending process of trying to keep this going. A lot of work needs to be done outside the Bill—for example, with the police or on social media—but it will distinctly help with many of the processes involved.
Lisa Smart
Q
The Electoral Commission’s press release in response to the publication of the Bill said—I cannot remember the exact phrasing—that the Bill was welcome but that it did not go quite far enough, and that the commission would like to see more measures to tackle issues with where we are in our democracy. Trust in politics is at a very low level, and trust in our democracy is an important element in our democracy remaining legitimate and in our having the trust and faith of the electorate. What more would you like to see the Bill do to rebuild trust in politics?
Vijay Rangarajan: There are a couple of areas where we would like to see further work. I have already mentioned company donations—that is crucial. To be clear, our polling shows that while trust in politics in general is quite low, trust in the electoral system is very high, as two of your previous witnesses said. That is important.
We would like the “know your donor” provisions to be strengthened. At the moment, to pass them, a political party accepting a donation would need to produce a risk assessment, but it would be good if that had to be public, sent to us or used in such a way that others could judge whether there was a reasonable risk of a party accepting impermissible donations. We know that that is one of the areas the public have least faith in: somewhere between 14% and 17% of the public think the political finance system works for them.
The second area is automatic registration, where it is less about the change in the Bill and more about implementing it before the next general election. Most countries have systems like this, and they work well. We know the data sources quite well. We recently evaluated four pilots in Welsh local authorities, and showed that they were very successful at boosting not only the completeness of the register but, crucially, the accuracy. There is not a tension between completeness and accuracy when you are using good data sources. We can now do that.
Another area to flag is overseas voters, which I think your previous witnesses mentioned. In many cases around the world, we think they have a hard deal in actually being able to vote. We would like to see further work to help them.
Finally, if the Committee does not mind, I will just ride my hobby horse. This will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, and some consolidation and simplification of electoral law is necessary, not least for electoral administrators, parties and candidates. We would very much like to see a broad-ranging, cross-party and Government commitment to do some consolidation over the next few years.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: We think that it is a very useful change but that it does not go far enough. We see a range of threats—I must admit that this is drawn from our experience of looking at other elections in other countries and working with partner electoral commissions —and that includes online. In the financial space, there is a distinct attempt by people to channel money into other people’s politics. It would be perfectly possible, even with the provisions you mentioned, for people in other countries, or impermissible donors in general, to channel money through a company, even if it had that linkage. That is why some kind of a cap on how much a company can donate, based on profit, coupled with the other tests the Government have in the Bill—for example, on persons of significant control—would be really helpful.
That will not completely eliminate the risk, and we look forward to what Philip Rycroft says about any other measures that may be needed, but we think it will help not only to reassure parties that they are at lower risk of accepting impermissible donations, which is a criminal act, but to reassure voters that the system is being kept under close review.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: You are absolutely right. One of the risks we have with automatic voter registration across the UK is a significant divergence of systems. The Welsh Government have already carried out successful pilots and done a lot of work on this. As I understand it, they intend to proceed with automatic voter registration in Wales relatively soon—over the next year or so. The Scottish Government are also beginning to think about it.
Obviously, the provisions are here in the Bill, but there is quite a long timescale for them. It is possible that we will end up with several different systems of automatic voter registration, and that they will act at different times. That would have real problems, and it does not feel to us like a good use of money. It would also be very complex indeed for an electoral registration officer to try to handle different registration systems in one area for different elections. Take, for example, a Welsh officer dealing with automatic voter registration for Welsh elections but not for UK-wide ones. We would welcome some rapid work to establish a UK-wide system of automatic voter registration soon.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Vijay Rangarajan: Yes; there should be some uniformity of registration across the UK and for other elections, or else a voter will be automatically registered for one election and have to manually register for another, which is a recipe for confusion and some nugatory work on their part. We would therefore like to see this in place soon. That does not mean that every voter will be on the register; they have the perfect right to refuse to be on it, and there are systems in place for that.
In some countries, officers will write to a voter, mostly to check the address is correct and to ensure accuracy. If a voter says, “I don’t want to be registered,” or, “I have good reasons”—say, domestic violence reasons—“for not wanting to be on the open register,” they can make that clear. So there are a number of checks built into this; it is not quite as simple as everyone automatically being on the register. This would remove a major barrier to eligible voters being able to exercise their democratic rights.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Q
I have a slight concern that that might leave the door ajar to the likes of Elon Musk making a donation to a British political party legitimately via a UK subsidiary company, for example. In the light of that, the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that the limit on donations from companies should be tied to their profit rather than their revenue. Which of the two would be a more effective way to stop the international financing of our political parties and democratic process?
Vijay Rangarajan: As I said, I think that profit drawn from the last couple of years of public accounts would be a better metric. It would very much help, because it would show that the company had generated enough taxable profit in the UK to be able to make a political donation. It would also give parties themselves more certainty that the money they are accepting is clearly permissible and above board. Again, it is quite easy to explain to people why that is the case.
As I said, some of the administration of this will need significant time to train party treasurers and all the associations in how to implement it, but we think that using profit as a metric would help.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid we have reached the end of this panel. To be clear, I did not set the timings. We thank the witness for his evidence. We have to move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
Dr Jess Garland gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Garland: Good morning. I am Jess Garland, director of policy and research at the Electoral Reform Society.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland, you identified in your evidence that you are in favour of relaxing voter ID from requiring photographic identification, and you cited a Cabinet Office report, “Securing the ballot”, which suggested including bank cards, signatures and date of birth checks. Could you elaborate on what, in your opinion, date of birth checks would look like for a person volunteering at a polling station? Could you explain to the Committee why you do not think that going from photographic ID to bank cards would relax security around someone being able to vote?
Dr Garland: Taking that first question, I think it is important that we go back to the origins of the policy. The report said clearly that we need to have something that is proportionate, which is where I think we need to start. What is the problem that we are trying to solve? I worry that we have moved very quickly to a very, very tight scheme that does not give voters other options. For instance, none of the currently accepted IDs are the sort of thing that people ordinarily carry, except for the over-60s bus pass. Most people are not carrying their passport around, so we have this problem of disenfranchising not just those who do not have access to those IDs, but also people who might have forgotten them on the day. That is why I think the suggestion of including bank cards has a lot of value, and digital ID is the same—the sort of thing you might have on your phone, as we heard earlier.
Under the scheme, we do not have any option for people in the polling station, which sets the current policy even further away from some of the strictest voter ID schemes around the world. We have a very strict scheme with very few options for voters, yet we see in the evidence that it has not really made any difference to claims of personation, which remain the same as before the scheme was introduced, and it is inconclusive as to whether it has enabled people to identify personation happening. I worry that we have walked into a position where the cure is something of a curse. We have seen many more people disenfranchised by the limitations of the scheme than have ever had their vote stolen through personation. You used the word “relaxing”, and I think it is rebalancing—it is bringing it back into proportion with the risk of personation that might exist.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: I think we would need to know what exactly is happening. We have to be very clear on what we think the problem is in the first place, and of course we know where personation has been a problem. In Northern Ireland, for instance, many, many people were turning up to find that someone else had cast their vote. We do not have that evidence base across the whole UK.
There is no evidence in the first place of widespread personation, so we need to think about the impact of the scheme, and that impact has been at least 42,000 people losing their vote. I urge people to think about what it must feel like for a voter who has turned up to cast their vote in our democracy and been turned away, despite being eligible to vote. I think that is incredibly damaging for our democracy, and I urge the Committee to think about the wider picture on voter ID.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: Three sets of elections have used voter ID. If we add up the voters who were turned away and failed to return with ID across the three sets of elections where we had voter ID—that includes two local and one general election—that is where the 42,000 comes from. It is Electoral Commission data on people who have got to the polling station and been registered, but then registered as not returning. Another percentage of voters just did not turn out in the first place, because of voter ID.
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: No. It was 16,000 at the general election—although I would say that even one voter is one too many.
Paul Holmes
I agree, but that is 0.1% of the total electorate. Briefly, Chair, may I ask about bank cards?
Paul Holmes
Q
Dr Garland: I go back to my point about needing something that people carry on them, which has their name on it and provides the base level of knowing who that person is, as the policy initially set out. We could achieve that in a number of ways. In the voter ID pilots poll cards were used, and those pilots with poll cards as an option saw the fewest number of people turned away, so we know that those more accessible forms of ID are going to be better for the scheme altogether.
For most people, however, bank cards have really good coverage. We also have to think about what newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to access. That is part of the whole question of what we should be looking at—what will cause the least damage when it comes to people turning up to vote?
Samantha Dixon
Q
Dr Garland: Many of the changes feel to me that they have been a long time coming: we heard from the Electoral Commission, which made a lot of these recommendations, about tightening political finance many years ago. There have been the large gaps in the completeness of our electoral register since at least 2011, and the Electoral Commission’s feasibility study was back in 2019. A lot of the changes are therefore catching up, rather than keeping pace.
One area where it is challenging to keep pace is in the digital sphere and online campaigning, but also in political finance. The Bill currently does not address cryptocurrency, which is a fast-changing area, so there are certainly areas where it is difficult to keep pace. “Keeping pace” is an important way to think about it, because of course in a democracy, unless we are moving forwards, we are necessarily sliding backwards. That is a challenge. We have to keep changing in order to protect what we have.
The one area that has changed the most in the past two years has been the electoral landscape. We are seeing things that we have never seen before—massive party system fragmentation and huge amounts of voter volatility—and that is having an effect on the operation of our electoral system. I appreciate that that is not covered in the Bill, but that does feel like one area where the Bill might find itself a bit out of step with what is happening in the wider electoral landscape.
Lisa Smart
Q
In page 7 of your written evidence, Dr Garland, you talk about new clause 1, tabled in my name, on the voting system. That is something that affects a number of people, in the context of the changing landscape that you just laid out. We had the most disproportionate election ever in 2024, with a party that got a third of the votes getting two thirds of the seats and pretty much 100% of the power. Will you say a little more and expand on the comments you made about why a voting system change would better reflect the situation in which we find ourselves in 2026 and beyond?
Dr Garland: It comes down to the fact that first past the post, as a voting system, is designed for a two-party system. We have moved hugely towards a multi-party system, particularly in the last two years. In that circumstance, when you have many parties in contention, you end up with representatives elected on less than 30% of the vote. Whether you see that as acceptable or not, that is not what a majoritarian system is supposed to do, and it makes it incredibly confusing for voters.
If we think to the next general election, people will find it very difficult to know how to make their vote effect the outcome that they want. When you are in a multi-party system, but you are using a two-party voting system, you end up with very chaotic and unpredictable results. That is very bad for voters. We might also see Parliaments that really do not reflect how voters have voted, and that could do a huge amount of damage to trust in democracy, which is already on a life support machine.
Lisa Smart
Q
Dr Garland: And give more stability and predictability to our electoral outcomes.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Q
Dr Garland: As we heard earlier, timing is absolutely key. We need to get a move on and implement these things. In terms of the pilots, it would be really good to have a broad range of areas and datasets to look at. Ultimately, the goal has to be, “Can we find those missing millions?” We know that the 8 million missing off the register are not evenly distributed, and that certain groups are much less likely to be registered. Those are young people and people who move home more frequently—renters, for instance. I would like to see that looked at carefully, so with whatever data we get from pilots, we should ask, “Are we getting those people on the register?” Ultimately, that has to be the goal.
There are other benefits, such as making things easier for electoral registration officers. Cost savings are likely to come out of it as well, but the core has to be, “What is going to have the most coverage?” That could be a combination of automatic voter registration and assisted forms of registration, which is your motor voter-type thing, where you are prompted to vote with other services. I know that the Government are looking at that, and I welcome that very strongly. Whatever we can do to find those 8 million missing people and get them on the register in time for the next general election will do wonders.
Dr Chowns
Q
Perhaps you could comment on proposals for an advert repository and for a ban on deepfakes. Do you think that a ban on deepfakes needs to operate not just during the regulated period, but also outside it?
Dr Garland: I will address those questions in that order. On crypto, yes, we would support a ban, or at least a moratorium, because there are many risks with crypto. They mirror the same risks in political finance across the board, but crypto is moving quicker than our regulations are keeping up, so we would very much support that being looked at.
On a donations cap, we are very out of step with most other European democracies, and comparable democracies, in having no ceiling at all on donations. That is a huge risk area and speaks to the risk around foreign donations as well. There is also a huge risk in how the public view our political finance regime. We heard earlier that confidence is pretty low. People see that millionaires have more influence in their democracy than they do, because we have moved so swiftly to an era where there are many multi-million pound donations. Having no ceiling at all is a risk, so I would very much support a donations cap. That can be supported by spending limits all year round, because quite often, the campaign does not limit itself to the regulated period. I would support that.
I would say that deepfakes are probably something for the other people you will be hearing from this afternoon; we have not looked at that area in detail. We have looked a lot at the imprints regime, and although I am very supportive of extending the imprints regime, it does not tell voters everything. An ad library would mean that we can increase transparency for voters, and enable them to see things such as who is paying for the ads and who they are targeted at. Often, that can highlight misinformation as well, so I would strongly support the amendment about an ad library.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q
Dr Garland: I think so. I would encourage continued monitoring of it. I think that bank cards and digital IDs are very promising for making it more accessible for voters. I think that there should be something on the day as well, such as vouching or a station, to give one further option. What is in the Bill is very promising, but we need to find out if it has the effect we want it to have by continuing to monitor who is being turned away. The next general election will be the last time that that is required under current law, so that is something to be looked at. We will only know if it is working if we get the data.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Q
Dr Garland: It is really important, and the more we can do to encourage people, the better. We also have to think about the pipeline, in terms of encouraging people into representative politics. Of course, many of the things that the Bill deals with around harassment once people are here are really important as well.
We are still waiting on the enactment of section 106 on candidate diversity data, which would allow us to understand more about who is coming forward and how they are being supported to do that. I would really encourage that. It is not in the Bill, but I encourage people to have a look at that—it is a really important bit. We have to know the situation through the data before we can improve things.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Dr Garland: It is really important to be able to read across different data sets and see the picture overall. That also means that we need the data to be in a standardised format, coming from each political party. There are ways of doing it that enable parties to retain control of their own data, which is also important, so we need to get that balance right. Of course, anonymity and appropriate levels of disclosure are all really important in that respect.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Q
Dr Garland: Automatic voter registration is hugely important. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds and younger people are less likely to be registered, so that is absolutely crucial. As we heard earlier, that lead-in time —the timetable—can make sure that there is enough time to inform young people, educate them, give them the tools they need, and ensure that they understand the process of how to go about voting as well. The more we build things around the Bill to make that a success, the better.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Garland: That is quite a big question to squeeze into our remaining time. I go back to my point about there being no ceiling on donations from any entity, which is a major risk with corporation and individual donations. The size of donations is growing exponentially, and that has a damaging impact on voter confidence and trust.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank you, Dr Garland, on behalf of the Committee for your evidence.
Examination of witnesses
Karen Jones, Malcolm Burr and Robert Nicol gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Karen Jones: Bore da. Good morning, everyone. My name is Karen Jones. I am the chair of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru and the chair of the Electoral Management Board. We are a statutory body that was set up by the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024. We have a general function of co-ordinating the administration of elections and referendums in Wales. We do not have a statutory role in relation to reserved elections, but are very pleased to be able to contribute to the development of the Bill.
Malcolm Burr: Good morning. I am Malcolm Burr, the convenor of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland and the returning officer for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, or the Western Isles. Like my colleague from Wales, I represent the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which likewise has a general function of co-ordinating the administration of local government and Scottish Parliament elections. We have no statutory role for UK Parliament elections. We offer recommendations, rather than directions, and support the returning officers in that way. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today.
Robert Nicol: I am Robert Nicol, the electoral registration officer for the Renfrewshire, Inverclyde and East Renfrewshire council areas and the chair of the Scottish Assessors Association electoral registration committee, which represents all the electoral registration officers in Scotland.
The Chair
Before I call Mr Holmes, it would be helpful if everyone asking questions indicated whether the question is for all the witnesses or an individual witness.
Paul Holmes
Q
My second question is a general question on votes at 16. The Government made a manifesto commitment to reduce the voting age to 16. Can our Scottish colleagues give an overview of the experience of advertising that and making sure to get maximum efficiency and registration before the first crucial elections at 16? What advice would you give the UK Government to make sure we get maximum registration and participation from a section of voters that has not had the vote for many years in England? Malcolm and Robert, maybe you can divide that question between you.
Karen Jones: Thank you very much for the question. As you say, we have had four pilots of automatic voter registration in Wales. Very recently—in December—the Electoral Commission produced a report setting out the evaluation of those four pilots. The main conclusion was that automatic registration should be rolled out in Wales; it added somewhere in the region of 14,500 names to the register, so it had a significant impact on its completeness. However, the report made some recommendations to the Welsh Government to consider before wider roll-out. A lot of those relate to making sure administrators have the time and resources to put the systems in place to support the new arrangements—for example, ensuring adequate data-matching expertise in councils to meet the task. There were also lessons around the optimal timings to undertake the various duties.
In terms of the proposals in this Bill, our major concern is the implementation timetable. If we had two different timetables for rolling in the AVR arrangements, that would place a great deal of burden on electoral teams. We would need to give that careful consideration, as well as ensuring that we do not introduce voter confusion, particularly if there were any differences in the franchises.
There are a number of things around the introduction of the UK Government’s proposals on AVR, set alongside what the Welsh Government intend to do, that we need to consider from an implementation point of view. I am sure this will be a theme throughout this evidence session, but we would welcome more alignment in policy terms between the UK Government and the devolved elections, because that makes it easier for voters and simpler for administrators, and probably also reduces the cost to the public purse. You will understand that I am not commenting on the policy position, but from the perspective of what is involved in implementing these changes.
Paul Holmes
Q
Karen Jones: Just to confirm, in the evaluation report I referred to—and I will send the details to the Clerk of the Committee after this evidence session, if you do not have that to hand—the addition of names to the register did not impact accuracy. Very few people chose to take their names off the register, so there was support from the general public for the exercise.
Paul Holmes
Q
Karen Jones: That is right. It is a small number, but as I say, the evaluation report sets out a lot of the detail.
Paul Holmes
Q
Malcolm Burr: Yes, happy to do that. We have had a successful experience in Scotland over many years of implementing voting for 16 and 17-year-olds and of course that means implementing voting preparation for 14 and 15-year-olds. I will let my colleague Mr Nicol speak to the practicalities of that.
I am very pleased to see the proposal in the Bill, as an electoral administrator, that there would be automatic additions to the UK parliamentary register of those already registered to vote. Consistency is always welcome, as is alignment at an administrative level. It helps the voter, the administrator and the process.
Your question also focused on engagement with young people, and I think that has been generally very successful. Across Scotland, there is Welcome to Your Vote Week activity in schools—in early March, for obvious reasons. That is universal. It is well received. It is updated to take account of feedback as well as changes. The independence referendum in 2014 saw a high level of voting across all age groups, and such academic research as there is shows that young people who have voted at the ages of 16 and 17 are highly likely to continue their participation in the future. All those are important points for consideration. It certainly has not caused significant issues. There are practical issues that we have to look at, of course. With voter ID for UK elections, we have to make sure that there is appropriate ID for young people of that age. There are also issues of data protection, but I will let my colleague, Mr Nicol, speak about those.
Paul Holmes
Mr Nicol, do you want to say anything?
Robert Nicol: Thank you. Malcolm covered an awful lot of what I had noted down, but you say, “How do we ensure that it becomes successful?” This is not a measure that I would necessarily recommend, but having a high-profile electoral event shortly after you introduce it— as happened with the young persons register in Scotland in 2013 and ’14 coinciding with the independence referendum—certainly embeds it in the minds of the population.
In terms of the practicalities—this cross-cuts a wee bit into automatic registration as well—we need to be aware that how data is held in different parts of the country can vary. I hate calling it data, because it is about individuals—individual electors and so on. For example, education data is held by local authorities in Scotland, so we utilise education lists from local authorities and from private schools to invite electors, young people, directly to register. That is from the age of 14 upwards. I think that it is also a welcome aspect of the Bill that there is clarity about it being from age 14 onwards, rather than the quite convoluted definition that was previously in place for 18-year-olds.
Clarity of messaging is really important. Malcolm rightly said that there is Welcome to Your Vote Week. There are also various outreach things. A number of years ago, when I was a lot younger, I went into schools myself and helped to try to enthuse young electors to get registered and suchlike. Various participation activities happen. I know that some people might think that this is a prime area for automatic registration, but I wonder whether an elector’s first experience of registering to vote being something that is done “to” them is necessarily the positive way to look forward.
Hopefully that explanation has helped a wee bit, inasmuch as we do try to engage with young people. One other really important thing, which I think Malcolm touched on, is that this is not just about getting people registered; it is about ensuring that they are enabled to exercise their vote. That relates to things like voter ID at polling stations, but also the ID checks that happen for postal votes. Making sure that that is appropriate for this age group as well and how it is administered will be important parts of this as we go forward.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Karen Jones: Thank you for the question, and thank you again, Minister, for the opportunity to contribute to the early stages of this Bill. We are really pleased to see a number of the long-standing proposals from administrators to make life a lot easier for voters and also administrators reflected in the Bill. We are very much supportive of that.
In terms of alignment, the devil will be in the detail, as we look at the rules for implementing the policies that the Bill contains. As I was saying about automatic voter registration, it will come down to the franchise and the timing elements. It may well be that we have to live with some disruption in the short term while we pursue greater alignment in the medium to long term. I think it is a step in the right direction, but more work will need to be done as we look at the detail of the Bill’s implementation.
Similarly, if there is a UK-wide approach to votes at 16 and 17, it will make it easier to engage with young people. We have found with votes at 16 and 17 in Senedd elections that, because we have years in between when young people are not casting their vote, the engagement can be a bit stop-start. But a consistent policy across the UK will make it much easier for us to work collectively to make sure that young people and others are educated as to why they need to participate in the democratic process and understand how to go about exercising the franchise they have been given.
Malcolm Burr: I do not have a lot to add, but alignment should be there unless there is a good policy reason for it not being there. Policy divergence is inherent in devolution—that is what devolution is about: there can be different policy choices in different areas—but administrative divergence should be avoided wherever possible.
This is the occasion to mention the Law Commission’s welcome recommendation that there should be a consolidation of electoral law as far as possible, because it is a highly complex set of legislation and regulation, and it is more than time for a consistent legislative framework governing all elections, recognising the policy divergences across the various nations. Unnecessary divergence leads to confusion for voters, as well as inconvenience to electoral staff, so alignment should be a very clear aim, except where there is a good principle or policy reason for not aligning.
Robert Nicol: Administrators can and do make difficult things work in the background. We absolutely recognise each Parliament’s right to legislate as it sees fit. The difficulty we have is when electors are asked to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing. If an elector wants to register to vote, for example, and we say to them, “It’s okay, I’ve automatically registered you for this register, but you need to fill in that other form,” that not only makes me look daft as an electoral registration officer but causes confusion for the elector and does not help with overall confidence in the system. We have seen that recently with the postal vote divergence that happened, which has proven difficult and probably costly to stitch back together.
The Bill will enable people to register at 14. That does not align with Wales, but it aligns with Scotland, which is very welcome. There are other areas that are very welcome, but the Bill also has the potential to create different kinds of divergence if it is not implemented carefully. Administrators will do what they need to do, but think very, very carefully when asking an elector to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing.
Lisa Smart
Q
Malcolm Burr: That is a big question because we have so many different voting systems in Scotland. We have single transferable vote for local government elections, the mixed system for the Scottish Parliament—the regional lists and constituency MSPs—and, of course, we have the traditional Westminster one Member, one constituency system. I would probably be verging into policy matters if I commented on the various merits of those systems. Suffice it to say, voter confusion—if there has been any—has lessened over the years. That is because there is a great deal more material—mostly from the Electoral Commission but also from returning officers directly—about how to vote and how the system works. Voter education is particularly important when you have divergent systems.
As an electoral administrator, I always look to rejected papers as a good guide to confusion. Those have remained consistent in some areas, but not in others—I am thinking of the local government elections, which use a numerical voting system, obviously, as it is single transferable vote. Despite all the guidance, there are still a significant number of rejections of papers of that are marked with more than one cross: the message that you are voting for up to three or four candidates but that you must do so numerically has not gotten through. It is less so for the other systems. From our perspective, it is about voter education in advance of the election, during the electoral period, and particularly at polling places. That is the place. A good presiding officer makes all the difference by saying, “Are you clear on how you cast your vote competently in this election?”
The Chair
Mr Nicol, do you want to say anything?
Robert Nicol: This is really outwith my sphere of expertise, so I will bow to Malcolm’s—
The Chair
Q
Karen Jones: Thank you. I do not have very different views to those that Malcolm has expressed, other than to say that we are about to see a very different voting arrangement in Wales for the Senedd election in May. That underlines the point of the importance of education, good public information and making it as easy as possible for voters to register and cast their votes.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Q
Another aspect I want to pick up on is returning officer guidance, which has moved on the issue around the divergence of voting systems. Mr Burr, would you consider that the decoupling of the local government elections from the Scottish Parliament elections has had an impact on trying to make sure that voters understand what electoral system is being used at the same time?
Malcolm Burr: Thank you for those questions. My view is that decoupling the elections has been beneficial —I do not say that as an administrator trying to run elections over a few days, because it is not about that. I referred earlier to the different voting systems for local government elections. Inevitably, if elections are together, the potential for confusion is increased, but I think that as voter education deepens, that will lessen. Electoral administrators are certainly content with the decoupling of elections. The old presumption that having a parliamentary election increased the turnout for local government elections was never consistent across Scotland. In my own constituency, the turnout for local government elections would be equal to—if not more than, sometimes —the turnout for parliamentary elections, so it all depends on locality. Those are largely matters of policy.
In terms of voter ID, it is fair to say that it did not cause any significant issues for us as electoral administrators. The reports from polling places were that very few people were turned away; the evidence has shown that. If they were turned away, they could often return, time allowing, later in the day with appropriate ID. I do not know if you wish me to talk about the expansion of the list of accepted voter ID at this stage; that was not a specific question, so I will not, Chair, unless you want me to address it now.
The Chair
I do not think that that was part of Ms Murray’s question. Ms Jones, would you like to add anything?
Karen Jones: The experience in Wales is, I think, similar to what Malcolm just outlined for Scotland. We had small numbers—I am talking about very small numbers indeed—of people who turned up at polling stations without the correct ID, but with the passage of time, people will become more familiar with what is required. In devolved elections, we are seeing that people think they need to bring ID, so it does not present a problem in the devolved elections because people are over-providing rather than under-providing information.
Dr Chowns
Q
Robert Nicol: Registration at 14 and votes at 16 have been embedded for quite some time, but I view this Bill—if it was to pass—as an opportunity to promote registration further. We are proud of the registration levels that we have been able to achieve, but there are still gaps and we want to make sure that we can narrow them as much as possible. I would welcome any involvement in trying to re-promote that across the franchise when the legislation does come into place.
The question of wider political literacy is quite interesting. We have heard much about the missing millions and so on in the Electoral Commission’s reports. No doubt, every single electoral registration officer wants to make sure that, for everybody who is eligible and wants to be registered, that facility is available to them in the format and means that best suit their needs.
The answer to political engagement and literacy will probably not come from a middle-aged guy. It will come from within our communities; that is where the engagement really has to happen. I think I am right in saying that there are particular funding streams available for some community groups around this. That has to be the appropriate way; the message that we are getting out there has to be delivered by trusted voices—people who are trusted in their communities to give accurate information. Some of the stuff that we give out is complex and difficult to understand. There is no single message or delivery method that will get that to everybody who needs it, so it is wider than just administrators in terms of enthusing the electorate, both to be registered and to actually take part in the process.
Malcolm Burr: It much depends on how much effort is made by everyone in the system. It is one thing having the right to vote, but our rights are arid without the feeling that participation makes a significant difference. It is always a work in progress. As an electoral administrator, it is a work in progress largely with our schools, and with the Electoral Commission, which does good work producing materials, generally. But of course, not all young people are in schools; you have to use other local media to encourage participation and show what the exercise of your right means practically.
As an anecdote, I always try to invite as many young people as the rules will allow to election counts. You see then where the process goes; you see what is done with your vote and how it makes a difference—along with other votes, obviously—and what candidates then say when they are elected or not elected, and what they talk about. It is very important to show that system and the difference that voting makes. In Scotland, we have the experience of the independence referendum in 2014. That showed, in respect of all groups, that when the electorate feel there is an issue at stake, they turn out in huge numbers to vote. That is the example of that.
As Robert Nicol said, accessibility is also important. We tend to think of accessibility in terms of voters with disabilities, but accessibility is beyond that; we have to look equally at how we reach hard-to-reach groups in the younger franchise. It is a combination of good publicity, good education and good appreciation, as much as possible, of how the voting system and casting your vote affects and changes things. It is a whole process. Sorry for the long answer.
Karen Jones: I have two points, if I may. I do not disagree with my Scottish colleagues. Young people helping to co-design some of the communications and engagement methods is important. I think Robert made the point about people of our generation maybe not being the obvious people to go and engage with young people, so there is an opportunity there to involve young people in how we go about those exercises. An evaluation report about the experience in Wales referred to the timing of some of these activities. Young people have periods when they are very busy sitting examinations and so on, so there are periods within a year when it is possible to get better levels of engagement. That was a practical lesson that we drew from the experience in Wales.
Sam Rushworth
Q
The Chair
Mr Burr, are you best placed to answer that question?
Malcolm Burr: I fear I am, but in preparation for this meeting I have not analysed the turnout figures and their trends. I would say that it has not affected turnout overall, but I am afraid that I will have to provide the Committee with that information in written form—my apologies.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Karen Jones: Just to clarify, they were not for an election event. They were exercises looking at the ability to add names accurately to the electoral registers. They were in Cardiff, Ceredigion, Wrexham and Powys.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Karen Jones: My understanding is that that is the plan in Wales. We will be working to a common timetable and will have a common approach to the way that automatic registration will be rolled out across the 22 local authority areas.
The Chair
Mr Burr, I think the Minister wants to say something in response to your response to the previous question.
Samantha Dixon
I had the privilege of attending the interministerial Government meeting late last year, and we had a presentation from the University of Glasgow about the effect of voting on the 16-year-olds who first voted in the referendum in 2014. Interestingly, the evidence shows that, compared with previous cohorts, they continued to vote in greater numbers. That evidence was presented at that conference.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Karen Jones: Chair, is it possible to write to the Committee with a detailed response to that? There is an evaluation report that goes into some detail about the challenges that were faced in the four authorities. They took very different approaches, so I am afraid that there is not a simple answer that I will be able to cover in the time available.
The Chair
I think that would be acceptable to the Committee, Ms Jones. I thank our witnesses for their evidence and for managing the technology so ably. That brings us to the end of our morning session.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)
Wednesday 18th March 2026
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 March 2026 - (18 Mar 2026)
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission Northern Ireland. We have until 2.25 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
David Marshall: Thank you very much for the invitation to brief the Committee. I am Dr David Marshall, the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. I am responsible in law for all returning officers for all elections and referendums in Northern Ireland, and I am also the registration officer for all of Northern Ireland.
Cahir Hughes: Good afternoon. My name is Cahir Hughes. I am head of the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland, and I am responsible for ensuring the delivery of the commission’s work in Northern Ireland.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Q
I have two general questions. You obviously have a unique set of experiences in running elections in Northern Ireland. In some ways, in Northern Ireland you have had, for a long time, some regulatory changes that the Government would say we are only just catching up with, and I think that is a fair assessment. Starting with Mr Hughes, given your experience of running elections with voter identification in Northern Ireland, what is your view of the proposal to add bank cards to the list of accepted identification in the rest of the United Kingdom? Are you concerned that it will create a divergence from the elections that you run and your current guidelines?
Cahir Hughes: It is fair to say that the system of photographic ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland is very well established. It has been running for almost 25 years, and voters are very well aware of the need to bring photographic ID with them to the polling station. Research that we have done shows that the percentage of people who know they need to do so is in the high 90s, and they also know what form of ID—most commonly driving licence and passport. It is an established part of polling day at our elections that people know to bring ID with them.
The bank card proposal has not been introduced in Northern Ireland. There is the issue that there is no date of birth on a bank card, which is what you need for photographic ID in Northern Ireland. With divergence there is always an element of risk. We experienced it in 2024 at the UK parliamentary election, when there were different forms of ID used in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Through our public awareness campaigns and partnership work, we put a lot of focus on ensuring that the right messaging gets to voters in Northern Ireland. As I say, that did not materialise as an issue in 2024. It is something that we will consider as part of our campaigns at future elections from 2029, if the Bill follows the path it is set out to do.
David Marshall: I will say at the start that I have a large enough job as returning officer and registration officer for elections in Northern Ireland before I try to comment on policy matters in Great Britain, but I will give just a wee bit of background. Northern Ireland has had official photo ID for well over 20 years. It came in after widespread public concern about the safety and challenges of running elections back in the 1980s and 1990s. Since then, as Cahir has said, it has by and large worked and been accepted, and there are high levels of public support and confidence in elections here. That is not to say that our system is perfect. We could absolutely include other forms of ID that are currently available in Great Britain. I know the Government are on record as saying the UK veteran card could be included, and there may well be other forms of ID as well. All of this needs to be future-proofed into what digital ID might bring.
In conclusion, only time will tell whether the Government’s plans for bank cards in Great Britain will work. If I was asked in Northern Ireland, I would say, “Expand the list of photo ID rather than go to bank cards at this stage.”
Paul Holmes
Q
I also want to ask about your experiences. There is a contention among many parties in the UK House of Commons that photographic ID means many people turned away from polling stations and being stopped voting, and that it is, as they would say, anti-democratic. Could you give a brief outline of the experience of you guys in Northern Ireland and the speed at which people got used to having to show photo ID? I think you mentioned, Mr Hughes, that over 90% of people are aware that they need to carry photo ID, but can you briefly talk about your experience of the numbers in recent elections who are turned away from voting in Northern Ireland, and do you think it is a large-scale issue?
Cahir Hughes: At the onset of today, it is not a large-scale issue. It is not something that voters or candidates express concerns about to us. Again, I will say that it has been in for 25 years. After the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 was introduced, photographic ID came into effect in 2003. We ran a lot of public awareness campaigns to highlight the need for photographic ID and the correct forms of ID. We did a lot of post-poll research over the years and the percentage was in those high 80s and 90s. We do not ask that question any more because it is just part and parcel of the electoral process on polling day. We know that voters are very familiar with it.
In the last research that we did, somewhere in the region of 97% or 98% of people were aware that they needed to bring an accepted form of photographic ID. In my experience of observing at polling stations on polling day, when voters do show up without a form of ID, it is just because they genuinely forgot it. There have been no statements of feeling disenfranchised or not being able to participate on polling day, and presiding officers tend to report back to us that voters do come back with a form of ID, be it by returning home or nipping out to the car.
Paul Holmes
Q
David Marshall: Nothing substantial—just that I think the younger community here in Northern Ireland get it and accept it. The older community have been through that transition and that change, as Cahir said, 20 or 25 years ago and they accept it as well. That is not to say there is not the occasional issue in polling stations, but nothing substantial.
Paul Holmes
Q
Cahir Hughes: The list of forms of ID that are available to voters in Northern Ireland is significantly shorter than the list in Great Britain. Again, it is so well established here that people are familiar with it. Nevertheless, we need to move with the times; David touched on the impact of digital ID, and the veteran card is included in the Bill. It is right that it is kept under review, but if it was continually added to over and over again in Northern Ireland, that would risk further divergence from Great Britain and the confusion that we touched on previously.
It is right that it is kept under review, but as I say, there are high levels of public awareness of the need for photographic ID. David will correct me if I am wrong, but I think most voters are very familiar with the fact that they need to bring their driving licence or passport with them, and if they cannot get that, they can get an electoral identity card from the Electoral Office.
Paul Holmes
Mr Marshall, don’t feel you need to, but if you want to add something, you are more than entitled to.
David Marshall: I have nothing further to add.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
Q
David Marshall: I manage a relatively small team in Belfast who run elections here. It is not the equivalent of Great Britain, where there are teams in local councils. There is an Electoral Office that covers all 11 councils here in Northern Ireland. We are tasked with running two sets of elections in May 2027—both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the local council elections—so most of my work and thinking is around that.
The Bill has a commitment to review the canvass law in Northern Ireland, which is very welcome indeed. The canvass law in Northern Ireland has not kept pace with changes in Great Britain, and it really needs to. That is an important step forward. In terms of the nomination process, the requirement for candidates to show a form of ID is a really sensible step forward, given the problems in Great Britain in 2024, and it would be relatively straightforward to implement. We think that is a great idea, as well as the timelines. As I understand it, the Bill brings forward a 12 noon timeline for the last day of nominations, which will help in terms of ballot paper proofing and then getting postal votes out to voters that bit earlier, which will obviously make it easier for them to take part in the election.
There are a whole host of other changes to postal vote deadlines for Great Britain, which in this instance aligns Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I am all for alignment if it changes Great Britain to be the same as Northern Ireland. That is really helpful. Lastly, from an electoral administrator’s perspective, the new penalties for intimidatory behaviour towards staff are critical, and it is really important that those are brought in. It is a really good step forward.
Samantha Dixon
Q
David Marshall: They are very welcome indeed.
Cahir Hughes: To echo what David said, canvass reform is essential in Northern Ireland, so that measure is welcome. Automatic registration will also play a significant part in improving access to electoral services in Northern Ireland, and we are working closely with David on the practicalities of that.
David touched on the electoral administrative side of the Bill, as you would expect, but I want to highlight something in relation to the political finance side. The rules on political donations for registered political parties are slightly different in Northern Ireland, in that parties can accept donations from permissible Irish sources. The Bill says that that will continue, and that principle was enshrined in an agreement between the British and Irish Governments back in 2006, to allow Irish donors to give to parties here, in line with the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. Obviously, the secondary legislation will provide the detail on how this will operate in practice, but we can already see some difficulties in checking the permissibility of donations. For example, with company donations from a UK company, we can go on to Companies House and check the donation, as can the treasurer of a political party or the elected representative who is taking the donation.
Company registration in Ireland is very different, and it would therefore not be as straightforward to verify the true nature of a donation, if it comes from a company. Not only would that put the treasurer of a party in a difficult situation, but we as the regulator are also required to check 50% of the donations that are reported to us in Northern Ireland, so that will make compliance tricky for us. We wait to see the secondary legislation, but that is a concern for us in relation to the political finance aspects of the Bill.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Q
David Marshall: This is one of those changes that should probably have been brought in when photographic voter ID was introduced in Northern Ireland in 2002 But frankly, whenever it was brought in, calling out in polling stations was removed in Great Britain as part of the introduction of voter ID there. The Government have seen fit to make it equivalent across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which I very much welcome. We have a system for personation called “photographic ID”, and we do not need another secondary system. If necessary, we can manage any issues or concerns in polling stations by talking to polling agents at that point.
Cahir Hughes: Historically, the link was made with polling agents. When photographic ID was introduced, polling agents thought that it was very important that they still had a role to identify personation. I suspect that the legacy issues in Northern Ireland and distrust between parties and communities may have played a part in that. However, as we have discussed, photographic ID is very well established in Northern Ireland, so people are familiar with it. It provides the level of security that you would expect in polling stations. Of course, polling agents will continue to be allowed in the polling station.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Q
Cahir Hughes: We made the need for canvass reform very clear to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, as it is essential. We think that a significant amount of money is spent removing 1.4 million electors off the electoral register, only for them to ask to be put back on again. Canvass reform is essential for that not to happen in 2030, and we welcome that being addressed in the Bill, including by the provisions on automatic registration, which should make things easier for voters as well. I am sure that David will touch on this, but he has a rich source of data available to him to manage the electoral register and to get people on the register, which is very welcome.
The one thing not in the Bill—frankly, I was not expecting it to be—is the issue of co-option, which we flagged to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is where elected Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly or those in a local council can be replaced through the co-option system when a vacancy arises. The Bill does not address that issue, but it is something that we will monitor ahead of the combined polls next year. If need be, we will report on it, as we statutorily have to after every election.
David Marshall: On canvass reform, one important step will be that we take cognisance of the possibility of automatic registration in the context of how it is implemented. As Cahir indicated, we have a rich source of data, and every year we write to all 16 and 17-year-olds who are not currently on the register but could come on to it, but only about 30% then go ahead and register to vote.
When we hold that high-quality public sector data—national insurance data, health registration data—we would like the ability to write to those people, turn it the other way and say, “We are going to register you to vote unless you tell us otherwise.” That ought to be part of the reform of the canvass in Northern Ireland: including some element of automatic registration.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Q
David Marshall: We take that extremely seriously in our current work, where we identify people who are on the register and ask them to come forward to register to vote. For example, when we write out to a household, we tend to write out to the householder rather than to the child and say, “A 16, 17 or 18-year-old lives this household. You may wish to register them to vote”—the idea being that we are not disclosing anything specific to that individual. We absolutely take that extremely seriously, and it is something that you will have to consider. I know that pilots were run in Wales to look at this, and they did not raise too significant a concern or issue at that point, but it is obviously important that we keep that issue in mind when we implement these proposals.
Cahir Hughes: All I would add is that in Northern Ireland David has the benefit of a centralised register, so all the data for all of Northern Ireland is coming to him. That reduces the risks. The data is rich as well, particularly in terms of the business support organisation, which is all the health data. That is reliable data on people who are accessing public services, and that is being passed on to him. I suppose it is a simpler process in Northern Ireland than in GB, where so many local authorities are involved.
The Chair
There seem to be no further questions, so I thank both witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to our next panel. Thank you, gentlemen.
Examination of Witnesses
Harriet Andrews and Andy Mycock gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from The Politics Project and the Yorkshire and Humber Policy Engagement and Research Network. We have until 2.50 pm for this panel. Can the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Harriet Andrews: Hi, I am Harriet Andrews, and I am the director of The Politics Project, which is a democratic education and engagement organisation that specialises in working with young people on elections and democracy.
Andy Mycock: I am Dr Andy Mycock, and I am a public policy specialist. I sat on the UK Government’s Youth Citizenship Commission in 2008 and 2009, and was a witness at the House of Lords Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement.
Paul Holmes
Q
My question is on votes at 16 and your daily experiences of engaging with young people on it. I have had some experience of this in my constituency on Fridays. Granted, I am probably not the best person to sell the argument for votes at 16, although I still like to think that I can be at one with the kids in the schools—just the fact I said that shows I am not. Without giving my view, I have asked young people at my secondary schools to put their hands up to show whether they are for or against votes at 16, and the overwhelming majority are against. I found that really interesting, and I wonder whether it is in line with the general perception or engagement feedback you have seen?
Aside from votes at 16, could you outline to the Committee what methods, if this proposal goes through, the Government, mainstream political parties and, indeed, all parties should take on board, because we all have a stake in this and need to go further to engage younger people?
Harriet Andrews: There are different polls on what young people think about votes at 16, and the results are mixed—it often depends on how you ask the question. Young people are split on whether they want votes at 16, which suggests that they are not a monolith and that we should not talk about them as a single blob, because they have different views and opinions.
When you dig down into that polling, a lot of young people are saying, “I am not sure I have the skills and confidence to be voting and engaging.” To me, that suggests they are in a really good place to be thinking about voting, because they are taking the responsibility incredibly seriously. When you ask whether they could be supported by schools or adults to learn about this, or on their first vote, they are much keener to engage and take part in democracy from 16. So we do engage with that question a lot and talk to a lot of young people about it, and when we dig down, the reason is normally that they want a bit more support.
I love the question about what parties can do, because I think it is missing a bit from the debate at the moment. A really important thing for parties to think about is the voter information space. If I ask a young person right now, “What does X party think on Y issue?”, the absolute mess they have to wade through to work out what parties think and what their views are on particular issues is really difficult. It is difficult for any voter, and we could take votes at 16 as an opportunity to do a bit better on it.
We will talk a lot about misinformation and disinformation—it is a big topic—but the other side of it is where the good sources of information are that young people can go to for up-to-date factual information about the different political parties. That is one of my pleas: what are you doing to communicate that information to young people more effectively?
Paul Holmes
I am sure many of us around the table will be looking daily at how to do that if the Bill goes through.
Andy Mycock: May I correct the record? I am not an advocate for votes at 16; I am an academic researcher who has been looking at the evidence around the debates for more than 20 years.
We have tracked public opinion, both for young people under the age of 18 and for those over 18, and Hattie is absolutely correct: it is probably about 50/50 among young people. There are those who are very enthusiastic and those who are somewhat nervous. There are lots of reasons why some are more sceptical and nervous. It is often down to family background, the culture of their family and the communities they live in in terms of political engagement.
On the broader issue of public opinion, there has been no evidence of a majority of the general public supporting the measure. That is very different to when the voting age was lowered in 1969 to 18, when you had both political and public consensus over the age of enfranchisement and the age of majority.
In terms of the way political parties might engage better with young people, the research we have done suggests there are a number of issues. First, political parties rarely design policies with or for young people that attract them to vote, so regardless of whether the voting age is 16 or 18, most young people do not vote. Often, the representatives who are selected to represent them are over the age of 50. In all the Parliaments across the United Kingdom, the average age remains over 50, so young people do not see themselves in those people.
On the issues Hattie raised about political communication and the way electoral campaigning is undertaken, those are still clearly problematic; we have a very much 20th-century approach to a 21st-century electorate. People do not feel that politicians speak their language, come to the places where they aggregate or engage with them in ways that fit their lifestyle.
The question you ask is really important, because there is a supply and demand aspect to votes at 16, whether you support or oppose it. UK democracy is in some form of crisis. If you look at the evidence, there is huge distrust of political parties and politicians. More recently we are picking up that there is a systems fatalism: a sense that the electorate, particularly young people who are growing up at this point, feel that whoever is in power—the institutions that shape their lives and govern them—is not going to have a positive effect on them.
Whether you support or oppose votes at 16, this is a once-in-a-generation moment to reflect on not just the composition of the franchise but how you, as parties and politicians, think about the health of our democracy. This is a critical question of democratic resilience. I am doing work in Australia at the moment with the Australian federal Government, and this is a common challenge across western democracies. The UK has an opportunity to take leadership and address these challenges honestly, without getting lost in debates over votes at 16.
Paul Holmes
Q
So my question to you, in connection to that point, is whether you believe there is a missed opportunity in the Bill, in that somebody can vote in elections at 16 but not participate as a candidate, or do the Government have the right balance?
Andy Mycock: Again, I would go back to 1969. There has been very little policy learning about what happened there. It is interesting that the age of enfranchisement and the age of majority were brought together, but the age of candidature was not; in fact, it was not until 2006 that the Electoral Commission finally lowered it. At this point, there is no need to say that that is a barrier to or a support for lowering the voting age; it is an issue to think about.
I do feel there is a need for this House to review the age of majority; that is not to change it, but the conditions of the 20th and 21st centuries are very different. In the law, adulthood is now shaped at the age of 18, which is the legal age of citizenship, and yet you can get a national insurance number or a passport or undertake elective surgery—you can do a huge number of things—under the age of 18. At the same time, those traditional indicators of adulthood, such as owning a house, getting married, having children and having a full-time job, are being realised much later in life.
Our research indicates strongly that young people do not see 18 as a particularly significant once-in-a-lifetime moment when they become adults. Adulthood is much more complex, as is maturity and the sense of how young people fit into society. Our research indicates strongly that young people, if they are enfranchised universally across the UK at the age of 16, want to be treated as young people in the electorate and not to be seen as adults.
Paul Holmes
Q
Harriet Andrews: The main opportunity we see from votes at 16 is that it provides an opportunity to effectively support people to vote while they are still in education, or in work or training; 18 is actually a terrible time of your life to suddenly take on this new opportunity.
It allows us to deal with things like inequalities caused by the way your parents vote and engage determining how you vote and engage. The opportunity for schools to play much more of a role, and for there to be a more systematic approach to supporting young people, is the real opportunity with votes at 16.
Our main interest is also about what we are putting around votes at 16: where is the education, engagement and support for young people so that they can engage in democracy really effectively?
Samantha Dixon
Q
Harriet Andrews: We have a really great split screen on this because we work in England and in Wales, in particular. At the moment, we are preparing loads of young people for the Senedd election. We are running 16 youth hustings for young people at the moment in Wales, so we have a lot of on-the-ground experience of this. I would say that supporting young people at 16 and supporting young people at 18 are not particularly different; it is the same process of preparing them to engage and vote.
From our experience in Wales, I can say that young people are taking it really seriously. They are thinking about the responsibility and are really excited to vote. The work that we are doing with young people is a positive experience, and they are engaging really well. If there are any worries about harm being done to young people aged 16, our on-the-ground experience suggests that that is absolutely not the case.
The one thing that we see in Wales is that votes at 16 needs to come alongside support—particularly democratic education and engagement in schools—so that young people know how to vote. Just changing the voting age in itself will not lead to a mass change in the way young people engage with politics and democracy. The lack of support in Wales has meant that there is not loads and loads of engagement at 16, so the surrounding support is really important, regardless of the voting age.
Andy Mycock: I have been involved in the evaluations of both the Scottish and the Welsh lowering of the voting age, and I have advised both Governments on that work. The first thing is that the lessons from 1969 were not learned in either of those cases. Simply lowering the voting age on its own does not have a mercurial effect in encouraging young people to engage and vote. The big problem is that there is a need to have a significant framework of support for young people as they grow up, before they vote, whatever the voting age is.
At present, in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a disconnection between the different stages of school—between primary, secondary, and further and higher education. The 50% of young people who do not go to university are dropped completely in terms of their support. It is a huge issue, and I urge you to look at it. What happens in schools and outside schools is very poorly connected, and what happens online is almost unregulated. There is a huge opportunity to think about media, information and political literacy at this point.
I urge you to think about what the House of Lords called a civic journey—the ability to connect all those different interventions and policies from Governments at different levels to a set of clear policy ambitions. At the moment, votes at 16 has very little in terms of a clear agenda for success, beyond the idea that young people might vote a little more over their lifetime. In Scotland and Wales, that has not happened.
In the independence referendum of 2014, 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted. It was seen as a huge success, until you look at the average turnout, which was 85%. Young people aged 16 and 17 in Scotland, although they vote more than their 18 to 24-year-old peers, continue to vote at considerably lower rates than the average turnout. That is because neither Government thought at the time they lowered the voting age about significant, consistent support for every young person as they grow up. They need to be heard, listened to and engaged with, not just in their lessons but in their communities. They need to meet you and local and other elected representatives regularly so that they feel they are part of the democracy, regardless of whether they are enfranchised or not.
The other thing that did not happen in 1969 was any evidence-based approach to finding out what the effect of lowering the voting age was. Lowering the voting age to 18 in 1969 was a policy failure. In every election after that until the late 1990s, turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds fell. This is likely to be a similar situation. Votes at 16 needs to learn to adopt an evidence-informed approach. We need a longitudinal study of the effects of what is happening. It is remarkable that this country does not have a centre for research around democracy. We have one on electoral studies, but we do not aggregate what is happening out there in the democracy.
As I said at the start, we are in a moment of huge precarity in terms of the future strength of British democratic resilience. I urge this Committee to think about how Government, Parliament, academia, and wonderful organisations such as the one Hattie represents and the Electoral Commission can come together and think about how we start to build an evidence base that starts to learn from the policy interventions that we invest in. We must start to think about the future health of British democracy.
Samantha Dixon
What you are saying is very interesting, and I will reflect on it. As we go through the Bill process, I think it will become clear that the Government have considered some of the points that you have raised, but thank you for raising them.
Lisa Smart
Q
I strongly agree that we are in a moment of crisis for our democracy. An awful lot of things that I would have liked to see in the Bill are not there. You talked about the opportunity that this presents. Particularly looking through the lens of trust in politics and participation in our elections, what does your organisation, or you as an academic, believe could have been in the Bill that would have had a positive impact on trust in politics?
Harriet Andrews: The biggest thing in terms of trust in democratic institutions is the way that democratic institutions engage with the public, and with young people specifically. We specialise in connecting young people and politicians. We have evidence that we can systematically improve democratic trust, which is a fantastic thing to be able to do—not many people can do that—but that is done through loads and loads of conversations between young people and politicians, and there is not really a substitute for that kind of work. I do not know whether that is the role of this Bill, but it is definitely the role of every Member of Parliament. We also need to think about investment in places such as schools and youth groups, and ask whether they are being supported to engage with democratic institutions.
The other thing to mention is that a lot of people are really uncertain at the moment about whether they are allowed to engage with democratic institutions as part of their youth work or as schools, because they are worried about issues around impartiality. I would focus on really clear guidance on impartiality, partly so that people feel a lot more comfortable about what they can do. They can do a lot, but lots of people are scared about engaging with their local council or councillor on a local issue because they are worried about political bias. More training and support around that is needed.
Andy Mycock: I fully agree with everything that Hattie said. Contact—building a relationship at a very early age—is a critical part of this. By the time you get to secondary school, a lot of that good work is already past its time of efficacy. Primary school, when young people are socialising and their brains are growing, is proving to be, in all different aspects of growing up, the most important time. There is a stark lack of focus on primary school interventions. Much of what happens focuses on secondary school, when young people are overloaded; they are going through significant change in their lives—biologically, socially and educationally. Stretch the civic journey. Give it time to mature over time. Think about how you support young people after the age of enfranchisement, whether it is 16 or 18.
To go back to the Minister’s question, our work in Wales highlighted another thing—the voter journey. In Wales we found a lot of focus, in Government and other programmes, on getting young people to get on the electoral register and to know how to vote, but that did not get them to the ballot box. The principal reason was that they were not educated about political parties—what those parties stood for. This is not to open up the old debate about indoctrination, but young people simply did not know what the political parties stood for—they did not know how to read the manifestos, so they stayed at home.
I urge all the parties to move beyond this idea of the fears of indoctrination. The internet age has changed things. You cannot protect young people from political discourse on the internet. Our survey data is already starting to pick up that young people, particularly young men, are increasingly prone to misinformation and to populist ideas. If you do not socialise young people, so that they understand politics before they become enfranchised—whatever the age—it is likely that they will socialise themselves, or will socialise themselves in peer groups that may not be the healthiest in terms of democracy.
I would think strongly about the idea of the voter journey, and about things like automatic voter registration, or giving young people voter authority certificates at the age of 16. If they have a national insurance number, why not give them that certificate so that they have the document and do not have to look for it? Walk them through polling booths: get them used to the idea that these are not alien places. For those who come from middle-class families, it is likely that their parents will take them there the first time to vote. For those coming from maybe disadvantaged or disengaged families, it is highly likely that they will not.
Lastly, learn from other places. Australia has a wonderful celebration around elections where they have a democracy sausage, which you will have heard of now increasingly. We might not be a nation of sausages, but we are a nation of cakes. Why not think about the democracy bake? Have civil society organisations outside polling stations—turn voting into a celebratory act, so that young people feel that that first experience is positive, and that it is not a threatening environment for them to go to again.
Warinder Juss
Q
My assessment from all this has been that if those young people were allowed to vote at 16 they would be very competent in contributing to democracy, and that it would be a great idea for them to be engaged earlier in politics, and to have had those conversations earlier. A witness in the previous panel said that the earlier somebody votes, the more likely they are to carry on voting. I have two questions. First, do you think my assessment is correct? Secondly, do you think that the ability to vote early is one important step we can take to make sure that we have that engagement, and bring democracy into play?
Harriet Andrews: Yes, I do think your assessment is correct. I think young people are really keen to engage in all sorts of social and political issues. They want to have a voice—they want to be heard, right? They are just like everybody else, and they have lots to say. They are exploring the world; they have not heard something for the fifth or sixth time, they have heard it for the first time, so it is more exciting. That is something that we find a lot.
There are some hopeful reforms potentially coming in the curriculum assessment review. They have talked about making citizenship compulsory in primary schools, which really plays into that idea of starting early. The more that you do earlier, and the more you can build these skills over time and make them part of what is happening, the less of a mad rush you have to get everybody ready at a certain point. That is really positive.
One of the things missing in that education reform is, particularly, teacher training. This stuff is complicated, and teachers need support. When they have been surveyed, teachers have said that they feel really underprepared to do this work; they really want to do the work, but they want that support. That is one thing that really needs some attention. The other is the role of Ofsted—asking, “Is Ofsted taking this work seriously? Does it have a home, and does it have a place?” I know that that is not the role of this Committee, but some of the levers to make votes at 16 a real success sit with both DCMS and the DfE.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Q
Harriet Andrews: For me, part of that democratic education piece would include support for young people to engage with disinformation. A really important part of preparing them is preparing them to engage with that work on disinformation. Also, as I said at the very beginning, we need to think about where the sources of information for young people are. I worry that if we focus too much on just, “We need young people to be educated about how to engage with disinformation,” and we do not try to create places they can go to that are trusted sources of information, we are putting a huge amount of pressure on young people to deal with a really complicated information landscape.
The Chair
You have 20 seconds, Dr Mycock.
Andy Mycock: I would think very strongly about how political parties can play their role in terms of connecting with young people. Young people’s membership of political parties is at an all-time low, as it is in trade unions and other organisations. The fact that you are engaging is commendable, but political parties need to do much more.
Those who are opposed to votes at 16 need to think about the unequal situation where young people in Scotland and Wales now have voting rights that young people in England and Northern Ireland do not. If the argument is about citizenship, there is an inequality with the voting age being 18 for the majority, but not for others. Moreover, there is a need for—
The Chair
Order. I have to cut you off there, I am afraid, because of the requirements of the procedure motion that has been passed. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank you both for your evidence this afternoon.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Toby James and Professor Paul Bernal gave evidence.
The Chair
We have until 3.15 pm for this panel. Could both professors briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Professor James: My name is Toby James. I am a professor of politics and public policy at the University of East Anglia. I am also the co-director of the Electoral Integrity Project.
Professor Bernal: Hello, I am Professor Paul Bernal. I am professor of information technology law at the UEA law school. I am a specialist in data and in privacy, and I have been working with Toby on electoral data since around 2020.
Paul Holmes
Q
You suggested that an amendment could be introduced to establish statutory requirements for electoral registration officers to publish data on parliamentary and local elections in England and Northern Ireland. I thought it was general practice and already a statutory requirement for returning officers to publish things such as the names of candidates, polling stations and the results of elections. Could you explain where you have come from on that, and what the difference is with the current system?
Professor James: This maybe reflects the different ages in which electoral laws were first designed, many of which were designed in the Victorian age. We have a very decentralised system, whereby electoral registration officers and returning officers publish data on candidates, results and so on, but not necessarily in an electronic format—to qualify that—and not in a uniform fashion. Many electoral authorities around the world, for example, would receive results and names of candidates at a local level, and therefore it would be really easy to publish all that in one central data source. That is not the case for UK parliamentary elections or for local elections. Not so much myself but other colleagues—colleagues at the University of Exeter, for example—collect this data and publish it instead. I think that it should be a central function of the state to provide electors with data on who the candidates are and what the results are.
Paul Holmes
Q
This may be slightly out of the scope of both of your expertise, but there is an amendment tabled to the Bill about a digital election leaflet repository for digital communications. It would introduce a duty for, after 72 hours, paid-for digital election campaigning materials to be stored in a central repository. It is not our amendment, but I think the argument is that people would then be able to see—and hold to account—the promises made by various parties in the United Kingdom. Do you have a view on whether that would be a good thing? Is that something that you support?
Professor James: My areas of expertise are probably elsewhere in the Bill, but I would generally be in favour of greater transparency. Collecting in a central location information about the promises that are being made to the electorate by parties only enhances transparency.
Professor Bernal: There is another side to it, which is whether such a requirement would mean that the electoral communications had to be in some kind of standardised form. For this sort of depository to be useful, it would have to be sortable, searchable and so on, and that would require some kind of standardised form. Would that be a good thing? I think it probably would, because we want as coherent a set of information as possible. Would parties like it, given that it would constrict which bits of information they gave and did not give? I am rather cynical about that possibility.
Paul Holmes
Q
Professor James: The Bill covers many of the foundations that you would need to have to enable electoral registration to be increasingly automated. As many other witnesses have said, the devil is in the detail, and the detail is due to come in secondary legislation. That is what is really important: which data sources will be used and which are the best data sources to be used?
In many ways, it makes sense to refer to secondary legislation for that, because obviously the best data sources for improving the quality and accuracy of the electoral register will change as data changes over time, so some flexibility for Ministers is relevant and important. At the same time, that is a lot of detail in secondary legislation. Obviously we are here and you are scrutinising the Bill. It will be important that the secondary legislation is scrutinised by parliamentarians, and that there is an opportunity for civil society groups, and those groups representing individuals who are less likely to be on the electoral register, to be included in those discussions.
The decisions that are being made at the moment—important decisions—by Government Departments, electoral officials and the Electoral Commission have a lot of detail in them. Making those discussions as inclusive, open and transparent as possible is something that Parliament might want to consider promoting.
Paul Holmes
Q
Professor Bernal: I have one thing to add, and it is a very simple one: I would like the open register to be abolished—straightforwardly abolished. As a privacy expert, it seems to me that it creates more risks. In the age that we are in at the moment, we need to reduce the risks as much as possible.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Professor James: You can think of two basic, broad clusters of countries that have automatic voter registration in one form or the other. In one set of countries, you have a central single record for every single citizen: what might be called a civil population register. Those are countries such as Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands or Germany. That is where automatic voter registration is simpler to implement because, in practice, what happens is that, in short, there is a copy and paste of that register ahead of election day.
In other countries, including in Canada and Australia, there is not a single record for every single individual. What those countries have done recently—I say “recently”; it has been over the course of the last 20 years—is move towards automatic voter registration by automatically enrolling groups of people using specific pieces of data at points when they know the data is accurate and reliable. In the UK context, Canada and Australia are probably the most relevant examples.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Professor Bernal: No, I have nothing to add to that.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Professor Bernal: I would like to scrap it. Going from opt-out to opt-in is great for the new people coming in, particularly with automatic voter registration and the votes at 16. However, there are millions of people who did not realise what they were opting in to—or what they would have opted out of—who are still on the register. If this is going to be retrospective, and you are going to say to everybody, “Do you want to be in after all?”, maybe that would help, but it would be simpler and better just to get rid of it.
We have to think very carefully about why the open register exists in the first place, and what use it is actually being put to. The uses are primarily commercial. In the current era, so many other forms of data are available to anyone wanting commercial use of data—we should leave it to them. What we need is as clear and simple a database as possible, with a single function to support our elections. That way, we get more security and privacy, and people will be more likely to trust it.
Lisa Smart
Q
My question is about automatic voter registration and some of the civil liberties and privacy issues that we should considering as we look at this legislation. Can you help us think through some of the really important questions we should be asking, bearing in mind that, as you rightly say, a lot of the detail will be worked through in secondary legislation? What things should we be thinking about to make sure that we protect the population’s civil liberties and keep privacy where it should be?
Professor Bernal: I should outline my perspective from the beginning. When Toby asked me to come into this project, my initial thought was, “I don’t want this, because of the privacy things—I’m a data privacy specialist and that’s what I work on.” However, when I was talking to him, I began to be persuaded by thinking about this as a way to get greater integrity in the database. Privacy is not about hiding information but making sure that the right people get the right information at the right time, and with appropriate permissions and consents.
As a result, the first thing we should think about is: what will the database on which people are registered be used for? What functions will it be put to? Who is going to have access to it? What are they going to be able to do with that data? That is something that we should be doing anyway, regardless of whether we are bringing in automatic voter registration. We should be thinking about those things, particularly in an era when electoral interference is a known factor and happens in lots of different ways, and we should be working out the way to make things secure. As I see it, automatic voter registration actually gives us an opportunity to do that, because it means that we need to think about having a properly coherent and secured database. As we do so, we will think, “Who’s going to have access to this? What are they going to be able to do with it?”
One issue is that political parties will want access to this data, but they should have to produce a report on what they have done with this data and how, including who they have given it to. We need only think back to Peter Mandelson and what he was doing with his data—giving it to people who he perhaps should not have—to see that we really need to keep a proper grip on what is happening to the data. That would solve most of the civil liberties questions about this. If we make sure that we know exactly what is happening to the data, and if we have a good set of controls over who manages and runs it, and who has access to it, you do not have the problem.
The only civil liberties question left is a rather separate one: should people be able to not be registered to vote? However, that is a rather different question beyond the scope of what we are talking about here, because we have decided in this country generally that people should reply to electoral requests and so on. That is the only one, and I do not think that is a question that automatic voter registration is a problem for.
Professor James: I would draw the Committee’s attention to what happens to the electoral register at the moment in terms of, as Paul has set out, the issue of the open register potentially being a security risk, but also who has access to the marked and full registers. There is currently no requirement, as I understand it, for electoral registration officers to keep a record of who requests and uses those records. That could be introduced. The Electoral Commission could then provide a report on exactly who is accessing those registers and for what purposes.
Political parties, for example, are entitled—and this is correct—to have access to electoral registers so they can reach out to voters, but how parties themselves use the registers is an important question.
The Chair
If Members have no further questions, I thank both witnesses for their evidence and we will prepare for the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Harry Busz, Councillor Peter Golds and Richard Mawrey KC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Harry Busz: My name is Harry Busz. I am the deputy director of policy at Democracy Volunteers. We are the UK’s largest non-partisan election observation group. We have been assessing election integrity across the UK since 2016, as well as in a number of other countries across Europe and north America.
Councillor Golds: My name is Peter Golds. I am a councillor in the London borough of Tower Hamlets; I have also served as a councillor in the London borough of Brent. I am a member of the Local Government Association safer and stronger communities board, and have had a lot of experience in trying to protect people and integrity in elections, safety in elections, and addressing the intimidation of councillors. I have been involved in elections for many years as a candidate, agent and Lord knows what, and have a long-standing interest in electoral malpractice.
The Chair
I am sure we will be exploring the “Lord knows what” as we go along.
Richard Mawrey: My name is Richard Mawrey. I am a King’s counsel and a practising barrister, and have acted as election judge—or election commissioner, technically—in most of the serious electoral fraud cases of the last 20-plus years, so I have considerable judicial experience of electoral fraud and other malpractice in all its guises.
Paul Holmes
Q
Given that in 2015 a Tower Hamlets election court judgment found that personation was one of the interlinked types of “corrupt and illegal practices” that took place, where people’s votes were literally stolen, are the proposals within the legislation good or bad for voter security?
Councillor Golds: I think the list produced by the Electoral Commission was somewhat restrictive; it should have been expanded. We had the situation where service personnel, nurses and so on were arriving with their photocards, but could not be permitted to vote. I am not sure that a bank card is a good idea, because anybody can hand a bank card to somebody else. Voter ID is popular with the public and causes very few problems. People believe it adds security to the electoral process.
Paul Holmes
Q
Richard Mawrey: Yes. As a means of identification at polling stations, I am easy either way on bank cards. Clearly, anyone can obtain a bank card and create an account in a particular name, so fraud would be very easy. The reason why I am relaxed about it at polling stations is that personation at polling stations is a very rare bird indeed, these days.
Most personation occurs with postal voting simply because personation at polling stations is difficult and extremely labour intensive. You have to find bodies prepared to go there and do the personating, and they are personally running the risk that somebody says, “You’re not Mr Jones”—and along comes a large constable and there is big trouble; normally, with personation, you are looking at a spell inside. It is an extremely risky business and you can do it only in penny packets: half a dozen here and half a dozen there.
If you want to influence an election, even a local election, personation at a polling station is a waste of time and effort, so on that issue I am fine. However, I would counsel very strongly against using bank cards as a means of identification for registering voters or for postal votes, because the possibilities for fraud are obvious.
Paul Holmes
Q
Harry Busz: I would add that, as an organisation, we have collected data on the number of turn-aways at the polling-station level, since the policy of photographic identification came in a few years ago. We tend to find significantly higher numbers of people being turned away at the polling-station level than we see in some of the data that has been collected by the Electoral Commission, primarily because of the different stages at which people can be turned away in the process, whether that is signage, party political tellers who are overextending their role or meeters and greeters.
It is an issue because there are particular groups who struggle to either have the ID or to bring the ID with them on the day. From our perspective, looking at different ways to bring in other forms of photo identification, whether that is the digitisation of the voter authority certificate or other forms of digital ID, is welcome. I agree to a large extent with the councillor about reducing the existing level of security when bringing in non-photographic identification.
Paul Holmes
Q
There is nothing in the Bill about family voting, but do you believe it should be amended in that regard? Do you or Democracy Volunteers perceive that family voting is a serious enough issue, and such a prevalent issue, that we need legislation to strengthen the security of that element, Harry?
Harry Busz: Let me be clear about the data that we have collected. With family voting, we collect instances of somebody’s right to a secret ballot being denied to them because of oversight, direction or collusion inside polling booths. As an organisation, we have collected and published data on that for 10 years now. At the latest general election, we saw it in 116 of the 204 constituencies that we observed in. It is a widespread problem all across the country.
Family voting can take different forms. When ballot secrecy is broken, we do not know the relationships between the people who are involved, or whether there is coercive control, so we very much believe that it should not be allowed in any democracy. Everybody’s vote should be theirs and theirs alone. The data that we collected led to the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, which is an important piece of legislation that specifies that trying to influence somebody in the polling booth is an offence. We think that there are ways in which that could go even further.
To clarify, oversight should not be allowed. A lot of the legislation is in place. One of the challenges is election administrators on the ground, with the infrastructure they have, being able to prevent that from taking place.
Paul Holmes
Q
Harry Busz: Yes. For example, the types of polling booths we use here in the UK are a sort of cross-section. The selling points of those polling booths are that they are easy to store and quick to put up, but there is no reference to ballot security, whereas lots of other countries have individual polling booths that can aid staff in preventing family voting before it has started. By the time it has started, it tends to be too late.
Paul Holmes
Q
Councillor Golds: My experience goes well beyond Tower Hamlets. I have been an election agent for parliamentary elections in five different London boroughs and in Hertfordshire, and I have been an election agent in seven different London boroughs for local elections. I have campaigned. I have seen this far too often, in far too many places. It crosses communities. Let us be absolutely clear that we are not talking of any individual community here. It is a situation we could possibly call patriarchal, in which groups of men believe they can tell women what to do. In many places, that will include aggressive, angry white men. Let us put that on the record. I have seen it, and I have tried to stop it.
When we first got involved in this campaign, Lord Hayward, who I believe is here today, steered the Ballot Secrecy Bill through the House of Lords. That strengthened the protections. When we were campaigning against family voting, some bizarre instructions were going around, including one sent by a former official of the Electoral Commission to the police. I mention this because I shall relate it to Gorton and Denton. The police said:
“We have checked with the Electoral Commission and have been informed that just because the voter process was not followed, in terms of secrecy…it might not necessarily relate…to an offence.”
Here it comes:
“The onus is on the individual who casts their vote to claim that secrecy has been breached or that they have been unduly influenced.”
We got the Bill through, and the Act sits there. It is illegal to interfere with somebody. I seriously wonder whether that email is still sitting in an inbox somewhere in a police station or council office.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Golds: I am sorry Chair, but it concerns family voting, doesn’t it? This is the secrecy of the ballot I am talking about, where somebody is interfering with it. The onus is on the individual who casts their vote. This is what it is. That is why the Ballot Secrecy Act, which Lord Hayward and former MP Paul Bristow brought through the House of Commons, was passed with support across the Floor; every party supported it. It went through, as I think colleagues would say, on the nod. It absolutely clarified the law that, if you vote, you vote in secrecy. My concern has always been that it is not being enforced. The law is the law, but where is the spirit?
Paul Holmes
I agree.
Richard Mawrey: The problem—which I have found in all the cases I have tried, and not simply those to do with family voting, but almost any electoral offence—is that there is no point in having rules or statutes, however good and however well drafted, if nobody is prepared to enforce them.
That was particularly the case in Tower Hamlets, where there were multiple breaches of almost every prohibition in the Representation of the People Act 1983. I have never seen that many different offences, most of which were proved to the hilt. What happened there was that they were drawn to the attention of the Electoral Commission, which said, “No problem there; nothing to look at”, and to the police, who said, “Oh, we’re not interfering”, knowing the type of allegations that would be made against them if they did interfere.
Exactly the same happened about 20 years before in Birmingham. The evidence of widespread postal fraud was put in the hands of West Midlands police, and they got a nice little folder, wrote on the outside “Operation Gripe”, put it in a bottom drawer and forgot about it. That was their own evidence in the matter; they were simply unwilling to act.
It is not a question of resources. In many cases, the police were presented with what might be termed an oven-ready case, and they said, “Oh, no, we’re not touching this with a bargepole.” I am afraid that is the problem. Another problem, I am sorry to say, is that the Electoral Commission’s view is that electoral fraud is not happening. Indeed, that has been its view since I delivered Birmingham, hence my comment at the time about banana republics. Therefore, there is no impetus for the people who should be enforcing it actually to enforce the law.
I would say that, on family voting, or indeed any of the matters that are proposed, the law at the moment is fine but, if you do not enforce it, you might just as well put the thing in a bottom drawer marked “Operation Gripe”.
Paul Holmes
Q
Do you think that is a good thing for democracy? Do you think it is needed, given some of the campaigning tactics we have seen? Or do you not think it would not make a difference in general to some of the problems we have seen in by-elections—but also in local and national elections—in the country?
Harry Busz: As an organisation, we do not necessarily have a viewpoint on the issue you are referring to. As well as ballot secrecy and a lot of the other issues that we look at in polling stations, we are very aware of the accessibility of elections and understanding the campaigns going on being important to increasing turnout and getting more people involved in democracy. We do not have a specific policy towards the new clause.
Councillor Golds: I have been an agent for many years. Many years ago, in Brent, I remember issuing leaflets in Gujarati. I think that this is something that needs balance. We need to understand—I sent this back to the regulators—that it is one thing to have a leaflet on both sides having, “Do come and vote for party X, my party. I am a great candidate and my party is wonderful”, if what is printed in another language that might be familiar to people also says, “Please vote for me. I am a great candidate. My party is wonderful.” However, if in English the leaflet says, “Please vote for me. I am a great candidate. My party is wonderful”, but we turn it over and the other language says, “The other people are”—lord knows what—or this, that and everything else, then that is when we get to the problem.
In my view, this has to go back to the regulators. I am sorry to say that. In a country such as ours, with a multiplicity of languages, I want people to get involved. In my current borough, the big thing is Sylheti. If people understand Sylheti and we can put stuff out in Sylheti, all well and good, as long as when something is put in Sylheti, it says the same as for an English-speaking voter. If an English-speaking voter says, “I do not understand this”, and someone can turn around to say, “It is exactly the same”, all well and good, but if it is different, we have trouble.
Richard Mawrey: It would be perfectly acceptable if there were some sort of insistence, as Peter Golds says, for the texts to be comparable, but that is unfortunately not the case—or certainly was not the case in Tower Hamlets, as I discovered. Quite anodyne stuff in English—“Vote for me. I am a good chap”—came out much longer in Sylheti, couched in really quite extreme religious terms. The two sides of the document did not match.
It would clearly be desirable for the two sides of the document to match, so that, in a sense, you could monitor it, particularly if the one that was in a non-English language contained material that ought not to be there in the first place. That can occur, not simply with Asian languages, but with all other languages. You could say something that, you hope, no one outside your language group will understand. It is essential, I think, to monitor that so there is some equality between the obverse and reverse of the same coin.
Paul Holmes
I appreciate that. We will go away to look at how that new clause can be tailored to your feedback, all three of you. The new clause came out of some of the campaigning in the Gorton by-election, so we will go away and look at it again.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Councillor Golds: I am a great believer in election law needing more. At some point, there needs to be a stop and a proper consolidated Bill that brings UK election law into the 21st century. When we did the ballot Bill, we suddenly discovered it needed umpteen pages of amendments, because to deal with the ballot for everything—from a Member of Parliament to a parish council representative in East Grinstead—every single one needed a separate statutory instrument. That is one of the problems.
In 1950, 82% of the electorate voted. At a time when people could not use petrol, there was no social media and postal voting was incredibly restricted, 82% of the people voted, because they wanted to vote. I have the view that you are trying to lead a horse to water and not make them drink. I believe that it is up to the politicians in Government to make sure that people wish to vote for and against Government. That is what will increase the turnout.
I am slightly concerned about many things that I have looked at here, and some things that are missing. For example, in the London borough of Tower Hamlets in May, we will go into the polling stations and the electoral papers will be computerised—I give my name, it goes, “boop doop doop”, and out comes the ballot paper. There are three polling districts in my ward, so why on earth could you not go into any one of the three—now that they are computerised—give your name and vote? Why could you not do that in a parliamentary election? That is what they do in Australia: you go into any polling station in the constituency and they will issue the ballot paper.
Richard Mawrey indicated dissent.
Councillor Golds: Commissioner Mawrey says otherwise.
Richard Mawrey: In answer to that, fraud is absolutely rife in Australia, and it is undetectable because they do not have numbered ballot papers. They can tell that fraud has taken place, but they do not know who the fraudulent votes are for, and those votes count. Quite frankly, an intelligent 10-year-old could game an election in Australia—and they probably do! That is a road down which I would invite the Committee not even to take the first step.
The Chair
Obviously, you are expressing your own view there.
Richard Mawrey: I have investigated the Australians, at their invitation. I am with Peter Golds on the point that modernising the law ought to take a consolidating statute. We do that with a lot of things, like the companies Acts and so on. It would be a new consolidating statute, as the last one was in 1983 and we are now 43 years on. That opportunity should be taken, first, to rationalise all forms of malpractice that are offences and corrupt practices; and secondly, to set up a coherent system for trying electoral disputes, because the present system is hopeless. Various proposals on how to do that have been put forward.
This is not the Bill in which to do it, but this Bill should not be saying, “Well, we have done that. We can park that for the next 10 years.” It ought to be a staging post in thinking, “Right, let us sit down and produce a coherent statute that modernises not simply electoral offences, but how we deal with them.” That is what I would counter. I agree that this Bill is not the one in which to do it, but it should not be treated as the end of the road for 10 years.
Harry Busz: As an organisation, we believe there are lots of positive steps forward in the Bill. Certain aspects around automatic voter registration, and improving the performance and accuracy of the register, are really important. For administrators, such like the extension of the postal vote deadlines will enable people to return their postal votes in a timely fashion. We also think that the issue of protecting staff and including them, as well as campaigners, is really important. Since the voter ID regulations came in, there has been a bit of a shift in the way the public views presiding officers and poll clerks in polling stations, as they now have the role of gatekeeper, having to essentially turn someone away from voting if they do not believe there is a likeness with their ID or similar.
There are areas that could go further, particularly around voter ID. At this moment in time, there is an issue where if somebody does not have a form of ID on the day, unlike in other countries, we have no off-ramp, whether through attestation or vouching, so that the person is still able to participate in the election on the day. The question we see as the most challenging is how these procedures will be done on the ground, particularly inside polling stations and for administrators. As long as there is the ability to increase funding and support for the council departments running the elections on the ground, there are lots of positive steps.
Lisa Smart
Q
I have a question for all three of our witnesses. It pulls on a thread all of you have raised: the inconsistency around enforcement—whether that is local authorities, returning officers, presiding officers or different police forces enforcing things in different ways, or election law finally making it through to court should something need to be tried. I accept that this might not be the piece of legislation to address those inconsistencies, but can you say more about measures you think would be helpful to ensure that election law is applied fairly to all elections across the whole country?
Harry Busz: I would start by taking the family voting point that you specifically addressed. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is something that we saw across more than 100 constituencies at the last general election, and it is something which, as Councillor Golds said, affects all communities. It is a really important issue for lots of different people that we ensure they have the right to a secret ballot.
In terms of those inconsistencies, the areas in which we see a really positive response when family voting might be going on are those where presiding officers and poll clerks can actively step in and prevent it if they are in a less busy polling station— which obviously becomes a bit of a postcode lottery. It also depends on whether the council has the funding and the staff to have a meet-and-greet or a third person in the polling station whose job is specifically to do that work.
Different pieces of election infrastructure are used from council to council, and where polling stations can be set up so that polling booths are separate, that is very helpful in preventing some of these issues. Whether it is that or around accessibility, with all of these aspects, the really important thing we have found is that when the council feels supported—both financially and with the infrastructure they need to run elections inside polling stations—you get much better outcomes.
All staff really want to do their job well and want to step in and prevent these kinds of things, but if they do not have the funding to have a third member in there, or if they do not have the correct equipment, it becomes a lot more difficult.
Councillor Golds: I have a big thing about protecting people, safety and security—and that is everybody. That includes candidates, election staff and the voters themselves. First, I am interested in the nomination process. My belief is that if you are nominated as a candidate, you are nominated as a candidate. The address issue is something from 50 years ago—the 1973 Act, which requires your address to be public.
I spoke about this on the security of councillors, and had an email exchange with a delightful lady in Leicestershire who had heard me on Leicestershire radio. She had expressed concern for years that she gets a bus to go to work, and at her bus stop were her three local councillors’ names, addresses and phone numbers. She thought this was wrong. This is still part of the Act. When we tried to get security for councillors to protect our addresses, we were told it was very difficult. It should not be that, if you are standing for election, your address has to be public. I think it would be terribly easy to change.
I am intrigued by the issue of candidates standing and withdrawing a nomination. One of my ideas—and I think about this very carefully—is that if a candidate is standing for a political party and they withdraw their nomination, then on nomination day the proposer and seconder, or the registered political party, should have the right to substitute another candidate, so that you do not have somebody trying anything ridiculous. We also have to look at expenditure. There are too many stories that live on the internet of extraordinary issues. You are quite right to look at it, and it needs to be tightened. We have spoken about the secrecy of the ballot.
We then come to enforcement and intimidation. I do not know how we protect people. Eighteen months ago, I had an extraordinary day at the Home Office where a group of councillors went. I was the only male councillor there. We were promised an hour and a half to discuss problems. Three and a half hours later, Home Office officials asked, “Do you want to continue?” because of what women of all political parties were saying to them. This included a female councillor whose husband had given her a purple coat, and she had appeared on television wearing it. A local nutcase said that her husband was a member of the Illuminati and a paedophile, and had gone through her address on Companies House, and published his company address and the fact that he was a school governor. This is a fact of life that can be found. If you look, every council cycle I have ever been involved in—Rallings and Thrasher always talk about this—we get women elected who serve one term, not lots. This persecution must stop.
Finally, you have to do something about the intimidation of people going to vote and crowds at polling stations—that is growing and growing. Everybody has the right to walk quietly down a street and into a polling street, and then to pass their vote as they do. I have seen observers from the European Union and the Commonwealth look at British elections, and they are staggered to see mobs of people standing outside polling stations, pushing and shoving. Those are simple things that you could look at, and I believe you would help voters, candidates and, ultimately, yourselves.
Richard Mawrey: We are back to the problem of enforcement. In quite a lot of countries, every polling station is attended by at least one burly constable who keeps an eye on things and acts as a sort of enforcer, and the great thing is that they do not have any connection with the local authority.
The problem with staff at polling stations is that they are all necessarily connected with the local authority, and it is very easy for people to convince themselves that the ruling group—so to speak—on the local authority is conniving so that voters are likely to vote for them. In most cases, it is complete and utter nonsense, but it would greatly strengthen confidence in the voting process to have somebody independent—it does not matter whether it is a policeman or anyone else—at a polling station who is prepared to call out intimidation, family voting or whatever it is.
At the moment, people are not confident because they perceive—rightly or wrongly—that the rules exist, but that the rules are being broken and nobody cares. As Peter Golds said, it does not require much imagination to see how any of that can be blown up in social media to a result that is very unfortunate for the electoral process.
Interestingly, most of the arguments being put forward today are the same as those that would have been put forward in the Public Bill Committee on the Ballot Act 1872, when the secret ballot was introduced. It was introduced to stop all the sort of abuses of the electoral process that had been occurring up to that time. Some 150 years on, we are still trying to deal with it.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Q
Mr Mawrey, I am wondering about the degree to which personation takes place, and how much of that is a problem. We are hearing other people express doubts about the use of ID and whether this is robust enough. To what extent is that a real issue?
Harry Busz: On the data that we have collected, we will always have two observers inside polling stations who are observing together, because they will have more time to see whether people come in, see a sign, turn around and go out, or whether somebody is stopped by a teller or an extra member of staff who might be directing them to the polling desk. We see a number of people who are turned away from voting initially, but we do not collect data on whether those people come back in the same way that the Electoral Commission does.
At the general election in 2024, we saw that 1.37% of all voters were initially turned away, compared with the Electoral Commission’s figure of 0.25%. We believe the main reason for that difference is that we are seeing other voters who do not get to the actual presiding officer’s desk. The Electoral Commission’s data was collected from the ballot paper refusal list, which the presiding officer has to sit down and sign when a voter has that situation.
Sam Rushworth
Q
Richard Mawrey: At polling stations, it is very little, and it has historically been very little. If you look back over the election cases, there are very few successful challenges arising out of personation at polling booths. I cannot speak on Northern Ireland, because historically it has always been more of a problem in Ireland—both before and after partition 100 years ago. In England and Wales, and possibly in Scotland, it is not a noticeable problem.
The problem of personation is with postal voting, because that is where it can be done on a level that will affect the result of the election. Unless you can guarantee a knife edge, where three votes either way is going to ensure that “X” is elected as councillor—which none of us can guarantee—then telling people to risk, in effect, their freedom by going along and casting one vote is penny packet stuff. You would not bother. If you wanted to rig an election, you would not go down that route.
Sam Rushworth
Q
Richard Mawrey: Yes, that is a different problem. People being turned away is a different problem. It does not involve an electoral offence, but it is none the less serious.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
Q
Richard Mawrey: You bowled this one at me somewhat outside the wicket. There is provision in the 1983 Act for assisting people with certain levels of disability—for example, helping those who are blind. I think that there are provisions—this is entirely off the top of my head, because I was not expecting this—for people with learning difficulties.
There are certainly provisions for people who are physically incapable. If you require someone to push a wheelchair into the polling booth, you can do that. That is perfectly above board. The rules might be looked at there, but they exist. We have never said, “You are a blind man. You have to work out how to vote. You’re on your own.” You would never actually say that. That is provided for by the Act and has been, basically, for 100 years.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Councillor Golds: I have witnessed this several times in my life. I remember, after ’83, taking a blind woman to vote and watching the presiding officer do the process. He said, “I am clearing this area,” and he took the lady over and discussed it with her. He said, “Mr Jones, the Labour party candidate. Mr Smith, the Conservative party candidate. Mr Brown, the Liberal Democrat party candidate.” Then he asked, “Who do you wish to vote for?” She said so quietly and he marked the ballot paper. It was done incredibly professionally. I have seen it done with people with disabilities, where sometimes they are taken into a side room. What we are talking about goes straight back to where we began—it is the case that people do not know. The facility is there, you just need to get people to know.
Harry Busz: From our observations back in 2024, we found that there are two separate issues. One is the polling station building and whether that is accessible—importantly, independently accessible—for somebody to get to the presiding officer’s desk and a polling booth. Second is the type of aids that are there for them to be able to vote independently. It is very difficult to find the correct buildings and buildings that are accessible. Councils struggle, election to election, to go, “We have this much time. We need to find these spaces.” Over the last few years, we have seen a real improvement in the type of aids that are given to people. We have gone from just having a tactile voting device and maybe a pencil grip to a lot more councils having things like lighting and QR codes with audio lists of candidates on, which is really encouraging.
There are lots of countries around the world where we observe far greater levels of accessibility aids. I remember once seeing somebody in the USA, who was paralysed from the neck down, being able to vote independently by blowing through a straw—I did not really understand how that worked.
There are ways that we can improve. Obviously, it all costs a lot of money. Some of the opportunities to make elections more accessible for people could be through advanced voting, and having voting hubs and specialised pieces of equipment in a single polling station, which anybody could use if they were voting in advance of the election.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Q
Harry, earlier you mentioned a percentage of people in your data who get turned away at polling stations. Was that all because they did not have the appropriate ID? I have seen people get turned away from polling stations simply because they have turned up to the wrong one. Do those people get included in your data, or is it just people who fail to bring the appropriate ID?
Harry Busz: That figure is just for people who fail to bring ID. We do see people who are turned away because they may not be registered or they may be at the wrong polling station, but they are not included in those statistics.
Lewis Cocking
Q
Richard Mawrey: We have not really touched on automatic registration. I can see the thinking behind it. My view is that it is going to be almost impossible to achieve in practice, because you can only register people automatically if you are satisfied that they are entitled to vote.
By the time that you have ascertained that they are entitled to vote, you have had to have carried out some form of inquiry—possibly even a house-to-house inquiry —on who is living where and whether they are entitled to vote. Assuming you have people living in a house, you go and knock on the door and say, “Do you live here? Are you entitled to vote?” If they say yes, do you then go further and say, “On what basis can you show that you are a relevant Commonwealth citizen?”, or whatever it happens to be.
It may be a marvellous idea, but in practice, it will turn out to be unworkable. I suspect that it will also turn out to be an opportunity for gaming the system. People will be automatically registered who have no right to be, because the registration office has been in good faith, so to speak, set up by fraudsters to do that.
By all means enact it, but I suspect that when push comes to shove, registration officers are going to start saying, “How do we do this?”, and they do not have the money, staff and resources. I think that it will turn out to be rather a damp squib. I am not saying it is a bad idea; I am just saying it is an idea that ain’t going to work.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel, and hear oral evidence from the Henry Jackson Society. We have until 4.10 pm for that panel. There will be a vote called during it, and I will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes at that point.
Examination of Witness
Alexander Browder gave evidence.
The Chair
Mr Browder, can you introduce yourself? I do not know if you heard me say that there is likely to be a vote during the course of your evidence. I will suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. The MPs present will vote, but we will come back to hear the remainder of your evidence.
Alexander Browder: Good afternoon, I am Alexander Browder. I am the founder of the global cryptocurrency laundering database—the first and largest open-source database on cryptocurrency laundering. I am the author of the report, “Confronting the Illicit Finance Hydra in the Crypto Markets: Protecting Retail Investors and Disrupting Hostile Government Exploitation”. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you have regarding how the UK could see cryptocurrency interfering in our elections. I have seen a number of bad actors using cryptocurrency to influence politics elsewhere, so I am happy to provide some examples.
Paul Holmes
Q
Alexander Browder: You cannot have crypto donations without a proper regulatory framework, and there is not going to be a whole regulatory framework for all of cryptocurrency until at least late 2027. You cannot have the wild west of cryptocurrency without proper guardrails. You need to be able to establish that those guardrails are effective in stopping foreign and criminal interference in our elections. If cryptocurrency is deemed to be permissible, we need, firstly, to be able to disclose the wallet addresses of the political donations.
There should not be any limit to the reporting requirements for cryptocurrency donations; at present, it is above £500. All cryptocurrency should be stored in institutions that are registered with the UK Financial Conduct Authority. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission needs more power to be able to investigate cryptocurrency donations. At present, they cannot access cryptocurrency wallets or investigate cryptocurrency exchanges, which leaves a whole gap open to foreign interference.
Paul Holmes
Q
Alexander Browder: Bad actors are continually evolving, and within cryptocurrency there are a number of different tactics that they use to conceal their funds. One that is particularly relevant to this issue is something called smurfing. That is where donations are split across cryptocurrency wallets to stay under the £500 reporting threshold.
There is also something called a mixer, which allows a user to send funds in and receive a whole different address. That means it is impossible to trace for an investigator who wants to try and see if a criminal has donated. At present, the Electoral Commission does not have any power to investigate. Political parties are not proper investigative bodies and do not have the skills to investigate this complex situation. More power needs to be established for this.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Alexander Browder: It has been used throughout the west by bad actors to interfere in political elections, particularly by Russia. I want to highlight three notable examples. The first is a European political scandal linked to a bitcoin donation that almost toppled the Czech Government in the summer of 2025. The Czech Justice Minister, Pavel Blažek, accepted a Bitcoin donation worth $45 million. It turned out to come from Tomáš Jiřikovský, a convicted drugs and arms trafficker who spent three years in prison for operating a dark net drug marketplace.
It was particularly interesting that the donation and the connection to the drug trafficker was discovered by the public only after the Czech had auctioned it off. Blažek’s successor at the Ministry of Justice commissioned an external audit that concluded that the donation should have been refused due to the significant risk that it came from the proceeds of crime. In that case, it was discovered only with a significant delay from when the donation was made.
The second example took place during the Moldovan parliamentary elections, where authorities found that illegal funds from Russia were moved through crypto-currency accounts, laundered through illicit cryptocurrency exchanges and then distributed by couriers to buy votes for pro-Russian political groups and to make donations in cryptocurrency. Moldovan investigators blocked $107 million that was destined for pro-Russian political groups. There were also reports that connected crypto flows directly to interference campaigns that used apps to pay activists, conduct illicit polling and directly pay people. That was paid for with the largest stablecoin in the world, USDT, which is operated by Tether.
Finally, in the 2016 US elections Russian hackers used cryptocurrency to buy infrastructure that targeted US individuals involved in the presidential election. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I reconvene the sitting. You had completed a sentence, Mr Browder, but had you completed your full answer?
Alexander Browder: I have one more thing to say. There have been reports of Russian state actors engaging in malign activity targeting the UK. One such example is an arson case, where Russians paid individuals here in the UK to set fire to warehouses supplying Ukrainian aid. How were they paid? Through cryptocurrency. More recently, in another case, just last year, Russians paid a Lithuanian national to deliver bombs using DHL packages destined for London. The payment was through cryptocurrency. This is an existential threat to the UK and the democratic process. Something must be done.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Alexander Browder: Overall, there should be more strict and rigorous requirements for crypto donations, if those are permissible. Specifically, political parties should be required to release the cryptocurrency wallets they receive donations from; they should be required to store the cryptocurrency in UK Financial Conduct Authority-registered companies; and any amount should be reportable.
Not only that, but donations involving something called privacy coins should be stopped. A privacy coin is a recent development within the cryptocurrency space and is completely untrackable. One such example is Monero. Privacy coins should not be in the democratic process, because you are not able to verify the donor. Furthermore, laundering services like some I mentioned before—mixers—should not be allowed to be used for political donations, because they make it much harder for the Electoral Commission and political parties to investigate.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Alexander Browder: I saw that report, which was very good. As I mentioned, cryptocurrency as a whole may only be properly regulated, at best, by the end of 2027. It needs to be established that cryptocurrency can be regulated, and that that can be enforced properly, to stop bad actors like Russia from entering our elections. What also needs to be established is that the people who are donating are not foreign entities like Russia, but are UK citizens. This is a big issue; due to the inherent nature of cryptocurrency, you are not able to verify properly the source of funds.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Q
Alexander Browder: There need to be stricter “know your donor” requirements. Not only that, but the enforcement on parties should be greater. If they do not respect the political process, there should be higher fines and stricter policies.
On your last point, through my investigations I have found that Companies House has been abused by cryptocurrency exchanges. In one particularly egregious case, two IRGC-linked companies managed to register here in the UK under false names. They were operating for four years, while registered here in the UK, processing billions for the IRGC. That raises the question whether some foreign actor or criminal could set up a UK-registered company and donate through that? That definitely has to be looked at.
The Chair
I am afraid we are out of time for this witness panel, but thank you, Mr Browder, for your evidence this afternoon.
Examination of witnesses
Colin Blackwell, Imogen Tyreman, Richard Williams, Jenny Shorten and Tom McAdam gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jenny Shorten: Good afternoon. My name is Jenny Shorten, and I am the chair of Liberal Democrats Abroad, living in France. I was an election agent and campaign organiser for 40-plus years in Wiltshire.
Tom McAdam: Hi, I am Tom McAdam. I am a member of the Liberal Democrats Abroad steering committee, and I live in Zurich, in Switzerland.
The Chair
Excellent. We also have three witnesses in the room. There is always a bit of choreography when we are rotating between online and in-situ witnesses. Could the witnesses in the Committee Room introduce themselves too, please?
Colin Blackwell: I am Colin Blackwell, and I am deputy chairman of Conservatives Abroad.
Imogen Tyreman: I am Imogen Tyreman, and I am the chair of the Labour International constituency Labour party.
Richard Williams: My name is Richard Williams, and I am Labour International’s representative on Labour’s national policy forum.
Paul Holmes
Q
Colin Blackwell: Thank you, Paul. The simple answer is no, it does not. A survey about voter participation among overseas electors in the OECD has shown that the UK is a significant statistical outlier, with the lowest effective participation rate. Only around 1.3% of the more than 5 million people in that potential electorate are thought to have successfully cast a ballot at the last UK election. This Bill, of course, does not overtly address overseas electors, but one of its objectives is to increase voter participation.
In line with the Electoral Commission’s recommendations, Conservatives Abroad believes that technological advances now make it possible for a secure and verifiable online facility to be introduced to allow overseas electors to download and self-print their ballot paper and return envelope for one-way return posting. New Zealand and Singapore are two English-speaking Westminster democracies that have implemented downloadable ballot papers, and they use a biometric identification app to verify overseas electors downloading ballot papers against the voter registration ID credentials that were provided at the time of voter registration.
Unlike at the time of the Elections Act 2022, when Conservatives Abroad first recommended this approach, the UK now has this technology. In the last few weeks, we have seen the launch of the Government Digital Service’s One Login app for gov.uk services, and it is now available. That was previously not a technological possibility, but now it absolutely is. New Zealand and Singapore are the gold standards for downloadable ballots for their diaspora.
Paul Holmes
Q
Imogen Tyreman: In the proposal itself, there are some elements that will help overseas voters to get on the register and exercise their vote and that go further than the current situation, such as the extension of the postal vote and requiring earlier registration. There are also things such as automatic registration, looking at passports and some of the pilot projects. However, I think that more can still be done, particularly on postal votes. That is often what people use, because there is not really enough information about proxy voting, and electoral registration officers do not know how it can operate. That feels like a barrier.
To take the example of postal voting, there is a return rate of 70% or so if ballots are sent out early. But of the postal ballots that were sent out later during the last election—around 27 June—only 2% were returned. Looking at specific countries, there was only a 6% return rate for Australia. There was a higher return rate for France, at 75%. In Spain, which is also a European country, only 32% of ballots were returned. Royal Mail itself has said that it takes six to seven days for standard letters to reach the rest of the world, so if the postal vote deadline is 14 days, I do not know how we are expecting ballots to reach voters and get returned in time. For us, having downloadable ballots is one option, as well as looking at the potential for online voting, and at the use of embassies and consulates as voting hubs or places where we can return ballots. They could potentially go back by diplomatic mail, which is much quicker.
Paul Holmes
Q
Imogen Tyreman: Yes.
Paul Holmes
I was just checking—I was not trying to catch you out.
Richard Williams: Perhaps I can just add to that last point while it is top of mind. Something that came up in discussions among members of Labour International was what could be viable alternatives to the current system. Of course, we are not the first country to talk about electronic voting.
Other European nations have successfully introduced electronic voting, with Estonia probably being the best example. In its last election, over 51% of votes were cast via an electronic system. A number of measures are built into that system to avoid things like voting coercion, whereby multiple votes can be cast and only the very last one is actually counted, and physical voting always takes precedence when both electronic votes and physical votes are received.
Having said that, to come back to the original point on whether Britons abroad are adequately addressed as a voter group, I think the numbers that Colin rightly spoke about are telling. Of the 5 million Britons living abroad, only just under 200,000 are on the electoral register, which speaks for itself.
There are really three main reasons for that. One, beyond looking at processes, is simply awareness: many Britons are not aware that they have the right to vote if they are not living in the country. There is no proactive communication on the side of the Government. It is very much left to the individual themselves to find out what their rights are and then to go through the process of contacting the local authority where they used to live in the UK—I did it in Ashford, Mr Joseph’s constituency. It is relatively easy, but there is then the additional process of having to register for a postal vote, which happens afterwards. Those things are all addressed in the Bill, and I think there are some improvements there, but the awareness is the first hurdle.
Then there are the processes themselves. And the third point, in some cases, is probably apathy: if you do not have an MP representing your interests as somebody living abroad, you do not care about the potholes in the local high street as much.
Paul Holmes
Q
Jenny Shorten: We don’t disagree with any of what has been said, but I will pick up on a couple of points. On the last point you made, about contact with MPs, I conducted a survey across all parties to look into exactly that. The answer to the question, “Do overseas voters think they are represented?” is no, because things like the automated replies say, “I can only help you if you live in the constituency.” It is no wonder they feel invisible, and that is a word that has regularly cropped up in our surveys with people who get in touch with us; they say, “I feel like I’m not there and not being taken notice of.”
The other thing I wanted to direct our thinking towards is whether the processes and systems set us up to fail or to succeed. As a former election agent, I would say that the election timetable is not fit for purpose; it does not make sense. It went wrong for UK electors last time round, but particularly for those overseas. As I think Imogen remarked, you cannot get it done. With the current options, you have to wait until 19 days before polling day to know who the candidates are, so that is the earliest you can prepare ballot papers. People can still register up to 11 working days before. It is not going to work, however hard and however assiduously the people who administer it actually try.
On behalf of all of us, I think, I would like to say thank you to the Electoral Commission for finally collating the figures on how many postal votes got back in time; it is the first time we have seen them. I am sure the Committee is shocked by the fact that it is less than half. We need to look at the process, but it is also a significant matter of culture.
Paul Holmes
Q
Tom McAdam: I would just like to touch on the opportunity here. When we look at France, at the last legislative elections, it had a 37% turnout of overseas citizens. We can compare that with the turnout of British citizens overseas at the last general election, which was 5%. There is a huge opportunity. It is not one measure that will help that, but a package of measures.
The apathy point is really important. Without a dedicated overseas Member of Parliament talking about the interests of overseas citizens, it is easy to feel that we do not have representation in Parliament. Given the problems with actual voting, people do not feel incentivised to attempt to vote. I do not think that any one measure will really move the needle but, if we take everything as a whole, we might be able to move towards the numbers seen in France.
Paul Holmes
If the Minister decides to make me the MP for overseas voters, I am more than happy to do surgeries across the world.
Samantha Dixon
Q
As an aside to Paul’s point, I do receive correspondence from constituents who live overseas, usually in respect of their pension arrangements. However, to tackle the point about apathy or disengagement, the Bill includes powers to pilot automatic voter registration. Do you think that that would be a valuable tool for overseas voters?
Colin Blackwell: As others have touched on, awareness is everything. Conservatives Abroad believes that what is vital above all else is raising awareness of the right to vote and encouraging overseas citizens to register, which is now done online.
Historically, the civil service has always said, “Oh, we can’t contact Brits overseas because we don’t keep a register. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know who they are.” That raises the question of how this part of the electorate would be suitable for automatic registration.
Today’s Government services are delivered digitally and electronically in a way that was not done before. Many Departments now interact digitally with millions of British citizens living overseas. The most obvious one is the Passport Office: half a million passports from overseas are renewed every year—over 10 years, that is 5 million. The international pension centre at the Department for Work and Pensions deals with more than a million overseas pensions. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office keeps registers of Brits in individual countries. Lastly, the first place people go when they move overseas is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to change their address. Millions of British people living overseas still pay British taxes in one form or another or make voluntary NI contributions.
What I am saying is that, if all these digital interactions between Government and overseas Brits were brought together, and a link to the online voter registration page were automatically provided in those interactions, you would overnight reach potentially millions of this invisible electorate with the exact place they need to go to register to vote. That is the approach that Conservatives Abroad would suggest you look at.
Imogen Tyreman: Automatic voter registration pilots are a great thing to look into, especially for overseas voters. I agree that we should look at how registering for a passport could link to registering to vote. Yes, it might miss some Brits, but unfortunately we do not keep a record of emigration, so it is the best opportunity we have. However, there needs to be a package of other measures or that will not necessarily affect turnout.
We see lower turnout in countries that have passive registration, so there must be accompanying measures, even if it is through the Electoral Commission, to help us to contact voters abroad to inform them. That could be something like a free post or an opt-in registration. Such options need to be explored, and the timeline for renewal also needs to be considered to make sure that people stay on the register.
Richard Williams: I agree with all the points that have just been made. There is one group of people who have emigrated who might fall through the cracks if you look just at the HMRC records of people who have emigrated: those born to British parents overseas. These people may have a right to citizenship but have never lived in the country. They have specific difficulties even getting on to the electoral register. In many cases, they need to provide evidence of their parents’ birth certificate and their own birth certificate, and then there is a question of where their vote should be assigned. This topic came up in discussions with other Labour International members.
Beyond that, if we speak about the choice architecture, we certainly echo the sentiment that we are in favour of trialling automatic and automated voter registration. One topic that came up in discussion with our members, which is perhaps a way to look at doing this, was the idea of automatic reminders upon passport renewal, which is an interaction that many Brits abroad will have. If you structured that in such a way that people would then have the choice—ticking a box to say, “Yes, I want to be on the register,” or “No, I do not want to be on the register”—it would simplify and consolidate the process for many people.
There is then the question of whether there is an opt-in or opt-out approach. In the notes accompanying the Bill from the House of Commons Library, there was a reference to the Sheffield University case study in which 75% of students were enrolled on the electoral register through a process whereby they were prompted upon their annual enrolment for university. That figure compares with 13% for other universities. If that system were explored in a pilot for voters abroad, we might expect to see similar results just by structuring the choice in such a way that people have this prompt, and we could then ask whether it should be an opt-in or an opt-out choice.
The Chair
We will come to you, Ms Shorten.
Jenny Shorten: May I cede the floor to Tom?
Tom McAdam: We are in favour of AVR. A YouGov poll at the last election showed that only 26% of Brits abroad understood their rights, so automatic registration, using the touch points that were previously mentioned, is something that we would support. On Imogen’s point about the free post, voters abroad should be making informed decisions and receiving literature from candidates in the same way as domestic voters, so we would support anything that enables, say, one free post or an electronic communication from candidates to citizens abroad so that they are able to make an informed decision.
Jenny Shorten: May I just add one other thing to the last point about the free post? If you look at the Select Committee report, it suggested a review of the general election process. It suggested that a good first step would be to centralise the records of overseas electors and have them all on one register. You could then start to have the target group effectively in one place. Informally, I chatted with electoral registration officers in the run up to the last elections Bill, and they were saying that we deal with pretty much everybody overseas—though not entirely everybody—by email, so our records hold that data. If you put together a centralised register and the fact that the councils already know where to find these people, you have the means by which to inform them.
It must be right that you can have the basic data flowing about who the candidates are. It is not about their vote, which is their choice—I am sure we will discuss digital in a moment—but about what their choice is. In this day and age, I do not think there is any excuse for why I am expected to vote for people I have never even heard of and who have not approached me.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Colin Blackwell: Yes, in one word. That is really precisely what I was trying to say in my previous answer. I renewed a passport from overseas. I provided a local mobile phone number and an email, and there is a healthy two-way interaction: they tell me that my passport has been printed, that it is on its way and so on. There are plenty of opportunities within that interaction to mention it to the overseas citizen. They are already sending me something to ask whether I want to donate my organs, so why can’t they also send something that says, “Do you want to be on the electoral register? This is the link to do it”? Other Government Departments can also follow that.
Whether to register or not is ultimately someone’s choice, but they should have the facts, they should have the link, and they should have the knowledge that they have the right to vote.
Imogen Tyreman: I also agree. I think being prompted is very important generally, even in conversations with us. Everyone here is giving oral evidence as a member of a political party. We are aware that our right to vote came back, but speaking to our communities of Brits abroad and reaching out to friends and family, not everyone was aware. Some people were not aware that they had regained the right to vote. Renewing your passport is a basic starting point. I would not say it is the end goal, but it is the starting point for getting people back on the electoral register and able to exercise their democratic right in this country that they were given.
Richard Williams: I echo all that. The only thing I would say is: why not take things a step further and design an automatic opt-in? There have been studies of automatic opt-ins for organ donation, and you get a much higher acceptance rate if the default is set to opt-in and people are manually asked whether they do not want to let their organs be donated. Why not do the same thing for being on the electoral register? Assume people do want to be on it, unless they do not. Of course, you can then differentiate between the limited and open register and the full register, but I think, at least for the limited one that stays confidential, this could be looked at to make things even easier.
Jenny Shorten: Can I echo the point that was just made? If it is right that eligible voters in the UK automatically go on the register, why is it not right for British citizens eligible overseas to be treated in the same way? I think it is a very straightforward answer. It might have to be done by a different method, but the principle should be exactly the same.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Q
Colin Blackwell: Each constituency has a separate overseas register, and we political parties get this. We get all the overseas register data. I am not exactly sure what benefit a central register brings, other than maybe convenience, but I do think it is potentially a slippery slope for then saying, “Oh, well, let’s have overseas constituencies just for overseas Brits,” which we do not think is a good idea. We think it is counterintuitive and has the potential to severely reduce overseas electors’ representation, not enhance it.
At the last election, in our manifesto, the Conservative party saw the solution as appointing a Minister for Brits abroad—a representative in government battling for Brits abroad, and effectively, with civil service support, answering the questions that MPs get from their overseas electors. I do not necessarily see the benefit of unifying the existing separate overseas registers into a single one.
The Chair
You have had the last word of this panel, Mr Blackwell. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses in the Boothroyd Room and online for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Azzurra Moores and Chris Morris gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Demos and Full Fact. We have until 5.20 pm for this panel in our revised timescale. Will our witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Azzurra Moores: Hi, my name is Azzurra Moores. I am the associate director of information ecosystems at Demos, the UK’s cross-party think tank.
Chris Morris: Hello, I am Chris Morris, the chief executive of Full Fact. We are a charity and we do fact-checking. We also have a technology team and a policy team to try to tackle issues of misinformation.
Paul Holmes
Q
Clearly, in the election strategy announced before Christmas, the Government said that our
“democracy is being threatened by misinformation”.
Both your organisations have come up with fairly similar recommendations, including, in the Demos report on electoral online harms, the recommendation for a political digital repository. I think that is quite a good idea. Can you outline to the Committee, on behalf of your organisations, where you think that the Bill is deficient in tackling such threats, particularly those from digital communications?
Azzurra Moores: I should clarify that our recommendations are so similar because Demos, Full Fact and other civil society partners have been working together.
Paul Holmes
I would never have guessed.
Azzurra Moores: We are working together partly because there is a real feeling among civil society that the Bill is much too narrow in scope and does not go far enough to tackle some of the major threats to elections that we are seeing. Part of the reason we came together is the quote that you referenced, Paul: the Prime Minister himself said that misinformation is a huge problem, and actually we are seeing such threats to elections.
We have come together to think about some of the recommendations. We have come up with a number of recommendations on a range of issues, including online harassment of candidates, given that the Bill focuses a lot on in-person harassment of candidates. We have also looked at deepfakes, and at how digital advertising needs to be modernised. We really feel that the Bill is, at the moment, a bit of a missed opportunity to tackle something that is—this is the consensus among civil society—a huge threat to democracy.
If we do not tackle some of these issues now, we do not know when we are going to tackle them to prepare ourselves for the next election. We were quite lucky in the last election that we did not see major threats to democracy or huge amounts of interference. But we have seen examples globally, including across Europe and in Canada, and we have seen examples outside election periods. We feel that that is why the Bill needs to be amended to provide for some of the bigger threats that elections face.
Chris Morris: To back that up, part of our fear is that a lot of what is in the Bill has been locked in for so long that these really important aspects of misinformation and disinformation are missing. As you suggested, we are in a situation where technology is moving at warp speed.
We recognise that legislating at a fixed point when the technology is moving so quickly is not easy, yet the Bill falls significantly short of its original aims, which included restoring trust and strengthening the integrity of our democracy. If you are going to hold an election, the information environment in which it is held is absolutely central to the public perception—I think I am going to use the word “transparency” a lot during this session—that the system is working in their favour and can be trusted.
People are sceptical—we like scepticism; scepticism is good. The danger is that it tips over into outright cynicism. The more transparent the measures in the Bill can be, and the clearer it is that people understand they can trust the system—and that they can trust that political parties and candidates, when standing for office, are held to high standards—the better it will be. The concern is that the technology is outweighing the ability of Committees like this one and legislation like this Bill to do the job they set out to do.
Paul Holmes
Q
These quotes are from your briefing, Chris, if I may plagiarise and read them out. A former Minister said that more needs to be done to deal with hostile actors. My boss, James Cleverly, has said that the Conservatives would support
“sensible, proportionate measures to ensure that AI-generated political material is clearly labelled and subject to transparency as a requirement”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 635.]
Zöe Franklin, who serves on this Committee, said that section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 needs to be updated to
“explicitly criminalise the use of AI and deepfakes”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 651.]
Your briefing also mentions what Martin Wrigley and Alex Barros-Curtis said. Emily Darlington, with her two excellent amendments, has tried to tackle this issue.
What interactions have you both had with officials in the Department to see how far you can get in probing and trying to get these issues included in the Bill in the first place? What would you say to the Committee about Emily Darlington’s new clauses 22 and 24?
Chris Morris: Overall, both our organisations are talking to officials all the time, so the doors are open, which is good. Part of the problem with the debate about deepfakes is that, in my opinion, some people want to go too far. It is worth exploring the idea of criminalising deepfakes as essentially identity theft, but I would have a lot of caution around that.
It is good to explore those policy options, but we are much more in favour of transparency of labelling. We have suggested an amendment that is very specific about the way that political deepfakes can be labelled. If you go down the road of criminalisation, you come to a very difficult line about where satire suddenly becomes criminal. Nobody wants to factcheck satire, and nobody wants to make satire illegal.
Again, we have to start looking at some of these things in a slightly different way to take account of the way that technology has made it incredibly easy for anyone to create new information just like that. That is the world in which we are living. Trying to criminalise some of those things would be a dangerous path to go down, but clear labelling—transparency of source—is absolutely key.
Azzurra Moores: I would echo Chris’s point. We are incredibly grateful to the officials we have spent many months talking to. They have been incredibly constructive and open to hearing these recommendations. We are sitting in front of you because all those recommendations have not made it into the Bill.
Part of the reason Emily has put forward so many amendments is because these issues deserve to be debated by parliamentarians, but they also deserve to be debated by the people they are impacting. A lot of the things we are looking at here will impact every Member around this table, and it is for you to decide how you tackle them.
You have mentioned a couple of Emily Darlington’s amendments, and I want to turn to new clause 10. You mentioned section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and I thought it might be worth clarifying that, while this measure is something she has put forward, with Demos and Full Fact support, it is actually a recommendation that came long before. It came out of the Speaker’s Conference, which I know many members of the Committee were part of, and it is something to which the Government have now responded by saying, “We understand that this is important.”
New clause 10, if anything, is just a vehicle for the Government to action something they have already said could be really valuable. It would not create new law or new bounds to discuss free speech; all it would do is say that deepfakes exist as a medium through which you must not make false statements about another candidate. It is a very simple amendment that asks the Government to publish legal guidance, so that there is no uncertainty among officials, regulators or the police. It is quite a simple approach, and that is what we have felt is the most important way forward. These things have been discussed for a long time, and the amendments are allowing them to be discussed within the scope of the Bill.
Paul Holmes
Q
Very quickly, as I know other people want to ask questions, I can see why people would want to support new clause 24’s repository of digital political advertising. One of the drawbacks that I think we can see in the new clause, which I want to strengthen, is that the Electoral Commission obviously will have responsibility for establishing a repository of paid-for digital political advertising within the 72-hour window. Where do you both think is the ideal location for that repository? Where would it sit? Would it sit with a Government Department or in a Government agency? Who would be the regulator, and who would be the manager and data controller of that repository? Do you have a preference for how that might be legislated for, such as in a new amendment?
Azzurra Moores: Our original preference was for this to sit with Ofcom. To be frank with the Committee, when this amendment was tabled, there was pushback on including any new powers for Ofcom in the Bill. At the moment, new clause 24 puts those powers on the Electoral Commission, and I personally do not mind who holds that power. I do not think it particularly matters, and it is really for Members to decide themselves.
What matters are the principles that we are trying to discuss here. We want to give voters the ability to verify whether a political ad is real, and we want to allow them to do that in real time. We have given scope for 72 hours, but we would obviously hope that it would be sooner. We also want those adverts to be transferred to the National Archives so that, in years to come, we understand how elections were fought.
Who holds or pays for that? I think that is really a matter for the Committee. We can discuss in detail whether it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, but I think we need to make sure that we agree on the principle that elections are no longer fought just in person; they are fought online, and we therefore need really stringent measures to understand how elections were fought in years to come.
Chris Morris: But I would argue that it should not be a Government Department, which you suggested as a possibility. I think it should be Ofcom or the Electoral Commission, and I think the Electoral Commission would be happy to take on that responsibility. Again, it comes back to the issue of transparency, as people deserve to be able to see what is there. It is important not only for researchers but for ordinary voters, because they are bombarded from so many angles with advertising of various kinds. Creating a repository would be a big democratic step forward.
Paul Holmes
I would be one of the people sad enough to go to the National Archives to look at them, so I am fully in favour of it.
Azzurra Moores: Me too.
Chris Morris: See you there.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Chris Morris: It is not all doom and gloom. If we take the example of digital imprints, measures have been taken to extend the digital imprint regime. Our argument is simply that it does not go far enough, and it should go further. For example, it should cover things like fake newspapers or websites, which can be set up in seconds, that do not include their political party affiliation. The digital imprint regime is being slightly improved by the Bill, but it is simply not ambitious enough.
We also have to think not just of 2026, but of 2029. If you look at how technology has changed since the last general election in 2024, it is almost in a different league. I regularly ask my head of AI, “Where are we going to be in three years’ time?”, and he usually says, “I’m not sure where we are going to be in three months’ time.” We need to have the flexibility to make sure that the measures are as wide as possible, because even if we broaden them in the way that we suggest to include a wider variety of things, by 2029 we may be looking back and saying that it probably was not enough.
Azzurra Moores: It is very hard to disagree with Chris. The imprints work is huge progress. Obviously, it could go further, but I appreciate that a lot of the things we are asking for were not in scope when the Bill was being drafted. Does it cover the issues we are talking about? No, because it never intended to. That is where we are saying there is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and be wider.
While it may have started with a narrow scope, perhaps once you hear what Philip Rycroft says through his review—and read our amendments slightly further—it will be appreciated that there is an opportunity to say, “How else can we make the Bill safeguard elections for the future?”
Chris Morris: To add to that, on a slightly different part of the legislation, it is good that the Electoral Commission will have greater powers on information sharing and enforcement, but we would like to see it have greater powers on information gathering.
There is a bit of a gap on who is responsible for regulating in that area. We would have liked to see that covered in the Online Safety Act 2023 and given to Ofcom. That did not happen, but one thing that could and should happen in this legislation is giving the Electoral Commission the power to compel people to hand over information or documents really quickly, such as in the heat of an election campaign, without having to turn it into a formal investigation, which as you probably know is laborious and takes time. A lot of this is about agility as well as transparency.
Zöe Franklin
Q
I want to talk about doxing, and my understanding is that it is not currently within the scope of the Bill. For anyone who is not on top of doxing, it is where information is gathered about you and then dropped online so that people can find out where you live and other information. Given that the Speaker’s Conference and the Crown Prosecution Service have both spoken out about how important it is to address this, do you feel that it is a problem that doxing is not currently in or addressed by the Bill?
Azzurra Moores: What you are trying to address is the issue of online harassment. Doxing is one part of it, but online harassment takes many shapes. I certainly do not need to describe that to members of the Committee, who will have experienced it themselves.
We definitely feel that tackling online harassment is a massive missed opportunity in the Bill. For those of you who might have followed the work of the Online Safety Act Network, it has proposed a new code to tackle online abuse and harassment during elections. Again, that has not been tabled as an amendment to the Bill, partly because it was felt to be out of scope.
When looking at in-person harassment, we also need to understand that those in-person threats happen digitally as well. Certainly, the issues you are raising, such as doxing, could fall under that code. As I said, it is not something that has been tabled, partly because of the narrow scope of the Bill, but I encourage Members to look to that and perhaps have representatives from the Online Safety Act Network come in to give evidence.
Zöe Franklin
Q
Chris Morris: My one-word answer is yes, but let me explain it in various ways.
Broadly speaking, it is not unreasonable for us to ask the most powerful companies in the world—who have enormous power over our information environment and, therefore, increasingly over how everyone in this country gets information—to take on a more responsible attitude, some of which we believe should be made statutory.
As part of media and political literacy campaigns, for example, there could be education about why harassing candidates is not a good thing to do. Some of that behaviour comes from ignorance, and from people seeing how others behave on social media.
One of the recommendations we have made, and it is in our written statement, is that there should be a statutory obligation for the big tech companies, the online platforms, to make sure they are fully involved in media and political literacy campaigns. They do some good things, but we have to recognise, and we have to be realistic, that in the end their bottom line is their share price. Regulating how information flows is difficult. At the moment, we are essentially allowing them to regulate themselves, and I think sensible regulation of these companies—we know there will be howls of protest—is exactly what the Members of this House should be doing.
Azzurra Moores: Maybe I can quickly explain why we have gone for such a narrow scope in our recommendation on deepfakes. We recognise that deepfakes are a really complicated topic to regulate, and they need something far bigger than an elections Bill to regulate. Really, wholesale AI regulation is needed.
While the section 106 recommendation does not put new requirements on platforms, it starts to test the bounds on how you would regulate political deepfakes, which we appreciate is a really complicated topic. It is a slow and steady approach to amending legislation, rather than coming in and making big mistakes straightaway. This would be a first step, but obviously there need to be conversations within Government about how we could go further on that as well.
Dr Chowns
Q
Secondly, do you agree that we need to regulate not just during the regulated period but all year round, because disinformation has corrosive effects all year round? Thirdly, do you have any comments on the need for better enforcement of existing imprint laws? Finally, you referenced the Rycroft review, which of course covers only foreign interference. Are we paying enough attention to domestic disinformation?
Azzurra Moores: There were lots of good questions there. You ask what more could be done on bots. Chris raised a proposal to increase the Electoral Commission’s investigative powers. For those of you looking at the amendment paper, that is new clause 25 tabled by Emily Darlington.
Tackling bots is going to be really complicated, but we think a really important first step is to give the Electoral Commission investigative powers on the back end of platform data, to try to understand the scale and scope of the problem. Part of the reason we cannot do much more at the moment is that we have a real evidence gap—a real evidence deficit. We need to start giving our regulators, which are on the frontline, more ability to understand the scale of the problem. For us, that would be a first step.
I am intrigued to see what the Rycroft review publishes. Demos gave evidence to Rycroft, and we highlighted that foreign misinformation is obviously impacting our democracy, but so is domestic misinformation. We are waiting to see what he publishes before going further on that.
On international counterparts, we have recommended that this Government establish a critical election incident protocol, modelling what happens in Canada. It is quite a complicated protocol, and it is proposed in new clause 26, but essentially, if there was any interference with an election—if there was an information crisis that impacted the integrity of the election—there would be a published protocol on what officials would do to react to that.
We are a real outlier here in the UK, compared with the other Five Eyes nations, in not having a public protocol. We think this elections Bill is another really important opportunity to say, “We know there are vulnerabilities. We know there are risks. We need to establish transparent public protocols so that, should any of these interferences happen, we have a set of measures that mean we know how to react in that instance.”
The Chair
You have 10 seconds.
Chris Morris: To add to that, Full Fact first put forward the idea of a critical election incident protocol in 2022, and really nothing has been done. The problem we have is that there are plenty of people working on this behind the scenes—the joint election security preparedness unit and the defending democracy taskforce—but it is all very much being done in the shadows. This is not always a case of democracy dying in darkness; this is about democracy under threat in the bright blue backlit light of a million scrolling phones.
That is the scale of the challenge we are facing now. It is not just about making sure we have an electoral framework that is fit for purpose; it is about making sure that there is a public perception that it is fit for purpose. That is why the issue of transparency is so important. If there were to be a major information incident—by that, we mean in the last days of the campaign, clear evidence emerging of a concerted attempt to alter the course of the outcome of an election in some way or another—the more transparent and public the process is for revealing that, the better.
The Chair
That brings us to the conclusion of this evidence session. I thank both witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Duncan Hames, Dr Sam Power and Dr Susan Hawley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Transparency International, Dr Sam Power and Spotlight on Corruption. We have until 5.50 pm for this panel. Could I ask each of you to introduce yourselves and say a little about your organisations?
Duncan Hames: Hello, I am Duncan Hames. I am the director of policy and programmes at Transparency International UK, which is the British chapter of a worldwide anti-corruption movement in more than 100 countries.
Dr Power: Hi, I am Dr Sam Power. I am a lecturer in politics at the University of Bristol. I should also say, for transparency, that for about the past 18 months I have been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and internal University of Bristol funds to work as a parliamentary academic fellow in the House of Commons Library. Based on my area of expertise, I have written various impartial briefings on matters relevant to this Bill, but I am, of course, speaking in my capacity as an independent academic from the University of Bristol today.
Dr Susan Hawley: Hi, I am Dr Susan Hawley. I am executive director of Spotlight on Corruption. We are an anti-corruption charity that focuses on the enforcement of the UK’s anti-corruption laws, including on political integrity and political finance.
Paul Holmes
Q
I have taken great pleasure in reading all the evidence that has come in today. There are some bits I agree with—particularly from Dr Hawley and Dr Power—but there are some recommendations that I would be concerned about if we started to implement. Sorry, Mr Hames, but I am going to focus on the other two witnesses first. First, where do you see the balance between the freedom to practise democracy and overburdensome restrictions that could harm transparency and restrict voter interaction with the party political process?
We have heard this morning that there is a perception that overseas voters are finding it incredibly hard to engage with voting and have many obstacles to voting. You have a proposal that any overseas voter wishing to be considered a permissible donor should also be a UK-registered taxpayer and have submitted at least one non-zero tax return in the two years prior to making the donation. Does that not risk creating two tiers of voter—well, we already have that, but exacerbating it? For example, someone in receipt of benefits or who falls underneath the tax threshold in this country is allowed to vote. Why should they be allowed to vote, if an overseas voter who does not pay tax should not be allowed to vote? That is to Dr Power, then I will come back with another question.
Dr Power: There is a two-tier system, effectively, if you have overseas voters and overseas taxpayers, and UK-based taxpayers. It is pretty easy to draw a distinction between where the level of threat is and where the level of overburdensome regulation is, if you will.
I sometimes get concerned when I hear about how this approach can be overly burdensome. It is often used as a crutch to prevent genuine weaknesses in the system being dealt with. I do not think it is too much to ask of people who live overseas, who might well be slightly more politically exposed, to show that they are also engaging with the British system and paying tax in that respect. I do not necessarily have concerns that that creates a two-tier system—people are allowed to donate in the UK, of course, and people are allowed to donate overseas. Of course, if they lived overseas and did not pay tax, they could donate under the £500 limit.
Paul Holmes
Q
“Parties are increasingly building up their war chests well before the run-up to elections and engaging in permanent campaigning. This can have an impact on subsequent elections; as the Committee for Standards on Public Life…noted in its 2021 report”.
It is always going to be the case that political parties have to fundraise to communicate with the electorate. Where is the balance? What I could not quite work out from that submission is where you see the balance between restricting fundraising and keeping communications with the electorate going over that 18 months, rather than seeing it as campaigning? I might not be clear, but I am trying to see where you see that balance coming through.
Dr Susan Hawley: This is not about stopping it; it is about having limits apply across the annual period. An amendment that relates to the digital campaigning side has already been tabled. That is a recognition that we are in an age of permanent campaigning and to make sure that the public know what is being spent to influence them. It is about transparency and fairness, because if some parties are able to keep a lot of money in those pre-regulated periods and others are not, an imbalance is created when it comes to the election. It is about transparency and fairness.
Paul Holmes
Q
“Prohibit crypto donations until/unless…crypto currency becomes much more widely used by a greater cross-section of the population”.
That is something that needs to be seriously explored, because of evidence given to us earlier in Committee about the lack of regulation that has caught up with something that is to me completely not understandable. You support that proposal, Dr Hawley, because it is your proposal, but do the other two witnesses support an interim ban on cryptocurrency donations until the regulatory framework has caught up? Also, if we get a suitable regulatory framework, do you think such donations should be re-established or do you think that they should just be banned permanently?
Duncan Hames: We do support a moratorium for the purposes you describe. How temporary it should be depends on whether it is possible to address the risks. At such point as Parliament is confident that other forms of payment carry no additional risk to sterling or even cash, then the case for the moratorium would not be as strong. Right now, it is an absolute minefield to try to work out exactly where this money originates, which drives a coach and horses through the existing rules we have on political finance.
Paul Holmes
Thank you. Dr Power?
Dr Power: We are short on time, so I will say yes, and you can refer to my evidence. The only thing I would add is that one of the concerns we have about crypto-currency generally is its ability to supercharge donations below £500, which is underneath the check for permissibility. If that is a particular concern with cryptocurrency, there is a case for not only banning it, but bringing down the level of the permissibility requirement. In my submission, I suggest £50, which aligns with the candidate regime, because that would create a further barrier to that particular concern.
Samantha Dixon
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: We welcome the introduction of the “know your donor” regime, and the clarifications that it will have robust penalties for parties and candidates who do not undertake proper risk assessments. I am afraid that it currently needs some tweaks to be strengthened.
Obviously, we do not want to impose too much of a burden on parties but, if we are addressing foreign interference, it is very odd that the current “know your donor” policy does not say anything about addressing the potential source of wealth from high-risk jurisdictions or politically exposed persons. That is our first point. Any other regulated sector would and does need to address those risks.
Secondly, as the policy is currently framed, we think there is far too much discretion for political parties to decide what the risks are. That is unhelpful, because there will be inconsistent application of risk assessments across parties. That discretion should be reduced.
Finally, we have concerns that the fact that the Electoral Commission’s guidance can essentially be changed by the Secretary of State could lead to it being completely overridden, and that would be really problematic. We would like to see safeguards to ensure that cannot happen if there is to be a power for the Secretary of State to amend the Electoral Commission’s guidance.
The Chair
Q
Dr Power: I would only add that I concur. The one slight concern I have with the “know your donor” requirements is overly burdensome regulation. The thresholds for conducting those requirements should align with the thresholds for the person having to undertake them, because you could end up with a situation where a regulated entity is looking at three different thresholds. I would want the Bill to be clear that these align, and I know that the Electoral Commission shares that concern.
Lisa Smart
Q
You talked about reducing discretion, and there are proposed amendments that would clarify who is no longer a permissible donor. I agree that clarifying some of that would be helpful for political parties. However, may I invite all the witnesses to talk about what is currently in the Bill on money coming in from overseas? The Government have been very clear that they want to take steps to tackle foreign interference, and we are looking at the recommendations from Philip Rycroft’s review. Could you say whether the provisions in the Bill are robust enough to stop foreign money being funnelled through UK entities? If not, what steps would you recommend to tackle that?
Duncan Hames: We certainly welcome the valiant efforts that officials in the Minister’s Department have been making to address this issue, and there are some welcome steps, particularly on unincorporated associations, to ensure that they are not used as a back door. However, we do not have any prohibitions in this country on people who are not entitled to vote in this country owning companies that trade here. Therefore, it would be entirely possible for someone who you all agree should not be allowed to donate money in British politics to none the less acquire a company that does that job for them, which would comply with the provisions as currently set out in the Bill.
Our view is that, hard as we might try, so long as people are determined to find a way, it is very hard to be absolutely confident that you have shut this door. That is why we think the lack of any kind of cap whatsoever on how much any one person can put into British politics means that the risk of money entering British politics and getting round these controls is uncontained. We would argue that these measures need to be accompanied by some kind of donations cap.
Dr Susan Hawley: It is absolutely a risk. I believe the Rycroft review is looking at whether you make sure that the regulated sector and financial institutions in the UK are playing their role. There would definitely be scope for a joint intelligence unit where they could share transactions that appear suspicious with law enforcement. Obviously, that relates to whether the enforcement set-up is sufficient and whether the laws are sufficient. In relation to enforcement, this also comes down to having proper donor declarations and beefing up the section 54A donor declaration to address some of those risks and make sure that the money is not coming via permissible donors in the UK, but from abroad.
Dr Power: We also have regulated and unregulated periods at which different levels of scrutiny apply to donations to different regulated entities. Of course, some of those entities are less regulated or unregulated during unregulated periods.
As a thought experiment, if I were a malign foreign actor, I would probably focus on the unregulated periods as the times when I could use my money wisely, as it were. There is a good case for considering, within reason, how we can move towards a system with year-round regulations, taking into account the importance of a vibrant democracy, such that we do not end up with money being spent and donated during relatively unregulated times.
Lisa Smart
I am working with the Public Bill Office on an amendment that extends the regulated period. Given the narrow scope of the Bill, that is a way of thinking about that.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: The Electoral Commission needs to come up with robust guidance on that. It needs to look at industry standards from the regulated sector to tackle money laundering. I want to come back to the donor declaration, because that is also critical to this. We have heard from law enforcement that it is not clear to them that the proceeds of crime are not allowed as donations, for instance. If you have a situation where proceeds of crime can be donated, that is pretty extraordinary. We need a robust section 54A that puts some onus on the donor and makes a false declaration a criminal offence.
I do not know whether that answers your question, Lloyd, or whether you wanted me to talk more about “know your donor”, but I think they complement each other. You have “know your donor”, which is about what parties do, but also the donor declaration, so that you are putting some onus on the donor to actually be honest about where that money comes from.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: No. I think it has done a valiant job in introducing the beneficial owner test and a UK connection test, but we know that the Electoral Commission has flagged the revenue test for corporations as a real risk for foreign interference. The way that is laid out in the Bill also does not provide a cap at all; it allows money to be donated to a host of different people.
The revenue test really needs to be looked at again, because we have the Electoral Commission saying very clearly, “There is an increased risk of foreign interference if you keep the revenue test.” You also have tax experts saying that it is actually fairly easy to generate significant UK turnover while having no genuine UK operations. This is the moment to look at that again. It is also not quite clear why a company that owes a lot of tax, or that is making a loss, should feel it needs—or should be able—to donate.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: It is very much an improvement on what we have at the moment; I think everyone would agree that, if you have a multimillion-pound campaign budget, a £20,000 fine is frankly laughable. We would, however, like to see it strengthened in two ways.
First, we would like this to be on the face of the Bill. We have a report coming out next week in which we compare the Electoral Commission’s powers to the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom. Those bodies have this in the legislation, and they also have not just a maximum fine level but a percentage; the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that it should be £500,000 or 4%, whichever is higher. Again, you could argue that, if you have a multimillion-pound campaign budget, £500 k could become a potential cost of doing business, so we need that percentage option to give the Electoral Commission the flexibility to impose penalties in egregious cases.
Secondly, the Electoral Commission has a very high threshold, compared with other regulators, for when it can actually impose penalties. Ideally, we would like to see that looked at again, because no other regulator is hampered by that high threshold.
Duncan Hames: If I may, the problem with enforcement is that it takes a long time, and we are talking about democratic events here; by the time enforcement takes place, the consequences have already happened. People saw Elon Musk giving out cheques to make millionaires of people taking part in an election campaign in the States; they all thought that the rules were being broken and that something should be done about it, but nothing was, and he was at the right hand of the President within weeks of that moment. We ought to be looking at measures that we can take that prevent problems from happening, rather than just chasing things after the event.
Nathan Gill is serving a 10-year prison sentence for bribery offences, which he admitted to in court, that happened nearly 10 years before he was convicted. There is a long lag if you rely on that kind of enforcement to address offending, and the problem that you are trying to stop.
Lloyd Hatton
Q
Dr Susan Hawley: We really welcome the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—published today—that there should be a specific unit. I think that there is growing recognition within law enforcement bodies that that is required. Up to now, the problem has been that those law enforcement bodies will argue that they do not have the laws or the sentences that would empower them to use the serious investigative tools that they have at their disposal to get to the bottom of some of this behaviour. That is why the criminal offence in section 54 and section 54A really needs to be looked at. We welcome the amendment recently tabled by Matt Western to address the knowledge test so that it is not set too high.
We also need to look at sentences because we hear again and again from law enforcement that if you do not have a serious crime-level sentence, you cannot use the skills that you can deploy for serious crime for this kind of offending. If we are talking about foreign interference, those are the tools that need to be deployed against impermissible donations.
Dr Chowns
Q
Duncan Hames: We propose that a cap of £50,000 annually from any one donor is reached by 2030. That would still be much higher than in a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced donation caps, such as Canada, France, Italy and—from July—Australia. If it were phased in, with a cap reducing year by year between now and then, that would provide time for political parties to adapt.
We have done our own modelling, which I would be happy to share with the Committee, in which we look at the effect of that cap on overall party fundraising. I think you will find that, although we have recently had an arms race in campaign spending—not least because the spending limits were raised so dramatically just before the last general election—political parties fought all sorts of elections and referendums in the previous decade without needing anything near the kind of money that was available in the last general election, when nearly £100 million was spent.
Dr Power: I agree that we absolutely need a cap on donations. I am less wedded to a level as much as to the idea that there needs to be a cap that people can get around the table and agree to, and which seems fair. To not have a cap on donations risks much more than to have one. It is absolutely essential. We have seen the effect that can have in countries that do not have caps on donations, particularly the USA, and the effect that the very rich can then have.
What I mean by that is not an effect on the outcome of politics but an effect on the process of politics. You end up with about 400 individuals accounting for 75% of total party donations. Given that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill, that is not a situation in which people are represented. It is essential that we find some way—in a Bill called “Representation of the People”—to fix the system properly such that the people feel represented. A cap on donations is essential and well within the remit of the Bill.
On a cap on spending, I align with the 1998 CSPL review, as well as Jack Straw when he introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He said that there has been an “arms race” in spending and that we should always set a spending limit below the extent to which we expect to spend at an election. Until 2023, that limit was set at £19.5 million, if you stood a candidate in every constituency, which does not happen. If we say that the limit was £19.5 million, that should have been the baseline, and there was no good justification for it to be uprated in 2023—in fact, I think there is a good case for bringing the limit down further still. It would not have an effect on the good that money does in a system, which is to enrich debate and to allow political parties to get their positions across.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of this panel. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of witness
Samantha Dixon MBE MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We are now going to hear oral evidence from the Minister. We all appreciate that the Minister has been struggling with her voice today, and I am sure we will bear with her during this evidence session, which is scheduled to last until 6.10 pm.
Samantha Dixon: Thank you, Chair—you are really kind. I hope Members will indulge me, and I will do my best to answer their questions today.
Paul Holmes
Q
Part of my concern about this Government’s approach to legislation is that we very often see a jumping to legislate before the evidence is there, and then a backtracking on a number of things. For example, we had a planning and infrastructure Bill being implemented before a devolution Bill, and that devolution Bill cancelled elections to enable things to be delivered, but the elections were then forced back on. It seems that this Government do not think through public policy properly, and I think the Bill is no exception.
It seems odd to me that the Government asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review into election interference, but they have then introduced a Bill that is bringing forward a number of measures in the same field. As a result, the Bill may go through the vast majority of its parliamentary stages and then rely on secondary legislation, which is a concern that many professors outlined earlier.
Have you made any representations to other Ministers in the Department or to No. 10 for a delay in this legislation, so that the Rycroft review can report and develop recommendations? You could then come back to the House and form a cross-party Committee to see whether those recommendations can be implemented, rather than following this hotchpotch approach that will see the Bill passed, only for a review to then make a number of recommendations on the same subject matter. Does that not seem odd to you?
Samantha Dixon: Last July, the statement of policy was set out in Parliament, so there was quite a considerable amount of time before the introduction of the Bill. You have seen policy developing over that time.
The conviction of Nathan Gill, which is why the Secretary of State asked Philip Rycroft to undertake the review, was a pivotal moment that highlighted and brought together a number of the issues that the witnesses have talked about today. The Secretary of State set the terms of reference for that review very carefully, but I think that Philip Rycroft indicated that he would act with speed. While I have not met him to date, I know that many people have, including members of this Committee, because his door has been very open to those who want to talk to him. I anticipate that his recommendations will come forward soon, and it is the Government’s intention to listen closely and carefully to what he brings forward.
The Bill, as you will know from Second Reading, is a carry-over Bill, which gives us an opportunity, as we go forward, to consider the recommendations. It is likely that our Committee will finish around the time that we are prorogued, and that Report will come in the second Session of this Parliament. That pause is being provided to us by parliamentary time.
Paul Holmes
Q
I have one more question, which is about digital ID. Since this Government were elected, fairly and resoundingly, it has been clear that they have a problem with the previous Government’s measures on digital ID. Almost every witness today has outlined that the Government’s proposals on bank cards as a potential form of ID are not a good idea; they said that that would not increase security at polling stations or people’s security over their vote, but actually reduce it.
Will you listen to those witnesses and give a commitment to the Committee to go back to the Department and remove bank cards as an acceptable form of ID? Can you outline to the Committee how showing a card with a name on guarantees that the person who is turning up at the polling station is the named person, and how that is fundamentally different to the old system, where a polling card could be taken to a polling station and a vote be given out?
Samantha Dixon: I think that the integrity of the UK banking system is such that the possession of a bank card requires a degree of ID that is necessary and appropriate. We have to remember that prior to the 2022 Act, there was no ID requirement at all. We have also heard evidence that instances of fraud were extremely low. The introduction of the bank card ID is important because it is widely held by the population, in particular by under-represented groups including 16 and 17-year-olds. I have heard the evidence that the Committee has heard; none the less, I think the inclusion of UK-issued bank cards is an important addition to voter ID, and one that we should continue.
Paul Holmes
Q
One of the witnesses today suggested that you could have automatic enrolment to voter identification paperwork or digital ID; that is something we would support. What problem are you trying to solve in trying to bring in a bank card as a possible type of identification, when that does not prove your identity? A very minor number of people are affected by this. How much do you anticipate that a bank card will make a difference to the numbers we have heard about today?
Samantha Dixon: We are talking about people who have the right to vote, but are excluded from voting because they do not have the appropriate ID. Although I accept that many people have passports and driving licences, not all do, and many more people have bank cards. The legitimacy of the banking system in the UK means that those cards should be used by younger people in particular, but could be used by any person who wants to vote in person at a polling station.
Paul Holmes
I find it interesting that most of the people who we consider to be academics, and have made their life’s profession the integrity of the election system, are not in favour of it, but the Government are choosing to go ahead with it anyway. We will look at that further in line-by-line scrutiny. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.
Lisa Smart
Q
It is clear from all the evidence we have heard today that all the witnesses welcome a number of the steps in the Bill, but a number of them expressed disappointment that the scope had been written so narrowly and that it does not stand up to the moment of crisis and peril that our democracy faces. If the Government think that first past the post is the right system, why not have a national commission on the voting system to test that thesis?
Samantha Dixon: The Government believe that the voting systems that we use to elect our representatives are really at the heart of our democracy; they are of fundamental importance. We welcome views and feedback on how democracy can be improved. I am grateful for the interest that you have shown in this particular area, but I can confirm that we are content with the voting system that we currently use in general elections, and we have no plans to establish such a commission.
For UK parliamentary elections, we believe that the first-past-the-post system establishes a really strong link between the constituency and the representative. Although it may not be perfect, we believe it is well understood by the electorate and the communities that we represent. When a seat needs to be filled in Parliament or a council, for example, that link between the representative and those they represent is important. First past the post is appropriate for that system.
There are occasions for other voting systems for wider electorates, and this Bill will make provision for them. For example, for a mayoral election, we are in the process of bringing forward legislation to revert that system back to supplementary voting. When it is a broader constituency—a mayoral area that may cover many constituencies—we accept that that voting system is more appropriate. But at this stage, for council wards and parliamentary constituencies, we remain of the view that first past the post is the best system.
Lisa Smart
Q
Samantha Dixon: The view of the Government is that companies that pass all of the other tests and want to donate to a political party may on occasion be in a position where they are not making profit. For example, if they are taking investment decisions across a particular year, which mean that they are in a non-profit situation but their revenue is still working, they should not be excluded from donating to the political system. That is why the Government’s view is that the test should be revenue, as well as the other tests in place, which we feel are very robust, around UK residency of the persons of particular interest but also the UK headquarters rules and the “know your donor” rules.
The raft of measures that we are introducing make it far more difficult, notwithstanding the evidence and views of those we have heard today. We feel that it brings in protections that currently are not there and will protect our electoral system. It may be that Philip Rycroft comes forward with measures around this, which we will listen to as well as the evidence that we have heard today.
Lisa Smart
Q
Samantha Dixon: We have not designed these measures around specific individuals. I am not sure that the hypothetical illustration that you have given would pass the “know your donor” test, but I am happy to come back to you on that point.
David Simmonds
Q
Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand?
Samantha Dixon: You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.
David Simmonds
Q
Samantha Dixon: Right. My point is that, where a digital ID has that holographic clock, it is possible that the Government would consider that measure. But I do not believe that digital bank cards currently do.
Katrina Murray
No, I will put the Minister out of her misery; hopefully, she can get to bed.
The Chair
On that basis, I call proceedings to a halt. Thank you, Minister, for your efforts. That brings us to the end of today’s session. I understand that the Government intend to amend the programme order.
Ordered,
That in paragraph (1) of the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 18 March 2026, leave out line (b). —(Deirdre Costigan.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Deirdre Costigan.)
Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 24th March 2026
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 March 2026 - (24 Mar 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 13 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I ask everyone to ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind those present that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group will be called first; for a debate on clause stand part, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate their wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group, I shall call again the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press to a vote any non-lead amendment, new clause or new schedule in a group, they will need to let the Chair know. The order of decisions will follow the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that that explanation is helpful.
Clause 1
Extension of right to vote etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 33, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 does not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament that reviews why the age at which it would become legal to vote in parliamentary general elections should differ from the following—
(a) the age of majority in the Family Law Act 1969;
(b) any minimum ages specified in law which the Secretary of State considers appropriate to review.”
This amendment would prevent Part 1 of the Act coming into force until the Secretary of State had undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in this Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I look forward to discussing the finer details of this important Bill with members of the Committee.
Clause 1 extends the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, local elections in England and Northern Ireland, local referenda in England, and police and crime commissioner elections, as well as ward elections in the City of London. The Government committed in their manifesto to increasing young people’s engagement in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. That will enable young people in England and Northern Ireland to join their peers in Scotland and Wales, who can already vote in local and devolved elections. The change is aligned with the aim that the Government set out in the national youth strategy to ensure that young people are “seen and heard”, and will build the foundations for people’s lifelong participation in our electoral processes.
Furthermore, the Government’s view is that once 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. For that reason, the clause also ensures that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to sign recall petitions, as all other electors are permitted to do. The clause will support the Government in our work to deliver on our commitments to young people, meaning that approximately 1.7 million eligible 16 and 17-year-olds will have a say in all UK elections for the very first time.
Amendment 33, which was tabled by the Opposition, would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on why the voting age for UK parliamentary elections should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which provided that
“a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of eighteen”.
Under the amendment, the report would also be required to include comparisons with other age limits that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and would have to be published before voting rights could be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.
The important question is not about what else a person can or cannot do at age 16, but whether 16 is the right age at which to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer is yes: 16 is the right age for a person to be able to exercise their democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future, and will set them up for lifelong engagement in our democracy. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have views, which deserve to be represented, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.
Making decisions about the electoral franchise on the basis of comparisons to legislation made nearly 70 years ago is not, in the Government’s view, the way to build a democratic system fit for 2026 and beyond. The amendment would simply delay the delivery of a manifesto commitment that, given the response to the Opposition’s reasoned amendment on Second Reading, has already been shown to have the overwhelming support of the House. Accordingly, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it.
Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law.
At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?
Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no.
Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified.
There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience.
Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood.
Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised:
“For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.”
It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on:
“Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.”
Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I smile at the idea that it is convenient for us to pass the law; it is never convenient to pass a law.
The hon. Gentleman has set out a number of ages at which people can do different things. Most people would agree that adulthood is not the flick of switch but a continuum. We do things at different stages; many would argue that voting is at the lower end and is one of the earliest things that we should do. That was the position of the Conservative party when it came to choosing three of our recent Prime Ministers; 15-year-old Conservative party members had more say over who was the Prime Minister of this land than the rest of us. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
Paul Holmes
The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman is that I do not want to legislate for when people can become engaged in politics. Younger people can absolutely become engaged in politics and join a political party. As I think I have said previously, I love elections and I love politics. I joined the Conservative party at 15, and I have not regretted my decision—sometimes.
Engaging with a political party is absolutely acceptable. If the hon. Gentleman has a complaint about the system of younger people electing a party leader, then we can have a debate about that. But we cannot pick and choose different ages for when a person becomes an adult just because it is convenient. I contend that the reason why the Labour party brought this matter forward in its last manifesto is that it wanted to extend the coalition of voter that it thinks favours it politically. That is why the Bill has been presented and brought before the Committee today. I suspect that every Labour Member secretly knows that that is true.
Let us not pretend that this is a divine intervention of principle. It is being done because the Labour party wants to extend the coalition of voters that it suspects is more likely to vote for it in the election.
Sam Rushworth
Every political party has equal opportunity to appeal to every voter. Why does the hon. Gentleman feel that Labour party politics is more attractive to younger voters?
Paul Holmes
If the hon. Gentleman only dares to look at the polls from recent weeks, I suspect that he will find that his style of politics and his party’s politics are not attractive to 16-year-olds—they are voting for other parties because of the record of the current Government. But I do not want this to be a debate about how popular or unpopular the Government are.
Political parties can select the age of their memberships, but the Conservative party fundamentally believes that the age of majority should be made more consistent. When it comes to deciding the future of the country, 18—the age at which a person becomes a statutory adult and has the rights of citizenship—is the age at which people should engage as a citizen in the democratic process.
I understand if the hon. Gentleman disagrees with that, but many countries around the world disagree with him. I do not expect him to agree with my speech at all, but if we look at some of the reports that I have outlined and the statistics that have come out, we see that there is no evidence that voting at 16 increases participation rates in elections. My party will be in a minority of one in the vote on this issue because Members across the House have different views.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware that the evidence submitted by the Electoral Reform Society says that research has shown that the younger people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives? What he has said about there being no evidence is not correct.
Paul Holmes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but look at the evidence that the Electoral Reform Society gave the Committee. It believes in a change of voting system and in reducing the age of the franchise to 16. However I have just cited evidence from a report from his Minister’s own Department; it states that there was no significant change in participation rates when the voting age was reduced in Scotland for the independence referendum—it was the polarising effect of the independence referendum that increased participation rates.
The hon. Gentleman has cited one source. Although the Electoral Reform Society is a very good organisation, I have a number of disagreements with what it said in Committee when we were cross-examining. It believes in changing the electoral system, in greater limits on political parties being able to maintain their business and in votes for 16-year-olds. That is not the Conservative party’s policy, and I hope I am setting out reasons why I do not think it should be the Government’s policy. There is evidence showing that there is not an overall increase in participation rates in general elections, or national elections, when the voting age is 16.
The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, has argued for a voting age of six. He has said:
“we don’t apply a test of competence before granting the right to vote to anyone other than children. So why start with them? Setting imaginary tests before allowing enfranchisement is essentially a 19th-century idea.”
He goes on:
“I do believe in a very basic competence threshold, which is the ability to express a preference in the first place. Being in full-time education seems a reasonable way of establishing that”.
The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. If they think somebody can vote, why do they not think that person should be able to stand in those elections? I will give way to any Labour Committee member who can explain to me why the Government have advocated for a drop in the voting age to 16 but do not want those people to stand in elections. Is it because of competency? Is it because, dare I suggest, the Government do not believe they are mature enough to stand in those elections?
Sam Rushworth
I am happy to share my personal view on that point with the hon. Member. As was mentioned a moment ago, growing up is not a moment that happens between one night and the next. It is a continuum, and different ages apply to different things; people have to wait until they are 21 to do some things. One vote is one grain of sand on the beach. It allows people to meaningfully participate in democracy. That is, of course, entirely different from actually being an elected representative themselves. To me, that is a fairly obvious point.
Paul Holmes
What I think is fairly obvious is that if there was consistency from the Government, someone’s being allowed to vote for their representatives would enable them to stand as a representative themselves.
I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s and I want this Committee to be good tempered—as his colleagues will know from previous Bill Committees, I am a very good tempered individual. However, I politely suggest that the hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it. He is again saying that there are variations of participation. He is proposing to open up the franchise to 16-year-olds in the election of Members to this place and the Government of the United Kingdom, but he does not want them to stand in those elections and have that participation in democracy. In his intervention, I heard no solid reason why the Government do not believe younger people should be able to stand in those elections.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I was elected as a councillor for the first time at the age of 22; at that time, someone had to be 21 to stand in local elections, although they could vote at 18. Inevitably, I think, the Government accepted the argument that there was a serious inconsistency if someone could vote in an election but was unable to stand in it. That goes to the point that my hon. Friend is making.
There is an old saying: “If you are not a socialist in your youth, you have no heart; if you are not a Conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that this issue is solely about trying to garner the vote of 16-year-olds, not about a change based on principle?
Paul Holmes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward.
I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so.
The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections.
Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—
Paul Holmes
Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend recall the last Labour Government’s measures to raise the participation age? They took a very clear view that people at 16 were not mature enough to be trusted to leave school and start working life, and there was legislation compelling them to remain in education or employment-based training until the age of 18. Does that not give a very clear indication that this is a marked inconsistency—a departure?
If we were to have MPs and councillors at 16, they would be compelled to still be in education at the same time. That would require, for example, under the laws passed by the Labour party, Parliament to implement its own college system so that those 16-year-old MPs were able to continue their education while serving their constituencies.
Paul Holmes
What an interesting idea from my hon. Friend. It is one of his more radical suggestions, but he raises a serious point. The inconsistency of this Government’s approach to the age of majority is about to be made worse by this Bill.
If the Minister had come to the Committee this morning and said, “We are going to open a proper consultation and review on the age of majority”, that could be a starting basis for a genuine conversation in this country. At the moment, as my hon. Friend outlined, the Government are proposing to allow a 16-year-old to vote, but they have mandated them to stay in full-time education, meaning that they do not pay tax. They do not have that stake in the Government, because they do not pay those taxes. As I have outlined, the Prime Minister said himself that people who vote should be paying taxes. That would not be the case under this proposal.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on other aspects. The Government believe in 16-year-olds not being able to join the armed forces or secure a bank account without parental support, but they want them to be able to elect the Government of the United Kingdom, because it is convenient to them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposition to bring in votes at 16; it is perfectly reasonable, and I know many Labour Members genuinely believe that. I have no problem with them, but if they are going to do that, they should at least bring what a 16-year-old can do in society on to a level playing field.
The way this proposal has been brought forward, on the basis of the reasons given, with 16-year-olds not able to participate fully in the democratic process because they are not able to stand in the elections, suggests that this is more a cynical attempt than a pragmatic one.
Sam Rushworth
I feel that, particularly in the previous intervention, the Opposition are still tying themselves up in knots around the idea that the transition from childhood to adulthood has to happen within a millisecond of someone turning a particular age, rather than under-standing that there is a process of becoming an adult and we allow people different rights and responsibilities that are appropriate for those stages.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I feel that there is a difference between voting and standing to be elected. It is the difference between someone being able to choose a person to represent them and having to listen to and represent others. They are two different jobs. The Conservatives know that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman would tell me that he believes a 15-year-old should be Prime Minister, but they allowed 15-year-olds to elect who is our Prime Minister.
Paul Holmes
I do not think a 15-year-old should be allowed to be Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman is advocating for a 16-year-old to be able to elect a Prime Minister and their Member of Parliament, but does not want them to have the equal right to stand as a candidate for Parliament. I understand his intervention, but he still has not told me why he thinks that the purposeful variance in this legislation is a good thing.
I have been very clear that I think the age to able to vote and become a Member of Parliament should be 18, because that is when somebody becomes an adult. Forgive me if I am wrong—I do not intend to put words in his mouth—but the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention that some bits of becoming an adult happen when we are younger and some when we are older. In legislation in this country, someone becomes an adult when they get citizenship rights at 18. This Government are changing that and making it slightly more blurred than it needs to be. That is why we oppose this clause.
David Simmonds
I am sympathetic to the case put by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I understand where he is going with it, but there is a distinction between the internal rules of political parties and the law of the land on electoral participation. Conservative party policy is that all members can vote to elect the leader of the party, but only those who have attained the age of majority can participate in elections to public office, whereas the Labour party recently changed its rules so that that only people over the age of 18 can participate in its internal processes for the same purpose. Does my hon. Friend think it is inconsistent for a political party to say internally that people have to be 18 to participate in leadership elections, but seek to allow 16-year-olds to vote in national public elections?
Paul Holmes
That goes to show the picking and choosing attitude of the Labour party when it comes to enfranchising younger people. They want to allow them to elect Members, but believe that 18 is the right age to vote their candidate selections and internal processes, so why are we suddenly discussing legislation proposing that 16-year-olds should have the right to vote? I am sure Labour Members will present a petition to the National Executive Committee, or whatever organisation represents them, to change the internal voting age. If they so believe in 16-year-olds electing national politicians in this country, perhaps they should believe in being selected by 16-year-olds too, although I do not see them jumping to take up that proposition.
I will wrap up shortly. The Government have said that they do not intend to drop the candidacy age below 18. We have had a vibrant discussion about that. Why do they think that those aged 16 or 17 are old enough to vote, but not old enough to stand for an elected body? Even if the Government do not think they can be MPs, why can they not represent smaller communities? Are they not capable of being local, parish or town councillors, or police and crime commissioners? The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has advocated this clause. Does he therefore think a 16-year-old could represent their local parish or local town ward? Is there a variance in their ability to represent constituents in their local areas?
Warinder Juss
It is misguided to compare the ability to vote with being a representative. There is a huge step between someone having the right to decide who should represent them and being that representative themselves. Many people well beyond the age of 18 would be able to vote for their representative, but would not necessarily be in a position to be a representative themselves.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement.
The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise.
Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them.
When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions.
That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee.
The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16. In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that
“when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”.
We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats,
“would empower young people with full political rights at 16”,
and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto.
We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities. Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am delighted to speak on a Bill of such huge importance. I am also delighted to be speaking so positively in support of clause 1. I might have some constructive suggestions to make on further clauses, but I warmly welcome the long-overdue legislative change for votes at 16. The extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds will be hugely positive for our young people and for our democracy. It will be good for voter registration and turnout. It will help to embed healthy democratic habits in young adulthood that will continue into adulthood. It is vital that the voices of young people are giving the respect and the democratic space that they deserve.
Voting is a healthy habit that we want young people to form early on. Engaging younger voters in the process of voting creates positive habits for the future. Hon. Members will know that in 2024, turnout in the general election was just 59.9%—narrowly avoiding the 2001 historic low of 59.4%. Not only are too many voters not turning out; the turnout gap between younger and older voters has been expanding. We see lower levels of turnout in constituencies that have larger proportions of young people.
Introducing votes at 16 creates an opportunity to improve democratic education, providing a chance to create a seamless transition from learning about and discussing politics in the classroom to engaging in local and national elections. Research has shown that the earlier young people are engaged in voting, the more likely they are to carry on voting later in their lives. In Austria, Scotland and Germany, those who were enfranchised at 16 or 17 were more likely to turn out to vote into their twenties, compared with those who first voted at 18.
Enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds also tend to turn out to vote in greater numbers than those voting for the first time who are aged 18 and over. That is likely because younger voters are better supported through their first experience of voting while they are at home and in education. By the time those who are 18 or older first vote, many will have already left home—for example, having gone to university—and are likely to be moving home more frequently, and may find it harder to register to vote or know where to vote. Registration levels for 18 and 19-year-olds are just 60%, compared with 96% of those aged 65 and over.
The main arguments being advanced against expanding the franchise are that 16 and 17-year-olds are not considered adults in many legal circumstances, such as in criminal law. We have heard comments today about the concept of full legal adulthood. The suggestion is that lowering the voting age conflicts with other legal thresholds of adulthood, such as restrictions on alcohol, gambling and jury service. I point out that adulthood starts in a phased way from 16, as 16-year-olds will pay tax, 17-year-olds can drive a car, and the majority of things that we prohibit 16 and 17-year-olds from doing are public health-faced, such as drinking and gambling. They are aimed at preventing people from developing unhealthy and potentially harmful habits.
David Simmonds
On the hon. Lady’s point about consistency, we often hear about the age at which one can purchase alcohol on licensed premises, but that is not a restriction that applies at home, so there is a significant inconsistency. Essentially, one is free under the laws of this land to consume alcohol at home from the age of 5. That is what the law says; one simply cannot purchase it on licensed premises. It is not the case that 16 is the point at which this becomes part of a consistent approach in the way that the hon. Lady describes.
Dr Chowns
I think the hon. Gentleman is in effect making my point for me, which is that adulthood starts in a phased way. There is no simple black-and-white cut-off at which things change from one night to the next. In society, we recognise that many aspects of growing up are part of a process. Voting is clearly a healthy, positive habit, and lowering the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds will help to support their development.
The 16 and 17-year-olds whom I know and meet are thoughtful, interested and interesting. Their thoughts are worth having and are worth listening to. Their voice matters, and I want to know what they think. They have very pertinent and sometimes unexpected views on the key debates and decisions occupying much of our time in Parliament.
If we take the grotesquely unfair rip-off system of student funding, with the deeply unfair loans that young people wanting to go to university must take out unless they are exceptionally wealthy, 16 and 17-year-olds are thinking now about those loans as they think about whether university is for them. If we take the debate on whether social media should be banned for those under 16, these people can really tell us what it is like and how it affects them. If we take the debates we have had in Parliament on decriminalising abortion and any number of other vital issues, including the state of the planet and what that means for our futures, young people’s lives are the most affected by the decisions elected representatives take and they will have to live with the consequences of those votes for longer than any of us.
Warinder Juss
I want to reiterate what the hon. Member has said. In my experience, the younger the person the more politically engaged they appear to be. I spend so much time going into schools, and I find that younger people are more concerned about the environment than anyone else. I have more emails and letters from schoolchildren about climate change than I have from anyone else. So it is really important that we take that political engagement on board and give them a right to vote at 16.
Dr Chowns
I completely agree with the hon. Member. It is interesting that young people are often better able to engage with climate change than many of us who are older and are preoccupied with the short-term issues right in front of us.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove that we need a proportional voting system so that everybody’s votes are equally taken into account. That would enable us to make policy in a way that focuses more on the longer term and the investments we should make on a generational basis, rather than people, under the first-past-the-post system, being so focused on short-term decision making and on the next general election. Young people are concerned about what sort of world they will inherit—what the world will be like when they are 50—and they are going to have to live with the decisions we make for a very long time.
I want to speak briefly about trust in politics. Giving young people votes at 16 tells them that their voices, votes and views are valued, and this really does matter. The 2024 British social attitudes survey, conducted after the general election that year, recorded a new low level of trust, with only 12% of people saying they trust Governments to put the interests of the country above those of their own party. Votes at 16 would be a really valuable sign of trust in and respect for our young people, which is a healthy and important part of defending and bolstering our democracy. At a time when division and polarisation are unfortunately flourishing, it is vital to work with and support young people to make their voices heard, because they do want to bring the country together.
There is positive evidence for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. For example, younger voters in Germany have had a positive impact on family discussions of politics. In a number of countries, 16 and 17-year-olds already have the vote. As has been mentioned, it is also the norm for many voters in the UK. Scottish and Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds are already enfranchised to vote in devolved and local elections, and I would love those in England and Northern Ireland to have the same rights.
In conclusion, enfranchising 16 and 17-year-olds would not drastically change the electoral landscape, but it would allow young people to have a voice in the decisions that are made for them every day at local, regional and national level. It is also a golden opportunity to improve democratic education, which I believe we will have a chance to discuss that in more depth later in our line-by-line scrutiny, as well as to register young people to vote and to embed that deep democratic respect for the right to vote. I congratulate the Government on taking this forward. Lowering the franchise is a really important opportunity to nurture more active citizens for the future. I will be absolutely delighted to vote for clause 1, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote, so we can positively engage the next generation in politics and improve the health of our democracy.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan.
We are coming at this debate in the wrong way. We need to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary age at which it is acceptable to vote. The last Labour Government obviously thought that people become adults at 18. I remember that some people in my school year could buy cigarettes, at 16, and the last Labour Government raised that to 18. I would have supported that at the time, but the last Labour Government’s principle was obviously that adulthood started at 18 rather than 16.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, said that someone can join the Army, RAF or Navy at 16. That is true, but they cannot be deployed on the frontline. A consequence of the Bill could therefore be that somebody can vote for a party or a Prime Minister of this country, which then, heaven forbid, has to send troops to the frontline, where they themselves cannot go, even though they are theoretically voting to send other people there. That is a difficult and challenging situation. We need to look at other age limits, whether for smoking, going to the frontline or driving. They all need to come at the age that someone becomes an adult.
Sam Rushworth
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that everything should happen at exactly the same age? For example, people have to be 21 to adopt or pilot a plane. Is he suggesting that we should lower those age limits? The age of consent for sex is 16. Is he suggesting that that be elevated to 18? The point he seems to be making is that everything must happen at once.
Lewis Cocking
I am arguing that, if we want to lower the voting age, we need to have a debate about when someone becomes an adult. We can absolutely have that debate, and if the Government decide that we want votes at 16, we need to consider a number of other age limits. I would not change any of them, and I would not reduce the voting age to 16, because I believe that people should be able to vote when they become an adult, at 18. If the Government intend to change that, we need to consider lots of other age limits. As I just pointed out, the last Labour Government obviously believed that people become adults at 18. That is why they raised the smoking age, and why they introduced legislation to ensure that people could not leave school and just do nothing, so that people now have to stay in education, training or employment until the age of 18. How can someone go out and vote for me to have certain rights when they do not have those rights themselves? That needs to be looked at.
As has already been asked, why has the Labour party’s national executive committee raised to 18 the age limit for voting in some party official elections and standing for some of those posts? That is nonsense. The Labour party is saying that people can vote for their MPs, but cannot vote in internal party elections, or stand for some of those positions, until they are 18. That is absolute nonsense.
I support amendment 33, in the name of the shadow Minister, because it would make the Government think again. As I said, we need to look at these age limits as a whole. We need to look at the age someone becomes an adult in this country, rather than at an arbitrary figure.
The Minister said that she wanted consistency. If the Government are successful in lowering the voting age to 16, then of course, to make this consistent, people should be able to vote in recall petitions. But she should then go a step further, by allowing people to stand. If we trust young people, at the age of 16, to cast their ballots for someone to represent them, they should be able to stand as well. There have been a number of contributions on whether someone should be able to stand. What is the difference between listening to somebody who wants our vote and listening to someone whose vote we have, and whose constituency casework we need to deal with? That is the same skillset: listening, developing policy, thinking about what to do and thinking about legislation to bring forward. I will never know how one can argue that the age limit for one of those should be 18 and the other 16.
I do not support lowering the voting age, and I will oppose clause 1. If the Government intend to lower the voting age, I urge them to look at when someone becomes an adult in this country. This Bill will have unintended consequences. If the Government deem that 16 is when someone becomes an adult in this country, we need to have a wider discussion about what other legislation will need to be changed.
Samantha Dixon
I thank Members for such a constructive debate. I come back to the original point that I made: the important question is not what else someone can or cannot do, but whether 16 is the right age to vote. The Government are clear that the answer is yes, it is the right age to be able to exercise a democratic right. It will allow 16 and 17-year-olds to have a say in the Government that shapes their future and sets them up for a long engagement in democracy.
Turning to issues raised in the debate, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley pointed out that there is no single definition of age at which someone becomes an adult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland ably pointed out, the idea that 18 is a standard age of adulthood is a misconception. Different age limits are applied in different circumstances, which is quite right. “One size fits all” solutions almost always mean “one size fits none”.
On the issue of representation, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West made this point very ably: the act of casting a vote is not the same as representing voters. It is perfectly reasonable for different requirements to apply. We will be following the line of Scotland and Wales where representation is allowed from the age of 18. On education, to speak to amendment 33, the Government are already working with the Electoral Commission, the devolved Governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations to prepare people to exercise their democratic rights. That, combined with the Government’s national youth strategy and the improved curriculum and programmes of study in England following the curriculum and assessment review, will make sure that young people are not only given the means to make their voice heard, but are empowered and motivated to do so.
Last November, the Department for Education committed to make citizenship compulsory in primary schools in England and to revise programmes of study to make sure that pupils receive an essential grounding in a range of topics, including democracy, Government and law. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley, who joined his political party at the age of 15, has given a very pertinent demonstration of why young people are perfectly capable of exercising their rights, engaging politically, and participating in our democracy. We want to extend those rights to 16 and 17-year-olds, because too often young people are ignored by politicians. The policies of the parties that put representatives forward do not take account of the views of those young people. And it is the young people themselves who have the most at stake.
I am reminded of my own daughter, who at the age of 16 was unable to vote in the Brexit referendum, like many of her classmates in that school year. Ten years later, that is an absence that they feel very keenly. Their participation is healthy for our democracy and our political parties, and they should be able to vote.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Voting eligibility of convicted persons in detention—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 3 (disfranchisement of offenders in prison etc.), for subsection (1) substitute—
‘(1) A convicted person, during the time that they are detained in a penal institution in pursuance of a sentence imposed for a term exceeding four years or unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.’
(3) Omit subsection (1A).
(4) In subsection 1B for “1A” substitute ‘1’.”
The new clause seeks to extend the franchise at UK Parliamentary and local government elections to include those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years and who would ordinarily be eligible.
Samantha Dixon
I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody.
To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home.
The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland.
I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society.
As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances.
Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote.
The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks.
Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation.
We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation.
I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives.
There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives.
This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government.
We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy.
Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them.
On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9.
We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.
Dr Chowns
I rise to speak to new clause 9 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, and to oppose clause 2 stand part.
New clause 9 seeks to extend voting rights to prisoners serving sentences of four years or less. That is the sentence length at which a prisoner would traditionally have been eligible for release after serving half their sentence. Extending the franchise to more people in prison would widen civic participation, strengthen our democracy and aid rehabilitation.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I just want to clarify my understanding of the Green party’s policy position. I have been looking at the Sentencing Council guidelines, and typically a person convicted of racially or religiously aggravated assault serves two years in prison. Is it the Green party’s position that those people should be allowed to vote in a general election?
Dr Chowns
I have made my position about the new clause clear, but perhaps this is a good moment to discuss a point that I was going to come to later. Various points have been made about the importance of restorative justice and rehabilitation. Imprisonment is a punishment for something that somebody has done wrong. There is a wide variety of things that people may have done wrong and for which they are rightly imprisoned, but should we not use the opportunity of a person’s imprisonment to support, encourage and reward prosocial behaviour?
Voting is prosocial behaviour that helps to integrate and rehabilitate the person and connect them back to the society from which they have become estranged through their crime. We encourage prisoners to use libraries to engage in educational opportunities and a whole range of other prosocial activities. In the same way, should we not encourage prisoners to engage in voting?
Andrew Lewin
I am grateful for the tenor of the debate. The hon. Lady talks about the connection to society, but I ask that she considers the victim for a minute. Let us stick with my example. Very sadly, we are seeing cases of religiously aggravated assault rising in this country, particularly relating to the Jewish and Muslim communities. Just this week, we saw the horrific example of the attack on ambulances. What does she think will happen if the victim learns that the perpetrator of the crime is allowed to vote? Does she think that is right?
Dr Chowns
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I am disappointed by his tone and what appears to be a politically motivated attempt to score points rather than to engage with the substance of the debate, which is about whether prisoners should be encouraged to vote.
Whether somebody is a victim of a racially aggravated assault, a rape or any other horrific crime, if the perpetrator receives a sentence that comes within the framework of the new clause—I very much hope that it would not be less than four years for a serious crime—we should encourage that perpetrator to participate in voting in the same way as we encourage prisoners to participate in other prosocial behaviours. That is done very widely in many other countries. Imprisonment is the punishment to the individual. The question is whether we should prevent those individuals from engaging in rehabilitative behaviours that reconnect them with society.
Warinder Juss
I am a member of the Justice Committee, and my biggest focus is rehabilitation and resettlement. I take the hon. Lady’s view that rehabilitation is extremely important, and that that is the way that we stop reoffending. But as someone who grew up suffering a lot of racist abuse—physical and verbal—I would be very affronted if somebody who had committed a racial crime against me was then allowed to vote, because going to prison is not only about rehabilitation but is a punishment. It is important that we do not lose sight of that fact. I am stating my personal position, bearing victims in mind. If somebody had committed a racial crime against me and they were given the same right to vote as anybody else I would feel very insulted.
Dr Chowns
I confess that I am a little puzzled at the questions that are being raised about specific types of crime. I am not sure whether hon. Members are suggesting that particular types of crime, for example those motivated by racial hatred, should be treated in a particular way in relation to voting, or whether they are simply objecting to the idea of any prisoner being allowed to vote. By raising one particular type of crime in making arguments against the new clause hon. Members are not, sadly, engaging with the substance of the argument that I am making.
By way of background—as has been mentioned—in 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights was unlawful. In 2017 the UK therefore extended the right to vote to prisoners on remand, civil prisoners—normally those in prison for failure to pay fines on time—and offenders on home detention curfew or released on temporary licence. However, that did not go far enough. The strength of our democracy is determined by how many of us participate in it. Against a backdrop of declining trust in our institutions and in democracy, that is more vital than ever. Not only are more than 21,000 people missing out on a key democratic right, they are having their chances of rehabilitation and resettlement harmed. Studies have shown the positive impact that democratic participation by people in prison has on rehabilitation and resettlement. Prisoners who keep the right to vote have an enhanced sense of civic responsibility and are more likely to be successfully reintegrated following release.
Let us consider other countries. In Guernsey all prisoners have had the right to vote since 1996. In Jersey, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than four years keep their right to vote, and in 2025 plans were announced to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. All prisoners in Ireland can vote by post. Across Europe, all prisoners have the right to vote—in Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Ukraine. In France, disenfranchisement is considered as an additional penalty in some sentences, however the vast majority of prisoners retain the right to vote. In Germany, all prisoners retain the right to vote unless they have been convicted of an offence targeting the state or democracy. It is clear that the UK’s ban on prisoners voting makes us a real outlier among comparable countries.
Clause 2 provides for the disenfranchisement of detained 16 and 17-year-olds. I am profoundly opposed to that and would like to see the clause removed, because fostering civic responsibility, civic pride and involvement is particularly important for young people aged 16 and 17 who are in custody—that is, about 420 young people at any one time. Any young person in that position is likely to have been badly let down. That point was made last year by the Children’s Commissioner, who in 2025 published an important report, “The educational journeys of children in secure settings”. She found that children in youth custody are “failed before they arrive” and trapped
“in a cycle of disadvantage”.
The Commissioner made it clear that such young people faced
“disrupted education, low English and maths skills, unmet additional needs and high levels of exclusion, compounded by poverty”.
She also found that
“children in prison have been failed by multiple services long before they arrive in custody, and their time in the justice system worsens their disadvantages and limits future opportunities.”
I believe that it is wrong to cut those children—those young people—out of the voting process. They will know more about the failings of the state than many over-18s and their voices should be heard. The Bill is an opportunity to include them and to commit to supporting them to exercise their right to vote, which is a healthy habit that we should support and encourage all members of our society to engage in. As well as being right and fair, such inclusion, coupled with the right support and training for those who look after and educate them, could be a very positive part of their rehabilitation. I sincerely hope that the Minister will closely consider that in the context of clause 2.
It is clear that the current voting system for prisoners in the UK needs urgent reform. New clause 9 provides us with an opportunity to talk about how to fix that broken system by normalising democratic participation in our prisons, as so many other comparable countries do; strengthening civic society; restoring faith in our democracy; and supporting rehabilitation among some of the marginalised people in the UK, including some of our most disadvantaged young people.
Paul Holmes
I will speak briefly, because I spoke to new clause 9 before the speech made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. During the course of the debate, I heard a couple of things that I wanted to come back on. I thank the Committee for indulging me; I will be very quick.
There is absolutely no difference between my party and that of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in advocating for the rehabilitation of the individual who is in the prison and criminal justice system. That is also the stated position of the Government. I was pleased to hear the passionate intervention from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, which was filled with conviction. I was disappointed, however, with the tone that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire took in responding to the hon. Members for Wolverhampton West and for Welwyn Hatfield. The former, having been through horrific prejudice growing up, and the latter, as an advocate, asked the hon. Lady about a crime that falls within the arbitrary four-year sentence proposed in new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion.
There are many crimes for which someone can be issued a custodial sentence of four years that—I hope that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West takes this in the right way—could be perceived as worse than the racially aggravated assault case that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned, such as sexual assault. Many people are put away for less than four years for sexual assault. They would be able to vote under the proposals in new clause 9. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said that those Members mentioned that crime to make a political point, but their point directly addresses the proposal from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to set the sentence threshold at four years. If the threshold were six months, or anything less than four years, we could openly discuss that, but the crimes encompassed within a custodial sentence of four years can be some of the most serious perpetrated against victims.
I believe that everything the hon. Member for North Herefordshire does is well intentioned and principled. There is no doubt about that, and it should never be intimated that I take a different view. Members feel, however, that they have to challenge the Green party’s position because of that arbitrary figure for a custodial sentence in their proposal. The hon. Lady should therefore expect to be questioned on some of the terrible Pandora’s boxes that will be opened by the people serving those custodial sentences.
Dr Chowns
As I outlined in my speech, in many comparable countries, all prisoners are permitted to vote. The proposal in new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion, sets an arguably arbitrary cut-off date, but that is intended to offer balance.
As we have to some extent previously covered, if someone is sentenced to four years they still become eligible for early release. That does not lessen the terrible nature of their crime. If somebody is sentenced to four years, they are still eligible to participate in educational programmes, rehabilitation, and a whole range of things that are not in themselves punishments but are designed to assist that person to reintegrate into society. Surely we all, victims included, want to ensure that perpetrators of crime are reintegrated and rehabilitated and do not offend again? That is the driving force behind this new clause: to reduce crime by reconnecting to society people who have been convicted and imprisoned.
Paul Holmes
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intentions—or those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—in tabling the new clause. However, I put it to her again that the four-year figure is arbitrary. The core reason why so many people are concerned about this proposal is the plethora of cases that would be included under the four-year provision. She is absolutely right that many of those people who are sentenced to four years will be released after two. I disagree with that, but it is something that happens in the current justice system. The fact that they might be released early does not mean that they should be given the vote.
The hon. Lady mentioned something that I agree with: that people are entitled to use libraries, to learn, to undertake qualifications and to do other parts of rehabilitation. That is absolutely right; they should always be allowed to do that, because of the core belief in British society that they should be able to make their lives better. But they are doing that while locked away and playing no role in civic society. They are improving themselves and learning so that they can play a part in civic society once they have served their custodial term. That is the real difference between my party and hers. We believe that when someone receives a custodial sentence, they should be removed from civic society. They should be able to go through rehabilitation and make their life better, but that element of being removed from civic society and locked up is sacrosanct.
I think that new clause 9 comes from a good place, and we could have a wider discussion on greater involvement by somebody who receives a custodial sentence, but unfortunately, the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—we must consider the seriousness of the crimes that might fall under the threshold of a four-year custodial sentence—means that the victim is hugely let down and forgotten about. I apologise to the Committee, but I feel so passionate about the way in which the argument was made that I had to stand up and speak again. We will be opposing the new clause with, all right, only three Members, but if it comes back on Report, I urge Members from all parties, including that of the hon. Lady, to vote against it. It would represent a slow erosion of the punitive system that is meant to support victims. I do not believe this new clause supports victims.
Samantha Dixon
The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.
The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.
The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.
David Simmonds
There is a high degree of cross-party agreement on this point, but I have a technical question. The Minister referred earlier to the status of secure accommodation for children. Such an order is made by the family court rather than the criminal court, but it is often handed down when a local authority youth justice team is concerned particularly about the risks of self-harm. Under existing legislation, any child who is in custody of any kind is de facto in the care of the local authority where they reside. Under the terms of the Bill, that local authority then has a duty to support those who may be in secure accommodation to access their vote.
Could the Minister briefly set out what discussions, if any, she has had with the Department for Education, which owns that children-in-care legislation, so that we have clarity about what arrangements would be in place so that a child who is in secure accommodation, of which there is a very limited amount, often some distance from someone’s home, is able to exercise their right to a vote, which they would retain under these provisions?
Samantha Dixon
The issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is quite technical. I will provide him with the details. He is right that some convicted 16 to 17-year-olds, rather than being imprisoned in a young offender institution, are detained in secure children’s homes or secure training centres. Whether an individual is held in a young offender institution, a secure children’s home, a secure school or a secure training centre following conviction is not a direct reflection of the nature of their offence or determined by characteristics such as age.
It is possible for one individual who is convicted of a particular offence to be held in a young offender institution while an otherwise identical individual, who has committed the same offence, is held in a secure children’s home. Accordingly, it is appropriate and consistent to ensure that all convicted prisoners, regardless of their age or the institution in which they are held, should be prevented from voting. I will provide further details in writing, if that is acceptable to the hon. Member.
I thank hon. Members for their support for clause 2 and for the principle, which we are extending to 16 and 17-year-olds, that those held in secure accommodation and prison cannot vote—I think that is a well-understood principle, and it is one that we continue to support—and for their comments regarding new clause 9, which the Government will not be supporting.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 3 will give young people the ability to register from the age of 14, before they have the right to vote at 16, ensuring that they are able to exercise their right to vote as soon as they reach voting age. I am sure that Members will agree that no young person should be unable to vote for the first time because there was insufficient time for them to be correctly registered to vote. The clause will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to vote, even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday, removing the chance that time to register is a barrier to participation.
The clause’s approach is consistent with the current rules, which allow some 16-year-olds, and all 17-year-olds, to register to vote. Importantly, it simplifies the current rule considerably by removing the complex December calculation, which is hard to explain and understand, in favour of a clear right to register from an individual’s 14th birthday. The December calculation will remain in place for devolved Welsh elections in accordance with existing devolved legislation. The clause enables the slightly different rules to work side by side.
I underline that the two-year window for registration ahead of someone’s turning 16 established by the clause also allows for enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, with the option for that to begin with the act of registering to vote.
Paul Holmes
It would be churlish of me to criticise these proposals. We have had a detailed debate on the principle about votes at 16, with which we vehemently disagree, but there is no reason why we should be difficult about the implementation of the system if the Government get their way. If the legislation passes and people are allowed to vote at 16, there is a vital need for them to be able to register in plenty of time and for it to be as easy as possible for them to do so. Therefore, we will not oppose the clause.
I ask this question of the Minister not to be tricky but for clarification: why should the registration age be 14 and not 15? I was going to say, “What’s the difference?” Obviously, the difference is 12 months, but why does it need to be permitted two years in advance, rather than just one, when someone is 15 and, I would argue, there is a bit more stability for them in the education system, given some of the things that come with being a 15-year-old in school?
The Minister is correct that the December calculation is hard to explain and understand, and fairly outdated, so we do not think that is an issue. We will not oppose the clause, and we see that it is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding—I do not know whether Members have recognised this yet—that I absolutely oppose votes at 16.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his support. For attainment at the age of 18, we work with 16 and 17-year-olds, so the two-year rule will continue by convention. If I have anything to say that differs from that, I will share that with him.
David Simmonds
This is, again, a bit of a technical question, but both my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and I served previously as lead members for children’s services, and one of the groups for whom this will be particularly relevant is those young people who may be in the care system because they are asylum seekers. My local authority has among the highest populations of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the country.
There are existing arrangements, but at the moment, because the voting age is 18, it is completely clear: someone is an adult in the system and their eligibility to attain their vote depends upon the determination of their claim. However, there is a significant population of young people who have age assessments that are being disputed, or for whom there are issues around where residence may take place and whether leave to remain will be granted, and therefore at what point the individual, not because of their age but because of their immigration or asylum status, will attain the right to vote. What discussions have there been with the Home Office, which owns that legislation, and potentially the Foreign Office, which may have sight of what arrangements are in place in the countries from which those young people may be moving to the United Kingdom, to ensure a degree of consistency and certainty?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his question on quite a complex issue. The right to vote is based on citizenship, so I would have to come back to him with further detail on those circumstances. We will come on to clauses that relate to children in the care of local authorities and their rights to register to vote, and to vote, but on that specific issue I think I will need to come back to him.
David Simmonds
I am sure that everyone is aware that the arrangements with Ireland, for example, provide a degree of eligibility and commonality, not just in the electoral system but in all sorts of other areas. In terms of enfranchisement, we have eligible Commonwealth voters who may participate in our electoral system by virtue of their Commonwealth status. That does not apply to all countries in the Commonwealth, but it does apply to a significant number of them. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that issue too, particularly given that we can envisage, for example, service families from the military of an allied country—in my constituency, with HMS Warrior just over the border, we have a significant number of families who come from Canada and Australia and, indeed, Europe—who may be here for a period of time, which would mean that they fall within the scope of this legislation. It would be helpful to understand what arrangements are in place to ensure that they are treated fairly.
Samantha Dixon
I will supply the hon. Member with that information, because it also applies to attainers who are living overseas. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Declarations of local connection: looked after children and detained persons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 4 will ensure that the extension of the franchise works effectively for young people whose living arrangements do not fit the traditional model of a fixed or permanent address. Declarations of local connection already allow certain individuals to register to vote when they cannot reasonably be associated with a single permanent address. However, once the franchise is extended, it is important that young people are not excluded from participation simply because of the nature of their accommodation. The clause expands the circumstances in which a declaration of local connection may be made.
Members should be assured that the provision does not remove any existing eligibility requirements. It enables young people who are looked after by a local authority, who have previously been looked after, or who are kept in secure accommodation to register in a way that reflects a meaningful connection to an area. It is an important measure that ensures that young people in these circumstances are able to register in a way that reflects their living arrangements.
Clause 5 will ensure that the extension of the franchise properly supports service families. Service declarations exist to ensure that members of the armed forces, Crown servants and British Council employees are not disadvantaged in their ability to register to vote when serving overseas. However, once the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, a gap would arise: the children of service voters who move with their families in service would not have access to the same registration mechanism.
The clause addresses that gap and enables children who reside with a service-voter parent or guardian to register using a service declaration. That registration will cease when the individual reaches the relevant age, which is 19 for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections and local elections in England and Northern Ireland, and 18 for Scottish parliamentary elections, Senedd Cymru elections and local elections in Scotland and Wales.
David Simmonds
To some extent, I have another version of my earlier question. In respect of children in care, within the provision there will need to be a process for registration and, in due course, a process for the administration of casting the ballot. If we consider the original judgment on prisoner voting, the European convention on human rights does not trump parliamentary sovereignty.
The judgment went against the UK because, at that stage, there were no arrangements in place for prisoners to be able to vote, although the law did not specifically prohibit them from doing so. The court said, “You can’t effectively lock them up so that they can’t get to the ballot box, but at the same time say that they are still legally entitled to the vote; you have to make a choice.” Parliament made a choice and said, “We are going to ban those people from voting.”
The Government have been very clear that young people in secure accommodation will be eligible to vote. We are also aware that those in the 16 to 18-year-old category who are treated as care leavers will often be in what is known as move-on accommodation as they transition from a fostering placement or children’s home to semi-independent living.
What arrangements will the Government make to ensure that, in practice, under the terms of this legislation, those young people are not deprived of their ability to vote by virtue of moving around the country or simply lacking access to the service that they require, as opposed to being deprived of it by a deliberate decision of Parliament as part of the punishment inherent in a custodial sentence?
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member makes an important point. The response to that is the declaration of the local connection; that must relate to an address with which the individual has a genuine connection, as set out in the Bill. For example, a person experiencing homelessness may register using the address of, or nearest to, a place where they spend a substantial amount of their time, such as a shelter or another place where they regularly stay. Similarly, a young person looked after by a local authority may register using a previous address or one connected to the local authority responsible for their care. I hope that answers the hon. Member’s point.
David Simmonds
I understand the Minister’s point in the sense that a young person can register to vote. My question is about the logistics of how the ballot is cast. One of the challenges for young people, particularly in the care leaving transition, can be the instability of placements.
Young people may move around to access the type of accommodation that they need, or they may be placed far from home to get them away from, for example, a drugs gang or a grooming gang that caused them to come into the care system in the first place. Therefore, they will find themselves in a position where, while they may wish to participate under this legislation, the logistics and practicalities of that may be different and, in practice, they may be deprived of the opportunity to vote. It may be a matter for those discussions between the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice, but it would be helpful to understand what practical arrangements have been put in place to ensure that, if the Government really want 16 and 17-year-olds to be able to vote, they can do so.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member raises an important point. We have to establish the principle in the first instance and, as we progress with the legislation, we can provide more detail about the practical arrangements. Clauses 4 and 5 establish the principle; we will have to come back to the detail of how we take that forward. It is a complex area, but it is essential that young people in the care of a local authority are not disenfranchised because of that.
Clause 5 is important to ensure that young people in the care of their families overseas, as they give service to our country, are treated fairly under the extended franchise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Further provision about registration and participation in elections
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 6, page 10, line 9, at end insert “and recall petitions”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 7.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 6 and 7.
Schedule 1.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 6 and schedule 1 consist of common-sense amendments to legislation, in line with the change to the voting age. While extending the vote to young people, the provisions align regulations about the age at which young people can act as a proxy, accompany voters to polling stations, act as a companion to a voter with a disability, and apply for a voter authority certificate.
Members may recall that clause 3 enables registration from the age of 14. Schedule 1 removes the requirement for electoral registration officers to conduct house-to-house inquiries and the ability to make telephone calls to under-16s. Further measures to safeguard young people are addressed in clauses 7 to 13. Electoral registration officers in Scotland and Wales will no longer be required to record when electors on their local register attain the age of 18, as there will no longer be a change in entitlement to vote at that age.
In addition, part 2 of schedule 1 sets up a transitional process for moving certain electors in Scotland and Wales from the local government register to the UK parliamentary register. As it stands, when the change to the voting age comes into effect, people under the age of 18 who are already registered to vote in Wales and Scotland might need to make an additional application to be added to the UK parliamentary electoral register. Electoral registration officers—EROs—however, already hold the information necessary to determine their eligibility to be registered as UK parliamentary electors. Part 2 of schedule 1 will enable EROs to add them directly across.
Members should be assured that EROs will be required to assess each individual’s eligibility, noting the differences between devolved and parliamentary elections, such as nationality requirements. By registering for devolved elections, those young people have taken steps to engage in our democratic processes, and that engagement should not be discouraged by requiring them to make another, identical application. The overall process will ensure simplicity for electors and a smooth transition, while reducing the administrative burden on EROs. It is a common-sense, transitional measure, done only at the point that our reserved votes at 16 measures take effect.
Government amendments 5 and 7 consist of consequential changes to legislation, in line with the change to the voting age. They are technical amendments, which will ensure that 16 and 17-year-old voters are included in calculating the threshold for recall petitions. They will have the right to vote in the election that a recall petition may trigger, so it is only right that they are included in such calculations.
In addition to those changes, Government amendment 6 removes the restriction that certain EU citizens on the local government register need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales. The current provision exists because of the differences between the police and crime commissioner franchise and the local government franchise in Wales, and with the equalising of the voting age for these election types, the wording that is removed by this amendment is no longer needed. That brings the rights of those under the age of 18 who are registered to vote in line with other electors aged over 18, as intended with the extension of the franchise. I hope Members will accept these technical amendments, and agree that they should be made to the Bill.
Paul Holmes
It has been a while since I have done one of these Committees, Dr Allin-Khan, so forgive me if I do not say what I am talking to or anything like that. We are learning on the job, or I certainly am anyway.
The Minister emphasised that the Government amendments are technical, which is correct, and I will not challenge on or question her much about them. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about the clause’s aims in facilitating the inclusion of younger voters. We would argue or challenge that some of the provisions appear to be slightly inconsistent or insufficiently justified.
Allowing individuals aged 16 to act as companions to disabled voters and as proxy voters or to enter polling stations for certain purposes reflects an expansion of civic responsibility, which is another result of the principled argument about whether 16-year-olds should have the vote. I am not arguing against that principle, but about the physical manifestations of the change in direction. I would like to challenge the Minister by asking her to clarify why there is no guidance, training or clear rationale for those extra responsibilities for the volunteers working in elections departments across the country or for electoral registration officers and local authorities.
The provision raises a few concerns not only about the readiness of the person subject to the law change—the younger voter—but about whether our staff, EROs and the volunteers who sit in and do the various jobs at polling stations will be trained and given guidance in time to fully bring in the proposed changes. Will the Minister give us some clarification or reassurance that these changes will result in the people involved in the physical voting on the day at polling stations being given proper guidance, and that plenty of notice will be given to the volunteers who will have to implement the changes around the country?
Samantha Dixon
The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.
David Simmonds
I have another technical question to provide clarification for the Committee. We know that there are different rules for who is eligible to vote in local elections and in general elections—and council elections are imminent—and the Government website sets out those criteria. One of the consequences of this change will clearly be to extend the franchise to a large group of people who do not and cannot currently vote in UK general elections.
A question that may arise for an electoral registration officer is how to establish the age of, for example, an eligible Commonwealth citizen who arrives to register to vote, if their age is not clear. Will the Minister set out what guidance EROs might be expecting to spell out the evidence that might be sought to establish eligibility in terms of age if, for example, a citizen of Poland who has moved to the United Kingdom wishes at the age of 16 to join the electoral register for the upcoming council elections?
Samantha Dixon
Let me re-emphasise that EROs are familiar with providing such guidance already. We are simply extending the franchise to a different age group to enable them to participate in UK parliamentary elections and those other elections mentioned. The well-established route for providing that guidance will continue, extended to encompass the newly enfranchised in future elections. This is a well-trodden path, and I am happy to provide more details as required.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Further provision about registration of young voters etc
Amendments made: 6, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—
“Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011
14A In section 51 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales), in subsection (6C)(a)(ii) omit “, who has attained the age of 18”.”.
This amendment removes the restriction that certain EU citizens, who are registered in a register of local government electors, need to be 18 or over to give a notice of vacancy in the office of police and crime commissioner for a police area in Wales.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 103, line 35, at end insert—
“Recall of MPs Act 2015
14B (1) The Recall of MPs Act 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (determination of whether recall petition successful), in subsection (3), for “18” substitute “16”.
(3) In section 22 (interpretation), in subsection (3)(b)—
(a) in the words before sub-paragraph (i), for “18” substitute “16”;
(b) in that sub-paragraph, for “18” substitute “16”.”.—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment includes 16 and 17 year olds who are registered in a register of parliamentary electors in the calculation of the threshold to be reached to determine whether a recall petition is successful.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7
Prohibition of registration officers disclosing information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 7 provides for the protection of information of individuals who register to vote in advance of reaching voting age. As noted in discussion on clause 3, the Bill provides for people to register to vote from the age of 14, so that they are ready to cast their first vote at the age of 16. This arrangement carries significant benefits, but must be accompanied with due provisions for protecting the data of these particularly young people.
The clause provides that protection by explicitly preventing electoral registration officers from publishing, supplying or otherwise disclosing the registration information of anyone under the age of 16. Registration information is defined in the clause as entries on the electoral register, including both domestic and overseas electors, and also records of absent voting arrangements.
These protections will ensure that people who wish to register to vote in advance of attaining voting age can do so safe in the knowledge that the data they provide to electoral registration officers when they register will be duly protected.
I should note that there are specific, limited circumstances in which sharing the data will be possible. These are provided for in the subsequent clauses, and I will turn to those momentarily. However, clause 7 sets out the key principle that the data of young people aged 14 and 15 warrant special protection.
Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. In other words, it sets out limited scenarios in which EROs may share the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds. These provisions are very limited in number. As I list them, I trust hon. Members will agree that each of them is proportionate and justified.
Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 24th March 2026
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 24 March 2026 - (24 Mar 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering clauses 8 to 14 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I have covered clause 7, so if Members will indulge me, I will turn to clause 8.
Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. The first circumstance in which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared is if that disclosure is necessary for registration or the conduct of an election, referendum, recall petition or other poll. That simply allows electoral administrators to carry out their work.
An example in action would be an electoral registration officer using the data of a 14 or 15-year-old to conduct the annual canvass. The canvass would help ensure that the young person in question is still accurately registered at the address electoral administrators have on file. Another illustration of the purpose of this provision would relate to the preparation of a poll. For example, clerks at polling stations must have an extract of the electoral register for electors who will vote at that polling station. There may be circumstances in which that extract is prepared in advance of polling day, and this provision allows it to include individuals who will turn 16 on polling day, but who at the moment of the preparation of the extract are still 15.
The second circumstance provides that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared in accordance with one of a limited number of supply enactments—specifically, those listed in clause 11. A supply enactment is a provision to allow either the entire register or the relevant part of the register to be supplied to a certain individual or organisation. The specific supply enactments where the disclosure of the registration information of under-16s is permitted are listed in clause 11, and as such I will discuss them in detail during the debate on clause 11.
However, this clause applies two crucial limits on disclosure of the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds as part of a relevant supply enactment, as I will now explain. First, disclosure under a relevant supply enactment may be made only for purposes relating to an election at which a given person will be entitled to vote. That will allow the information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities relating to that poll. For example, it will allow 15-year-olds who will be 16 in time for a given poll to be sent campaigning materials relating to that poll.
Secondly, there is a limit on disclosure under relevant supply enactments that requires that such disclosures must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned. That provides an extra safeguard against the disclosure of any information about young people that is not absolutely necessary for the legitimate activities in question. For example, candidates have no need to know the exact age of a young person beyond the fact that they will be 16 on the date of a poll, so they will not receive such information.
The third circumstance in which the registration information of under-16s may be disclosed under clause 8 is where such information is necessary for the purpose of a criminal investigation relating to an electoral offence. The provisions in the Bill prevent under-16s from being fined for failing to register to vote, but there are other electoral offences that rightly apply regardless of age group. Those include offences such as a fraudulent application to register to vote, or the offence of personation, where someone attempts to steal another’s vote. Such serious offences should be investigated no matter who commits them, and this clause allows for those criminal investigations to take place unimpeded.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister outlined the criminal charge of personation. Does she think that watering down photographic ID and using bank cards for identification will make it easier or harder for someone to be convicted of electoral personation?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I will return to that point when we debate the relevant clauses.
Samantha Dixon
The fourth circumstance allows the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds to be disclosed to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. That is the extension of a standard provision allowing our intelligence agencies to use electoral registration data, if necessary.
The final circumstance allows the registration information of an under-16 to be shared with an individual who has been appointed to act as that young person’s proxy voter. I am sure it is obvious that such information sharing is naturally helpful to allow the proxy voter to carry out their role.
It is important to note that three of the five circumstances in which clause 8 permits disclosure of information have further restrictions placed on them by clause 12, which I will discuss in detail shortly. Furthermore, the relevant supply enactments—the fourth circumstance—already contain restrictions on use and further disclosure. Overall, the Government consider these exceptions to the prohibition to be appropriate and proportionate in allowing young people’s registration information to be shared when, and only when, absolutely necessary.
Clause 9 provides for the way in which the data of 14 and 15-year-olds should be handled in Scotland and Wales, where the UK Government have responsibility for UK parliamentary elections, but the Scottish and Welsh Governments have devolved responsibility for local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru. Where individuals in Scotland and Wales are eligible to take part in both reserved and devolved polls, their electoral records are held by electoral registration officers on a combined register.
That is a very sensible and efficient approach to managing electoral registers, but in the context of the data protection provisions put in place by clauses 8 to 16, that approach presents a challenge—namely, what should happen if devolved legislation prohibits an entry from being disclosed, but reserved legislation allows it? The Government are committed to upholding and respecting our devolution settlements, and the clause is designed to do exactly that. Devolved electoral registers and reserved electoral registers should be considered to be separate in principle. It is only a matter of practice that they happen to be held in one place.
Clause 9 provides that, where electoral registration information is held in a combined register, if clause 7 of the Bill prohibits the disclosure of information, but devolved legislation allows it, disclosure of that information is permitted. The clause also provides that if both devolved and reserved legislation permit disclosure, but only devolved legislation places restrictions on the use of that data—for example, a restriction on its onward disclosure—those restrictions do apply. The clause strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the information of those who have not yet reached voting age, and respecting the rightful responsibility that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have over their devolved elections.
I turn now to clause 10, which is a mirror image of clause 9. Whereas clause 9 ensures that the Bill works with and does not conflict with devolved legislation, clause 10 is designed to ensure that devolved legislation does not conflict with this legislation. Specifically, clause 10 provides that, where electoral registration information is held in a combined register, if relevant parts of devolved legislation prohibit disclosure of information, but clause 7 of the Bill allows it, disclosure of that information is permitted. The clause also provides that, if both devolved and reserved legislation permit disclosure, but only reserved legislation places restrictions on the use of that data—for example, a restriction on its onward disclosure—those restrictions do apply.
Taken together, clauses 9 and 10 accommodate and respect the importance of devolved responsibility, while equally ensuring that the UK Government are not constrained by the policy decisions made by the devolved Governments when legislating for our own elections.
I turn now to clause 11, which is a further part of the package of measures in the Bill designed to protect the information of 14 and 15-year-olds who register to vote ahead of reaching voting age. Specifically, clause 11 builds on clause 8, which sets out five circumstances in which the prohibition put in place by clause 7 on sharing the registration information of those under the age of 16 does not apply. Members will recall that the second circumstance listed in clause 8 provided that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared to comply with one of a limited number of supply enactments. Clause 11 lists four supply enactments, which I will list shortly.
Before I do, it is important to note that there are already restrictions on what individuals who receive information via a supply enactment may do with that information. I also remind hon. Members of the two strict limitations that clause 8 puts on disclosure under these supply enactments. First, disclosure under a supply enactment listed in clause 11 may be made only for purposes relating to an election, referendum or recall petition at which a given person will be entitled to vote or sign. That will allow information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities related to that poll. Secondly, disclosure under a supply enactment listed in the clause must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned.
Noting those key restrictions, I will now talk through the four types of supply enactment under which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared. The first allows records of postal and proxy voters under 16 to be shared on request with a candidate. The second allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with the Electoral Commission. The third allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with the Boundary Commission.
The fourth allows information of individuals under 16 to be shared with candidates upon request or, in respect of the recall of an MP, that MP, political parties and official campaigners. Noting again the important restrictions placed on disclosure in these circumstances by clause 8, these provisions make it possible for individuals who are not yet of voting age, but who will be on the actual day of a specific poll, to be appropriately involved in the electoral process in the run-up to that election.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Is the Minister confident that when we collect all this data, and the Boundary Commission and Electoral Commission get it, they will be able to analyse it to make sure that all constituencies at the next general election fall within their parameters for how many electors each MP needs to represent, to make sure that none is too far outside that boundary?
Samantha Dixon
Yes, I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to perform that task, and I am sure that we will come back to those issues during line-by-line scrutiny.
As with the other clauses in this part of the Bill, the provisions maintain close protection on the data of 14 and 15-year-olds, allowing disclosure of that information only when absolutely necessary and appropriate.
Let me turn now to clause 12. In my explanation of clause 8, which provides for five circumstances in which the disclosure of under-16s’ information is permitted, I noted that clause 12 places further restrictions on three of those circumstances. Those restrictions apply to the following circumstances where clause 8 allows disclosure of information. The first is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of electoral registration or conduct duties. The second is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of criminal investigation into an electoral offence. The third is where information is sent to a person who has been nominated as that elector’s proxy.
Where information has been shared in one of those three circumstances, the clause prevents the person who receives it from passing it on to anyone else. The clause also provides that someone who passes the information on to another person in one of those circumstances is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by a fine. As with the five clauses that precede it, clause 12 serves to ensure that the personal information of 14 and 15-year-olds is accessed and shared only when doing so is necessary and justified.
Clause 13 is the penultimate clause in the group, which I am sure Members are glad to hear. The purpose of the clause is to provide flexibility in the regime that provides these protections, by making it possible for regulations to be made to adjust the protections. That might become necessary, for example, if new types of election or referenda are created in future, which might necessitate new groups having access to the data. Given the number and variety of changes the Bill proposes to our electoral system, such flexibility is simply good planning and avoids the risk of needing an emergency Bill to be rushed through Parliament should changes be needed. I immediately reassure hon. Members, however, that the scope of the power created by the clause is carefully limited and subject to important scrutiny requirements, as one would expect.
The regulations that may be made using the power in the clause can be divided into five types. First, the power may be used to permit the disclosure of the electoral registration information of under-16s to additional recipients beyond those provided for in clauses 8, 9 and 11. Secondly, it may be used to set out the purposes for which such information, once shared, may be used, and to attach further restrictions. Such restrictions may include whether that information can be shared with further parties.
Thirdly, the power may be used to amend clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. However, the amendments that may be made are subject to restrictions, which I will come to shortly. Fourthly, it may be used to create new offences relating to the disclosure of 14 and 15-year-olds’ electoral registration information, which are punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment. Fifthly, it may be used to apply the same restrictions that apply to disclosure by registration officers and those who currently assist them to any new categories of person who might be involved with the preparation of electoral registers and lists.
Three important restrictions are placed on that power, ensuring that the flexibility it provides to ensure our electoral system remains fit for purpose as times change does not come at the cost of appropriate scrutiny. The first and most important restriction is that although the types of information protected by clause 7 may be added to using this power, the categories of protected information cannot be reduced from what is in the Bill at the point it becomes law. That ensures that the type of data protected by this clause cannot be chipped away.
Secondly, before this power is used, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and anyone else that the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. Finally, regulations exercising this power are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulation-making power that this clause will create strikes the appropriate balance between appropriate legislative scrutiny and crucial flexibility to allow our electoral system to respond to external changes.
Clause 14 is an interpretation clause. It simply serves to define terms used in clauses 7 to 13. None of the definitions presented in this clause is unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “voters register”, “local government election” and “recall petition” and are included simply to provide clarity and precision to the previous seven clauses of this Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the Minister for giving us an extensive and very in-depth description of what those technical clauses—7 to 14—outline. I cannot claim to do those clauses credit in the way the Minister has. I will just briefly ask a number of questions on those technical clauses and then resume my seat—which I am sure many Members will be pleased to hear.
The Minister has outlined these various technical clauses, and the Opposition are not concerned that they might be controversial. As I said earlier, the issue of principle rather than pragmatism in re-engineering a system to where we basically currently are to cover the people that are being enfranchised is not controversial. However, there is a slight complication that could come out of some of these changes relating to overseas voters. We know that they are not really catered for in the Bill.
We heard a lot of evidence in the Bill Committee that a number of overseas voters are essentially disenfranchised. Looking at younger overseas voters and the precepts of these clauses applying to 14 and 15-year-olds, in some countries there may be a social media ban, for example. Similarly, in some countries it would not be easy for a candidate to access the information of people who will be eligible to vote at 16, but who are not covered by these clauses for the preparation at 14 and 15. Opposition Members would argue that this could have unintended consequences for a candidate’s ability to secure that data and approach those people as if they were living within the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and whether it would be, not dangerous, but an added disincentive for an overseas voter to engage and vote within the British or UK political process.
On clause 13, as with various other Bills that the Government have put forward, I am concerned by the House’s affirmative procedure giving the Minister or the Secretary of State a huge amount of power to unilaterally bring in changes. I do not think that it makes for good democracy or scrutiny of legislation. We discussed this countless times during the Committee of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where the Secretary of State will be given the power to make a decision through the affirmative procedure via secondary legislation, and individual Members of this House across all parties—but especially minor parties—cannot scrutinise that legislation in the way in which they should be able to. We all know how statutory instruments work in this place. Those Committees are probably among the briefer meetings that Members in this House have.
The Minister needs to reflect on the fact that the scrutiny and delivery of many of this Government’s pieces of legislation has not always achieved the right balance or tipped the scales in the right way. Members should have the opportunity to scrutinise properly and make changes to secondary legislation that the Secretary of State is empowered to bring. I ask her to look at that again and consider whether there is a better way. I understand the need to consult the Electoral Commission, but it is this place that makes the legislation and it is this place that should approve that legislation in a proper and thorough manner. I do not think that making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure is the right way to go.
However, we will not oppose any of the clauses, which, as Members can tell by my varied and wide-ranging speech, are very technical. I hope that the Minister will address my questions.
Samantha Dixon
I note the concerns of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. We are not proposing changes to the voting rights of overseas electors, but I note the complexity around the handling of the attainers situation. None the less, electoral registration officers currently handle overseas voter attainers quite effectively, so we can be confident that, using the guidance from the Electoral Commission, they will continue to be able to do so.
On the powers that clause 13 may introduce in the future, if we look at the legislation that has been introduced over time—including during those dark periods of history before we were all elected—we can tell that our democratic system changes. This clause will address changes that we have not yet envisaged; if we had, believe me, they would be on the face of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Duty to raise awareness and provide assistance: Great Britain
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 16 stand part.
New clause 44—Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds under this Act.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include consideration of proposals to—
(a) promote awareness among relevant persons of the extension of the franchise; and
(b) make any necessary changes required to strengthen civic education in schools and educational settings available to relevant persons.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant persons are children and young people who—
(a) are enfranchised as a result of section (1) of this Act; or
(b) are entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector before reaching voting age as a result of section (3) of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education.
Samantha Dixon
Before I begin, I want to respond to an important point that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner raised earlier today in the debate on clause 2. It was in relation to ensuring that young people in secure children’s homes are supported to access their rights to vote. I committed to answering that point, and am happy to do so now. It is important to note that such individuals will be able to apply to vote by post. Of course, individuals in such circumstances may find it confusing or complex to use the electoral process for the first time. These next two clauses, which were designed in close collaboration with the Department for Education, will provide support for individuals who are in precisely the circumstances set out by the hon. Member.
Clause 15 will ensure that a crucial layer of support is provided by local authorities to young people who may particularly benefit from assistance when registering to vote. This clause creates a twofold duty for local authorities in Great Britain with regard to certain young people. They must both raise awareness of the arrangements for registration as a UK parliamentary elector and provide assistance to register as a parliamentary elector. The young people who will benefit from this duty are those who are looked after by the local authority, or those who are eligible for continuing care from a local authority. The latter group are sometimes referred to as care leavers.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation in response to my earlier questions. Clause 15 says that a local authority
“must take the steps the authority considers necessary”.
One of the challenges with that is that young people will be placed in different areas of the country. The Bill gives rise to the possibility of significant inconsistency. One local authority may take the view that there need to be special arrangements for the young person to be taken to the polling station to cast their vote, or that particular arrangements are necessary for a postal vote to be exercised by someone whose station is further afield. Another authority may take the view that simply giving them a briefing note explaining it would be sufficient. Both of those sound like they would meet the test set out within the Bill.
Can the Minister set out what guidance there may be, either from her Department or from the Department for Education, to ensure that there is a degree of consistency, so that there is equality of access for young people in the care system? That is especially important where the placement they may be in is effectively controlled by a third party. For example, how will there be appropriate measures in place to ensure that a young person in foster care—particularly given the “Staying Put” policy introduced with cross-party support by the last Government, which enables those young people to stay as care leavers with a family with whom they have been fostered—has an equality and consistency of access to both the registration process and the physical ability to cast their vote?
Samantha Dixon
The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, encouraged and supported to do so. Different authorities will have different approaches that will arise in different circumstances. Our provisions allow local authorities to take the most suitable approach when assisting people to get on the register. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, while the guidance will be national, the application will be appropriate to local circumstances.
Paul Holmes
As we have heard, the clause establishes a duty for local authorities in Great Britain to raise awareness and provide assistance to certain young people— particularly those who are looked after by the local authority, and those who are eligible for continuing care—in registering to vote. While the intention to support young voters is commendable, we believe that the clause has several limitations. Not only is its scope narrowly defined, but it is also vaguely defined by the words “raise awareness” and “provide assistance”. Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, I want to expand on that ever so slightly.
As the clause is narrowly defined, it excludes other groups that may face barriers to registration, such as the homeless youth, young carers or those in unstable housing. The clause places significant responsibility on local authorities to determine and implement the steps necessary to fulfil the duty. While this should not be a requirement in legislation, there has also not been any signal or indication from Ministers of any Department that additional funding, staffing or guidance has been considered, which risks creating an inconsistent application process across different areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned earlier, we have both been lead members for children and young people’s services. It is not insulting to hard-working local authorities, lead members and officers across the country to say that there can be varying interpretations of the legal duties placed on them—whether they relate to vulnerable people in care or local authority children’s homes. Can the Minister provide reassurance that she will ensure that local authorities across the country will follow a universal interpretation? Due to the narrow scope of the people that the clause identifies, as well as the quite vague language of “provide assistance” and “raise awareness”, it risks creating a patchwork quilt across the UK and a variation in interpretation, which needs to be tightened up.
The Opposition are not opposed to the clause; it is admirable and does what is necessary. However, it needs to be tighter so that people responsible for implementing this legislation can do so in the best way possible, notwithstanding the fact that council and local authority officers dealing with young people do so every day throughout the country.
The limited resources may struggle to reach all eligible young people, particularly those who move between authority areas, or who are placed outside their home authority for extended periods. Additionally, the clause does not include measurable targets or deadlines, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising and assistance efforts. Finally, the type of support provided is narrowly focused on registration itself, and does not address broader barriers, such as literacy, digital access or understanding of the electoral process. The geographical limitation of the clause to Great Britain also creates inconsistencies across the UK.
Overall, while clause 15 represents a positive step towards increasing voter registration—I hope the Minister will speak later about raising awareness and enabling younger people through the education system—it focuses only on registration of vulnerable young people. Its narrow scope, reliance on local authority capacity and clear lack of performance measures may limit its practical impact. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that those issues have been looked at, and I hope she can alleviate some of the Opposition’s concerns.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it
“requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education”.
Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause.
As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful. Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared.
New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education. Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy.
The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle. But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle.
Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this.
I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember.
We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, would require the Government to publish a report regarding steps to support the implementation of the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, discussed on Second Reading. The report would cover proposals to increase awareness of the franchise change among 14 to 17-year-olds and changes to civic education for that age group, to support the franchise change. That report would be required to be published within 12 months of this Bill becoming an Act.
As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, extending the franchise is not simply “job done”. The Government are clear that young people must be supported and prepared to exercise their democratic rights. The new clause was clearly designed to ensure that the Government are as good as their word on this point, and it is excellent to see that hon. Members share our view on the importance of effective democratic engagement and education in delivering votes at 16. However, while the intention of the new clause is laudable, the Government do not believe that this is the right way to approach it.
On the part of the new clause concerning voter awareness, the Government will be playing an active role in this space, but will not be the only organisation to do so. The Electoral Commission, local and devolved governments, the electoral sector and civil society organisations will all be part of a team effort to spread awareness. A report from the Government on their proposals would be a partial picture at best. It would also not be right for the Government to speak on behalf of other organisations’ plans, particularly those from the Electoral Commission, whose independence from the Government is crucial.
Regarding the education-related limb of the new clause, last November the Department for Education committed to making citizenship compulsory in primary schools and to publish revised programmes of study to ensure all pupils receive a grounding in topics including democracy, government and law. It is for the Department for Education to lead this work; I have worked alongside colleagues in the Department, and I know they will be diligent in providing updates on the progress of its work.
Dr Chowns
I am sorry; I may have misunderstood, but is the Minister arguing that she does not support new clause 44 because a range of organisations will be taking part in action to raise awareness of the extended franchise and, therefore, it would not be right for the Government to provide a report only on what they were doing? That is not my reading of new clause 44, which asks the Government to do a report on proposals overall to support raising awareness and civic education. By definition, the Government are probably best placed to have that overview of all proposals, including their own, and those of the Electoral Commission and any number of other organisations, so that we can understand what is being done to support young people as they take on this new democratic responsibility.
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s view is that such a report would be partial; it would only cover the work that the Government are doing and we could not speak to other organisations and their work in this arena.
Dr Chowns
My reading of the clause is that it does not have to be partial: it calls for a report on all proposals. Therefore, perhaps the Government’s interpretation of the new clause is unnecessarily narrow. Might the Minister commit to going away and reflecting on whether this could actually be compatible and a helpful contribution to supporting the civic education of young people?
Samantha Dixon
This endeavour is an ongoing task; it is not a single point in time, which is what a report would reflect upon. The Government will move forward in partnership across the wide sector in public life, to continue to improve the education of young people. For that reason, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary.
Paul Holmes
I am pretty agnostic about new clause 44 because I think it is quite vague, but I understand the reason it has been tabled. Earlier I outlined a concern that I do not believe the education system is quite yet able to make sure that our younger people get the education that they should have before they vote in a national election, notwithstanding the fact that the education system needs to be impartial.
The Minister will know that some types of schools, such as academies, are not necessarily subject to the national curriculum. The legislation in these clauses is quite vague, as I mentioned. I am not sure that there is concrete action from the Minister’s Department and from the Department for Education on a cross-ministerial committee or something, to make sure that the two sides are being matched up to implement this legislation.
Will the Minister try to allay some of my concerns, and those of other hon. Members—perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause—about whether the education system will be well equipped, and whether all schools are going to be required to prepare young people for the new duty that they are going to be given?
Samantha Dixon
Yes, I can offer hon. Members that reassurance. I have worked with DFE colleagues to consider the independent curriculum and assessment review. That review will take onboard democracy, government and law being part of the curriculum going forward. As I mentioned, citizenship will also be introduced in primary schools. As we go forward, the wide collaboration of not just this Government but devolved Governments, local authorities and others will support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical civic education. I mentioned that this is not a singular act but an ongoing task. A report of a proposed activity offered a year after the Bill becomes law will be little more than a snapshot of a much longer-term programme of work. For that reason, the Government do not support the new clause.
Lisa Smart
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about how we need a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that young people are equipped to exercise their right to vote. She talked about devolved Administrations, schools and others. There are non-governmental organisations and charities working on that approach: Shout Out UK and My Life My Say are two really good examples.
The Minister is right that this is an ongoing process, but the extension of the franchise will be a one-off. There will be a single point in time when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause, which would provide for a report after 12 months, has been tabled to ensure that the necessary work is done to look at what has happened and what needs to happen to make sure that our young people are properly equipped and empowered to use their vote.
Samantha Dixon
I accept that the hon. Member has a deep appreciation of civic education. However, we feel that a report after 12 months adds little value to the ongoing work that needs to continue over a number of years and a whole cycle of electoral events.
Samantha Dixon
I do not think that I would because it would be a bureaucratic exercise, whereas the work needs to focus outwards. The scrutiny will come from within Parliament, and from within devolved Governments, so I will not accept the new clause as it stands.
Samantha Dixon
I was going to come to the points the hon. Gentleman had raised.
Paul Holmes
I want to add another one, if that is possible. The Minister is being most generous, and she has shown utter determination not to accept new clause 44. Does she think there is merit in reviewing how this new enfranchisement will work, perhaps through existing mechanisms when there is a review of how a general election has been conducted? I know that is not every year, but when organisations look at voting and participation rates and attitude surveys at or after a general election, is there an opportunity to legislate for a review, at the end of each Parliament or the start of a new one, into the attitudes and voting habits of those new electors, as part of a wider review of behaviour in the last general election?
Samantha Dixon
With respect to hon. Members who are clearly thinking on their feet as we debate this issue, I point out that a review of every general election is done by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament. As it has been involved in this Bill and the legislation that falls from it, I am sure that it will be particularly interested in this approach to the extension of enfranchisement.
Finally, I turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley’s point regarding children in care and care leavers. I am pleased to join Opposition Members in declaring I was as a former council leader with corporate responsibility for young people in local authority care. I am acutely aware of their needs and the additional support they require. I have worked with council officers who routinely assist young people, particularly care leavers, in registering to vote and supporting them in the appropriate way as they do vote. I feel that electoral registration officers, with their unique roles within local authorities, will amply be able to support looked-after children and care leavers to exercise their right to vote. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Registration without an application
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(f) if the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching.”
This amendment requires the registration officer to register certain electors only when their existence has been verified through three different datasets.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 18 and 19 stand part.
Schedule 2.
Amendment 27, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Sections 17, 18 and 19 of this Act do not come into force until the Secretary of State has published an independent review into the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters incorrectly being automatically added to the electoral roll.”
This amendment would prevent the provisions on automatic voter registration coming into force until the Secretary of State had published an independent review of the steps necessary to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth voters being incorrectly automatically added to the electoral roll.
Paul Holmes
I put on record my thanks to the officials in the Box for making that last set of amendments discussable, because they were so technical. We had an interesting debate, none the less.
We come to the crucial clauses that relate to automatic voter registration. I will speak on behalf of the official Opposition to amendments 26 and 27, which stand in my name. Automatic registration, which has been a clear aim of this Government from the beginning, would contradict the whole approach behind individual electoral registration—that individuals are responsible for registering and that there should be proper checks to ensure that the right people are eligible to be on the electoral roll. Automatic registration will result in more inaccurate entries and opens the door to electoral fraud, undoing the improvements delivered by individual registration.
Individual registration was implemented to stop fraudulent electoral registration, to ensure a more accurate register with fewer errors, and to remove the outdated concept that heads of household, often men, could decide who should be on the electoral roll. We argue that automatic registration would undermine those reforms. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially of people who have moved recently. Registration by algorithm may add people to electoral rolls who do not live in the area because of out-of-date entries on other databases; it might also add people who have a residence but are not eligible to vote, such as certain second home owners, unqualified Commonwealth voters and so on.
Lewis Cocking
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I support Opposition amendments 26 and 27 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley, but I want to outline my concerns about automatic voter registration.
I think the way electors currently register themselves to vote is perfectly fine and works well across the United Kingdom, but if the Government are to push forward with automatic voter registration, they must make sure it happens all across the country at the same time for the same general election; otherwise there will be serious consequences. For example, I have two councils—Broxbourne and East Hertfordshire—that are in charge of their own electoral rolls for their own council area, but both cover my constituency. Let us say that Ministers decide to do auto-enrolment by council area, and that one of my council areas gets picked, but the other one does not. In a general election campaign, some of my electors would have been automatically enrolled and some not. That will matter. If the election is close, can that be challenged in the courts? Is it fair in a democracy? I do not think Ministers have thought through that automatic voter registration needs to happen everywhere at the same time.
The Government could say they will have pilot areas of automatic voter registration on the basis of council elections, and have automatic voter registration across a whole district for its council election, but not in the neighbouring district for its council election. That would be perfectly fair, because everybody within the same council boundary would be on the same electoral list and have the same rights to vote as everybody else. Unless this all happens at the same time for the next general election, there is a real danger of creating two groups of electors across the country.
As has been mentioned, this will affect the next boundary commission review, which is due to take place after the next general election. There will be some constituencies where auto-enrolment has happened and some where it has not, which will affect where the boundary commission draws the lines for the general election after next.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am not trying to trip the hon. Gentleman up; I am just genuinely curious to understand this. Is his contention that having mandatory automatic enrolment will increase the number of people who are registered? [Interruption.] I see the shadow Minister shaking his head. If that is not the contention, and it is not the case that auto-enrolment would increase the number of people being registered, in what sense does the hon. Member for Broxbourne think that this would create two different populations?
Lewis Cocking
Some people will be automatically enrolled who have chosen, under the current system, not to be on the electoral roll, but it is a question of fairness. If we are not having that across the country, all at the same time, it will create an unfair election result. As I understand it, it will be up to Ministers to choose whether they do it by age, by location or by demographic. If everyone is not enrolled at the same time, one could arguably gerrymander, because one could pick people based on who they are likely to vote for at the general election.
I do not think we need automatic enrolment, but if the Government are going to push forward with it, they could at least say, “We are going to make the next generation fair in terms of auto-enrolment, and we are going to do it for everybody, all at the same time, across the country for the next general election.” If the Government are worried about capacity to do that, I suggest that what is needed is more time. The Electoral Commission might say that it needs more time to do it, so it would have to happen at the next general election after that. As I have said, they could do pilots based on council elections, as long as the whole authority is covered by that pilot.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend recall the evidence that we heard about the pilots in Wales? Auto-enrolment was implemented, and when that data was verified, a significant number of voters fell off who should never have been on the roll in the first place. That indicates that there is a risk that auto-enrolment distorts the electoral position at local authority or parliamentary constituency level by adding people who are not eligible to vote. It creates two risks: one is, as my hon. Friend has described, boundaries being drawn in a way that does not allocate people’s votes equally; another is that people will be offered the chance the vote when they are not eligible to participate in that election.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is why Opposition amendments 26 and 27 are very important, because they go some way—not the whole way, but some way—to mitigating what he has just outlined.
Dr Chowns
It might be helpful if I remind the Committee of what the Electoral Commission itself says:
“Automated voter registration has the potential to significantly improve levels of accuracy and completeness of the registers and help ensure people can vote in future elections… Significant progress should be made on implementing forms of automated registration before the next UK general election… Pilots in Wales last year show how effective automatic registration can be.”
I am a little worried that, inadvertently, a false impression of the opinion of the Electoral Commission has been given.
Lewis Cocking
I am arguing that if we are going to do automatic enrolment, it should be for everybody, all at the same time, across the country. As I have pointed out, one could do pilots within council areas, as long as everyone in the whole area is being enrolled at the same time. I have given a number of examples.
In my constituency of Broxbourne, I have two registration authorities, so it could be that at a general election some people within the same constituency are auto-enrolled while others are not. I do not believe that is fair. I said at the start of this that I think the current arrangements for registering to vote in this country are perfectly fine, and that people have a choice to register or not. If someone says, “I do not wish to register to vote,” that is their choice. That is up to the individual.
Dr Chowns
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will cite once more evidence from the Electoral Commission, which does not agree with him that the current system is fine. The Electoral Commission says that evidence from its research shows that
“as many as 8 million people across the UK are not correctly registered to vote”.
That is a huge proportion—a huge disenfranchisement. The Electoral Commission says:
“Introducing more automated forms of registration would remove barriers to voting and make it easier for people to register and vote.”
Does the hon. Member not think we should listen to the Electoral Commission?
Lewis Cocking
Some of those 8 million people may have chosen not to be on the electoral roll. Would the hon. Lady like to stand in a constituency where half of her electors are auto-enrolled and the other half are not? What are the consequences of that if the election is very close? Will it be taken through the courts?
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats are in favour of automatic voter registration; it is a long-standing commitment of ours. As such, we support clauses 17 to 19, and we oppose amendments 26 and 27.
Some Opposition Members said they feel that the current system is doing okay and expressed satisfaction with it. I disagree. It is not okay that 65% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 95% of homeowners, according to Generation Rent. It is also not okay that young people or members of the global majority are far less likely to be registered—someone being black or brown should not mean they are less likely to be registered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats support AVR.
International research by the Electoral Integrity Project found that the UK is ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe for the extent to which elections empower citizens. Research from Manchester University shows that the UK has one of the hardest registration systems for voters of any liberal democracy. In democracies around the world, AVR is the norm, and has been proven to lead to more accurate—not less—electoral registers. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire quoted the Electoral Commission, and she was entirely right to do so. The commission said in its report:
“From the evidence available, nearly all of these additions to the register appear accurate”.
We should listen to the experts on this matter.
The Liberal Democrats always have concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and we want to ensure that any roll-out of AVR keeps control of the data with the individual. I agree with and support the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley about people being able to opt out. One of the measures in this part of the Bill is around data-sharing powers, allowing electoral registration officers to use existing Government records to register or update voters without requiring an application. Some of the evidence we saw from Unlock Democracy recommends clear opt-out communications and privacy safeguards. People may not fully understand that they are being registered unless they are proactively informed, so we support those recommendations.
We heard from Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia and the Electoral Integrity Project. He raised concerns that the open register means that people placed on the electoral roll may not be aware that their data can be sold to third parties. People who never sought registration to begin with may be especially unaware of that. Those are concerns we should all hold dear.
Amendment 26 seems to frame accuracy and inclusion as a trade-off. We do not agree. Triple verification would create administrative friction and disproportionately block the groups with the lowest registration levels, such as young people and private renters. We believe other safeguards are in place. The amendment is a blocker, so we do not support it.
Amendment 27 would delay the implementation of automatic voter registration. The review mentioned in it does not have a timetable, and the piloting framework in clauses 20 to 25 will already test the implementation of AVR. We do not support amendments 26 and 27; we support clauses 17 to 19.
Samantha Dixon
Voter registration is the bedrock of our democracy and is foundational to participation in elections; without it, we cannot exercise our right to vote. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Electoral Commission estimates that between 7 million and 8 million eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered to vote at all. We will address that registration gap by moving towards a more automated voter registration system.
Clause 17 will create a new process of registration without application, also known as direct registration. We believe that that will enrich our democracy by making voter registration as simple and easy as possible. It creates a new duty for electoral registration officers to add those who are unregistered directly on to the electoral register without those people having to go through the process of applying to register to vote, provided that certain conditions are met. That will be the case only if the ERO is satisfied that the person should be registered, on the basis of data obtained by the ERO. Those who are directly registered will be informed through a notice that it is happening. On the points made by the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Hazel Grove, they will have the right to opt out of the process during the response period.
In conjunction with regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, clause 17 will open a world of opportunities for our brilliant EROs to use new data sources, both national and local, to get unregistered but eligible citizens on to the electoral register. It should also better streamline and hopefully, in time, reduce the administrative burden on EROs—for example, by reducing the need to send invitations to register and by softening the registration surges we see around election times.
We understand that direct registration is not appropriate for every kind of voter. As mentioned, there will be exemptions for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish to be registered in this way, or that they intend to make an application for registration. There is also an exemption for those who tell the ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application. There will also be an exemption where the ERO receives an application for registration of that person during the set response period.
We are not replacing the current system of registration, but are simply providing another means of registration. That will add a new, modernised mechanism that reflects the realities of how public bodies hold and use data today, and how individuals interact with those services. Direct registration offers many opportunities, but is not an overnight process. As will be covered in relation to clauses 20 to 25, it will take time to explore and test different data sources to ensure that they best identify eligible citizens. It will also take time to pilot and test the overall effectiveness of direct registration. There are significant opportunities here to move towards a more automated registration system that narrows the registration gap and builds a fuller and fairer democracy.
Amendment 26 proposes a new condition that must be met before the ERO registers someone without an application—that the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching. I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, and of course share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to ensuring that only eligible individuals are registered.
Under the Bill, an ERO must directly register someone only if they are satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. We are robustly exploring and will rigorously test different Government datasets that could be used to aid EROs in their new direct registration duties. As part of that, we are exploring which datasets will provide EROs with sufficient assurance to determine that a person is entitled to be registered. We do not agree with specifying a minimum number of datasets that should be used to determine someone’s existence. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, there is the potential for one or two robust and well-tested datasets to provide sufficient assurance. In those cases, it would be unnecessary and inefficient to require an ERO to consider further datasets, so I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 18 is similar to clause 17, but focuses on a new process of direct alteration. It aims to improve the accuracy of our electoral registers in the simplest and easiest way possible for the voter. It will create a new process of alteration without application, also known as direct alteration. It creates a new duty for EROs to update people’s name or address details in their electoral register, where data shows that those have changed. Just like with direct registration, those whose details are directly altered will be informed through a notice that that is happening, and they will have the right to object during the response period.
The clause, alongside regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, will enable EROs to use new data sources to identify people whose registration details are incorrect and update their entries without those people having to submit an application of alteration. That will help the accuracy and integrity of the register, and will make things easier for EROs, who might otherwise contact voters at the wrong addresses or using the wrong names. It will also help to prevent people from missing out on their right to vote, by ensuring that the right details are recorded for them.
As mentioned previously, there will be an exemption for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish their entry to be altered in that way. There are other exemptions, including for those who tell their ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application.
We are not removing the ability of individuals to contact their ERO to update their own details. Clause 18 will create a new, modern process that will be tested and iterated over time. It will allow EROs to use data in a common-sense way to improve the accuracy of the electoral register.
Clause 19 introduces schedule 2 and makes further provision in connection with clauses 17 and 18 for registration without an application and for the alteration of certain registers without an application. Schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985 to allow for direct registration and alteration, and to build safeguards into the process.
I draw the Committee’s attention, in particular, to paragraphs 16 to 19 of schedule 2, which aim to ensure that if a person is an overseas elector or is applying to be one, a registration without application is disregarded if they did not ask for it to be made and they are still eligible to be an overseas elector. The clause aims to reduce the risk of a new entry being created without an application, which could then invalidate the registration or declaration of an overseas elector. That is needed to ensure that overseas electors do not inadvertently lose their right to their status as an overseas elector—for example, in the unlikely event that an ERO directly registers that person at an address at which they are not resident, and they miss the registration notice while they are overseas. We think the risk of that happening incorrectly is low, but we want to include safeguards in case it happens.
Amendment 27 proposes that direct registration and alteration duties for EROs—meaning registering someone or altering their registration details without that person submitting an application—and other, related provisions should not commence until after the Secretary of State has published an independent review. That review would look into the steps needed to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth citizens being directly registered. The amendment involves inserting a requirement for a review into clause 80, the Bill’s commencement clause.
David Simmonds
The Minister is addressing the pilots and how they will be learned from. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne set out some broad concerns about the risks to the integrity of the ballot of taking an inconsistent approach, whereby different groups of electors may be targeted for auto-enrolment in different local areas, such that we end up with inconsistency.
Another risk is around identity theft and fraud. For many people, a place on the electoral register is the start of obtaining credit or sometimes of applying for a job or benefits. I am very conscious, as I am sure we will all be from our constituency case work, that getting behind those kinds of fraud and identity theft can be extremely expensive and difficult. For example, a person may apply to go on the electoral register at someone else’s property without your permission. That person may not be genuine or even exist, but under this system, unless a response comes back saying that they do not wish to be added to the register, they will automatically be put on it. That opens a new avenue for fraudsters, and particularly identity thieves.
For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister therefore set out what consultations there have been with colleagues across Government about evaluating the risk of identity theft that this provision creates for our constituents?
Samantha Dixon
I simply suggest that the piloting, with the work of the EROs and the access to the datasets that establish the right and the eligibility to vote, are testing precisely the point the hon. Gentleman is making about avoiding election fraud. That is the purpose of the pilots.
David Simmonds
It is not so much about election fraud off the back of this; it is more about somebody getting themselves on the electoral register and applying for a credit facility. One thing the credit provider will check is whether they are on the electoral roll. That person may not exist at all, but because of auto-enrolment they are now on the electoral register, as a result of which they obtain credit. That opens up the risk of fake registrations, which we already hear about from trading standards. It would be helpful to understand what consideration the Government have given to that risk, particularly given the impact it has on vulnerable households among our constituents.
Samantha Dixon
The point that I am attempting to make is that this piloting and the move towards auto-enrolment will enable EROs to test, based on a variety of different datasets, that the application is accurate, legitimate and not spurious or in any way fraudulent. While I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, these things are being done to avoid the scenario he has just described.
EROs will continue to exercise their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. Before a person is automatically enrolled, they will be written to, but the ERO will have tested, through a variety of different datasets, whether that application is legitimate. We will test that robustly and fairly and with the guidance of partners such as the Electoral Commission.
Paul Holmes
I hope the Minister will forgive me—it is quite possible, indeed likely, that this is my ignorance—but she outlined the datasets the EROs will analyse. Will she clarify whether those will be the same datasets in each geographical area? If not, does that not risk creating a different set of parameters and methods for who would and would not be added to the register, which cannot be analysed at the end of the pilot? Does that make sense?
Samantha Dixon
Regrettably, the hon. Member may have to explain that to me again in a different way.
Paul Holmes
That is no reflection on the Minister; I do not think I explained it particularly well. The Minister outlined that the ERO will assess datasets to ascertain whether to add somebody to the electoral roll automatically. In the context of the pilots, would those datasets be the same types—the same original information sources—or could they vary, depending on who the ERO is and which geographical location they are in when adding someone to the electoral roll?
Samantha Dixon
The legislation takes forward the principle of piloting. The detail of those pilots will come through in secondary legislation. I will provide more clarity, if I can, for the hon. Member, but the principle of piloting is what we are talking about.
Paul Holmes
I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, because the concern I have is genuine; otherwise, I would be intentionally misleading the House, which I am not, I would not and I do not. The reason I asked the question is that we are about to take a significant step towards automatic registration. We have a disagreement, but that is what the Government are going to end up doing. It is therefore important that the data presents a secure and reliable way of putting people on the register. The reason I ask whether there will be different datasets or sources is that we cannot properly analyse the pilots if people are using different datasets.
How can the Minister be satisfied by saying that the principle of pilots must go ahead, but that the Government will unveil the detail in secondary legislation? We have seen this with this Government before, so it is not personal to the Minister, but that is a terrible way to draft legislation. The Minister and the Government are asking the Committee to make a significant change to the electoral registration system in this country, but they cannot tell us—we are straying into the next group, so I will reserve my comments for that—what the basic parameters will look like. How is that good public policymaking?
Samantha Dixon
To offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, as set out in the Government’s policy paper, “A blueprint for modern digital government”, “technology presents us with” the opportunity to
“improve the way that government delivers for the public”.
Our ambition is to transform our electoral registration system, harnessing existing data from across Government to move to an automated system. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess whether the combined dataset that is already used to check registration applications and support the annual review of electoral registers could also help identify people who may not be registered. We are also working with the Home Office to explore whether its data could help to indicate whether people who are identified as eligible, but who are unregistered, appear to meet the nationality and immigration status requirements to vote. I hope that provides some comfort and clarity to the hon. Member. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment and commend clauses 17 to 19 and schedule 2 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
After the Minister’s winding up, I think it is even more necessary to push amendments 26 and 27 to a vote—particularly amendment 26, which concerns data checks. The Government are proposing a major change without the detail necessary to inform our decision on whether it should happen and with a lack of detail on the system to be proposed. They also cannot comment on what the datasets are or whether they could be different in different geographical locations. For all those reasons, I feel that I have to push both amendments to a vote.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that ensuring full transparency and integrity following any changes is even more important at the moment, given that the integrity of our electoral system is being called into question, including by some parties represented in the House of Commons that say that we cannot rely on the fairness and integrity of elections under the existing rules? Does he agree that the avoidance of future challenge and dissonance relies on this Committee’s being clear what the changes we are being asked to vote on mean in practice? If we cannot be clear with the voters about what this means for them, we should not be doing it. We should be coming back later when we can be clear.
Paul Holmes
I do not think it will be a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly agree. This is alien to me. Asking the Committee to vote on the principle of something without the detail and with absolutely no reassurance that the transparency and integrity of the system will be fundamentally better than it is now is bad law making and bad government.
Samantha Dixon
I have to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the integrity of the process will be challenged; that is not the Government’s intention in any way. The principle is that we will use the same Government datasets in each location, but also allow local EROs to use the local datasets that they have access to in addition to Government datasets. The principle of piloting is to test robustness and integrity—that is precisely why the pilots are so important.
Paul Holmes
The Minister said that the intention is not for these things to be challenged on the basis of integrity, but that does not provide clarity or certainty at all—it does not mean that there will not be a challenge or that it will not be successful. That is because of the lack of detail and transparency. The Committee is expected to decide on a new system without the parameters being laid out clearly and to rely on the Secretary of State to determine what automatic registration should look like through secondary legislation after a pilot. The details and the systems have not been outlined clearly to the Committee. That is why we tabled amendment 26, which would ensure that an electoral returning officer has three individual forms of check.
The Minister just outlined that EROs in different locations can access different datasets to reassure themselves that they should be putting someone on the roll. That sounds very similar to an ERO being able to check the register for three datasets, which is outlined in amendment 26. It seems to me that she has accepted the principle that EROs might need to determine the security of automatically enrolling someone through a number of datasets. Why are the Government so scared to ask for three? That would ensure the integrity and security that the Minister claims she wants and that I believe she wants. However, she is resisting amendment 26, which does exactly what she claims she wants to and adds a bit more detail on how the pilots will go forward.
I am afraid that for those reasons—a complete lack of clarity and transparency, and an expectation that the Opposition should trust the Government to come forward with the right decision in secondary legislation—we will have to press both amendments to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 21, page 33, line 33, at end insert—
“(8) voter registration provision does not mean any provision which amends the franchise for UK parliamentary elections or local elections in England.”
This amendment prevents the voter registration pilots being used to amend the franchise.
Clauses 21 to 25 stand part.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 20 enables the Secretary of State to make pilot regulations that test new and innovative methods of electoral registration. As part of our work to strengthen the registration system, the Government are exploring new and innovative ways of electoral registration.
By harnessing existing Government data and embracing new technology, we aim to modernise the process, making registration simpler and more accessible for citizens. However, before any new methods of registration are introduced in full, it is right that they are tested in real-world conditions with real people, not merely in enclosed, controlled environments. By testing new registration methods in the real world, we will be able to ensure—to the best of our ability—that any new approaches to registration are both effective and secure. The Government are committed to strengthening our democracy and encouraging full participation by legitimate voters in our elections, and the clause forms a critical part of that work.
With the Committee’s indulgence, I will address amendment 28, notwithstanding the fact that it has not yet been spoken to. It aims to ensure that the voter registration pilots, which are provided for in the Bill, cannot be used to amend the franchise. I reassure members of the Committee that the new piloting powers, as drafted, could not be used to amend the franchise.
Clause 20 creates a new power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to pilot changes to the voter registration process, which the Bill describes as “voter registration provision”. Clause 21 defines “voter registration provision”, making clear that it is limited to registering individuals entitled, under existing franchise eligibility criteria, to be registered. It also allows for existing register entries to be amended or removed. Our intention is to make registration easier and simpler for those already eligible to register to vote; it is not to amend the eligibility criteria for entitlement to register to vote. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment, as it is unnecessary.
Clause 21 seeks to clarify what is meant in clause 20 by “voter registration provision”, in relation to pilot regulations, by providing examples of what such regulations could entail. As I have just said, before any new methods of registration are introduced in full, it is right that they are tested in real-world conditions with real people, not solely in enclosed, controlled environments. In July last year, the Government published our strategy for modern and secure elections, in which we noted that technology presents ever-expanding opportunities to improve the way in which the Government deliver for the public. Our ambition is to modernise our registration practices, harnessing data and moving towards an increasingly automated system, so that voters can be easily and simply registered to vote.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister probably knows the point I am about to make. I fully appreciate what she has just said about having to do these demos in real-world scenarios, but can she ensure that they will be conducted during elections where everybody is treated in the same way—that is, council elections—rather than at a general election, where she will create two types of elector? Can we have that reassurance?
Samantha Dixon
I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope to address them as we go forward.
Clause 21 makes clear that piloting regulations may be used to explore this ambition further, including by testing new and innovative ways of using Government data to identify individuals and support them to register, as well as testing potential improvements to administrative processes. Our ambition is to support a modern, efficient registration system that makes participation straightforward for citizens and strengthens the foundations of our democracy. The clause plays an important role in providing the framework through which that ambition can be pursued.
Clause 22 builds on clause 21 by providing further clarity on the scope of the piloting powers set out in clause 20. It makes clear that pilots will take place in one or more areas, and that they may assess the impact of new registration methods on specific demographic groups. The clause also confirms that, in most circumstances, pilots will proceed only with the consent of the relevant electoral registration officer. It is right that those directly responsible for administering the pilot are engaged, informed and supportive of the approach being taken.
Furthermore, clause 22 allows pilot regulations, on a temporary basis, to create, suspend or disapply an offence or financial penalty where that is necessary for the effective conduct of a pilot. However, they cannot increase penalties beyond existing legal limits, nor introduce penalties or offences for individuals who fail to register or update their details. That ensures that the legal framework operates sensibly during the testing period while maintaining appropriate protections and proportionality.
Clause 22 provides breadth, flexibility and practicality to the proposed piloting framework, giving clarity to officials without imposing an overly rigid or exhaustive set of rules. In doing so, the provisions ensure that pilot schemes can be designed in a measured, proportionate and genuinely useful way, supporting the Government to realise their ambition to modernise electoral registration and make it simpler for citizens to engage with the democratic process.
I now turn to clause 23, which provides that any pilot regulations made under the new power conferred on the Secretary of State in clause 20 must be made by statutory instrument. Parliament is the proper forum for the scrutiny and oversight of such powers. Electoral registration is a matter of significant importance and sensitivity, and it is therefore right that parliamentarians have the opportunity to examine in full any proposed regulations establishing a new pilot.
Clause 23 provides that all regulations made under this piloting power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, except where the regulations do no more than extend an existing pilot for no longer than 12 months, or amend the deadline by which the Electoral Commission must publish its evaluation report—in which case the SI will be subject to the negative procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure for the vast majority of cases reflects the long-standing convention that changes to electoral law should receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny. Safeguarding the security and inclusivity of our electoral registration system must remain paramount.
Clause 24 provides that the Electoral Commission will evaluate any pilots and produce a report. The Electoral Commission serves as an essential independent guardian of the integrity and transparency of our democratic processes. By upholding rigorous standards and providing impartial oversight, it helps ensure that electoral matters across the United Kingdom are conducted properly, securely and with public confidence.
By placing the Electoral Commission’s independent assessment at the heart of the evaluation of any electoral registration pilot, we ensure that Parliament, stakeholders and the public receive a clear, objective and authoritative appraisal of any pilot’s effectiveness. The clause reinforces our commitment to rigorous independent scrutiny by requiring the report to address specific issues. That includes an assessment of the extent to which a pilot has met its objectives and an evaluation of whether the changes made by the regulations represent a cost-effective means of achieving them.
Although we are ambitious about delivering a modern, more automated electoral registration system fit for the 21st century, we are equally mindful that robust processes and independent evaluation must remain integral to the testing of any new registration method. Clause 25 provides definitions for the four key terms used throughout clauses 20 to 24. This is an interpretive provision that defines key terms and is necessary for the operation of those clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. I do not know why I said that—it is a habit. But it is always lovely to see you; it is reminiscent of the 2015 general election.
Paul Holmes
Thank you very much.
These amendments relate to the pilot schemes. I do believe that the Government have been slightly naughty in how they are trying to promote these pilots. Not once have they consulted the Political Parties Panel or reached out on a cross-party basis to consult on changes to the franchise or to electoral systems, or on the cancellation of local elections.
The Government are completely entitled to set out a scope for pilots, but the clauses lack any detail on what we should expect the pilots to look like and what they are supposed to be delivering. Where is the detail about the datasets they will use? The transparency and sense of integrity are not there. The Minister said she wanted to reassure us—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I apologise for terminating the hon. Member’s contribution, but there is a Division. I suspend the Committee for 15 minutes. We will resume at 4.16 pm.
Paul Holmes
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. It was a wonderful election campaign—oh, I’ve done that bit.
The clauses deal with voter pilot schemes. As I had started to outline, we are concerned that when it comes to electoral changes, voting age changes or anything to do with the electoral system, the Government have not really been transparent. They have not worked, as previous Governments did, on a cross-party basis through interaction and meetings with the parliamentary parties panel. As with the last few clauses, they have not outlined the detail necessary to satisfy us to support the clause and rely on secondary legislation.
Although I know that the Minister is a Minister of the utmost integrity—I have always believed that, so she should take that as read—she said that we should be reassured that voter pilot schemes would not be used to amend the franchise, which is the aim of my amendment 28, but the Secretary of State said in the House, two days before he cancelled local elections, that he would not cancel local elections. He was then taken to court, and it was found that the decision was not lawful. The Minister will forgive us if we are not entirely confident in the reassurances given, when Government Ministers have given reassurances on the Floor of the House and then done something else.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend refers to the recent judicial review. My understanding is that, rather than losing the judicial review, the Government actually offered no defence. They conceded because they did not wish to be transparent about the decision-making process that the Secretary of State had followed. Subsequent freedom of information requests sought to get under exactly what was happening, but clearly there was correspondence that the Government did not wish to place in the public domain. They preferred to abandon their devolution plans rather than concede on that point.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a great starting point for a Government who are asking us to take them on trust about pilot schemes with a complete absence of detail and no indication of who would be prioritised for auto-enrolment, what the geographical basis would be or what the decision-making process would be? It is not a good basis for asking us to take them on trust when the Government have not been willing to be transparent about elections that they were determined would go ahead, only to cancel them within literally 24 hours.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. As I say, this Minister is a Minister of integrity, but I find this out in opposition. I work for a shadow Secretary of State; the Minister works for the Secretary of State. On a number of occasions, the Secretary of State has been found to have said things in the Chamber that have turned out not to be the case. It is therefore not right for the Opposition to have confidence that we can rely on a reassurance from the Minister that the pilots will not be used to amend the franchise.
The wording of amendment 28 is so clear that there is no room for manoeuvre. Why does the Minister not accept the amendment and show us that her reassurance is worth the paper it is written on? The amendment would not fundamentally change the passage of the Bill or the parameters of the pilot, but it would provide reassurance that the Government will not use the pilots and whatever comes out of them for a reassessment through the Electoral Commission. We do not know the parameters of the pilots; their geography, as my hon. Friend says; who will be included in them; or the datasets that will be used. The Minister should accept the amendment and give us reassurance that the pilots will not be used to change the franchise.
The Opposition have repeatedly asked and challenged Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State when he took office, about whether local elections would go ahead. The Secretary of State then tried to stop those elections. We know why the Government did not want anybody to see the evidence or the correspondence. It was a pattern that this Government have shown before: putting their own political interests before the interests of the electoral system and before having a credible plan or a credible defence. That is why they were found out. That is why when I looked the Secretary of State in the eye and asked whether he would cancel the local elections, he said he would not—and then he did, on a Thursday morning when he would not get the scrutiny that he deserved from a full House of Commons.
David Simmonds
On the pattern of behaviour, the Minister has set out very clearly that the Government wish to rely on the independent Electoral Commission to appraise the outcome of the pilot schemes. But what we do not know—because the Government are not willing to set it out to this Committee, which it is asking to approve the principle of the pilots—is what it will appraise those pilot projects against. We do not know at this stage what the Government seek to achieve through the pilot projects. We therefore cannot assume that the Electoral Commission is in a position to give us the genuinely independent perspective that we expect of it.
Historically, there has been much debate about whether the Electoral Commission should be given a mandate by Parliament. One useful thing about such a mandate is that it would be able to say, for example, that a criterion for appraising pilots is the use of equality impact assessments to determine the impact of the pilots on people with learning disabilities or physical disabilities, on younger voters specifically, and on younger voters with learning disabilities, who may be a subset of such voters. Without any clear sense from the Government of what the pilots will seek to achieve and how that will be implemented consistently, it is difficult for the Committee to be confident that the pilots will genuinely contribute to the integrity of the poll.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Let us not forget that in very recent history the Government have completely ignored the view of the Electoral Commission anyway. When the Government said that they would not cancel local elections, and then did, and then got found out in court and did not defend the case, the Electoral Commission said repeatedly that it disagreed with the Government’s stance on the local elections because the Government had not consulted and had breached the general rule that EROs and local authorities should be given at least six months’ notice of a change of poll.
The Electoral Commission was very clear, and I think it went as far as condemning the Government’s decision, but the Government ignored it. The Minister can outline how the Electoral Commission will be consulted, but they have ignored it before and it is very likely—in fact, given the pattern of behaviour of the Secretary of State, it is almost certain—that the Government will find the answer that they want to find, regardless of what the Electoral Commission review says.
We remain sceptical. This is not personal against the Minister. I like the Minister intensely—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] I couldn’t think of another word. I like the Minister a lot, and I think she is a woman of integrity, but the pattern of behaviour from this Government is astounding, on consultation, on transparency and, actually, in Parliament. Ministers, who are governed by the ministerial code, have said that they will not do something and then gone ahead and done it anyway, in the cynical way that we have come to see from every Department in this Government. It is rotten from the top down.
On the pilots, the Minister has been clear that the parameters are not well established in the Bill and that she will want to come back with secondary legislation. Clause 20, “Power to pilot changes to the voter registration process”, states that the
“Secretary of State may by regulations make voter registration provision…in connection with…a register of parliamentary electors maintained under section 9 of RPA 1983”
and
“a register of local government electors”.
However, where it says that “regulations must specify”, there are certainly no parameters, and she is asking us to give the Government a blank cheque.
The Minister is asking us to approve pilots without any detail on what they may look like. She is also not saying how she will test whether those pilots are successful. When she winds up, will she outline to the Committee exactly what the parameters are for the pilots and the tests for what looks like success when they are finished?
Lewis Cocking
I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend’s impassioned speech. Does he share my concern that the pilots may be done on the basis of council areas, but that everyone should be auto-enrolled at the same time, rather than creating two lists of electors for a general election? Does he agree that that, in itself, will undermine the next general election and undermine democracy as a whole? Does he also agree that the Government must provide more detail about these demos, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche to pick and choose who they do and do not want to enrol, with this Committee and the House having no say in the matter?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely. As I have attempted to outline, and as I think my hon. Friend is saying, without such detail why should people trust a word that the Government say? It has been the same with other legislation, as I know from being a shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government Minister, and it is pretty clear that it comes from the top of Government.
Let us look at the detail of clauses 21 and 22. Subsections (3) and (5) of clause 21 state that it
“includes provision relating to…the identification of individuals who are not registered”—
that goes without saying—and
“the identification of changes relevant to entries in the register, and…the maintenance of registers”,
as well as
“the form of the register…the procedure to be followed in the preparation of the register…the publication of the register”,
but there is no detail. If this Government are so clear about what they want to do with automatic registration, they should set out clearly the parameters for its implementation and should have an idea of what they want from it, but I must say that everything in the Bill about what they want from the pilots is fairly generic guff.
Lewis Cocking
Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that this measure could be reintroduced during the next parliamentary Session, when we can give a lot more thought to where the demos will take place and to the detail of who will be auto-enrolled first, and we can properly scrutinise the Government? As he rightly points out, this Government have made a number of U-turns. It is very difficult to trust a word that Ministers say or to know whether they will keep their word about the Bills they bring in. Does he agree that, rather than rushing the Bill through in this Session, the Government need to go away, think again and come back with fresh ideas when they put the legislation before Parliament in the next Session?
Paul Holmes
The Government have the luxury of being able to carry over this Bill. Its Report stage will be not in this Session, but in the next. Ministers have plenty of time to do this properly and not only give it proper scrutiny and listen to this Committee, but go away and think about it. Instead of bringing in amendments in secondary legislation, they could tell us what the pilots should look like and what they want to achieve from them. So far, the Bill does not do so.
My hon. Friend is correct that we do not have to finish the Bill by the end of this Session. The Committee has to finish in this Session, but Report can be held whenever the Government want after we come back for the next Session, because there is a carry-over order. There is no need to rush to Report and get the Bill through as quickly as possible. That mechanism is in place, so the Minister has time to strengthen this part of the Bill.
It is alien to me, but unfortunately it is a testament to the attitudes of this Government—and particularly this Department, when it comes to changing key indicators in terms of voting age, but also in terms of the way that people vote—that they want us to give them a blank cheque without giving us the details that any reasonable Member of this House would require.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne made the constructive suggestion that we proceed on the basis of local authority areas for the use of the electoral roll in the local poll so that everybody who is standing or voting in the election can have confidence that they will be treated equally. Earlier in our debates, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove set out her sympathy with the proposal for the pilots, but I am sure that no Member of this House would be content to lose narrowly in an election, only to discover that in their constituency—perhaps alone in the country—there had been a programme to auto-enrol a specific cohort of voters who had not been auto-enrolled in the same way in neighbouring constituencies or in the rest of the country. That would fundamentally call into question the integrity of the poll.
I know that the Government have had serious concerns and reflections internally following the allegations made at the Gorton and Denton by-election. I do not think that most of us accept that those allegations are correct. None the less, the level of doubt that has been cast on elements of the process is of concern to Members across the House. The Government should be in listening mode. They should listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and should seek to do this properly, so that all voters and candidates in elections can have confidence that they will be treated equally and consistently across the country.
Paul Holmes
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for not responding to his very reasonable suggestion. If the Minister were to say that she wanted to base pilots across the country on a local authority area, I am sure that many local authorities would jump at the chance to be at the front of delivering it and would work with her to do so. However, it potentially calls into question the integrity of the polls when that is based on a certain characteristic, or on an area that does not necessarily cover the whole area in which people are entitled to vote.
There is a cross-boundary issue with general elections and local elections; my constituency has three local areas with three different EROs within its boundaries. The way in which the automatic registration pilots will go ahead is just not universal. I will therefore insist on pressing amendment 28 to a Division. We will also divide the Committee on clauses 20 to 25.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove set out clearly, we Liberal Democrats support the Government on automatic voter registration. I have just one question for the Minister: can she confirm which datasets the Government plan to use when piloting AVR?
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s proposal is to introduce a broad power for the Secretary of State to make regulations on pilots testing new, innovative methods of electoral registration. We want to modernise electoral registration to make it simpler for people to engage in a genuinely useful, measured and proportionate way.
The pilot design is in the developmental stage, and we have not decided where pilots will be conducted, but it is essential that Members note that for a pilot to go ahead, secondary legislation will be required. That will mean that Parliament always has the opportunity to scrutinise a proposal in detail, including on the use of datasets, which the hon. Member for Guildford mentioned. We are clear that any permanent changes to the registration process will be grounded in robust evidence and informed by thorough user research. I am confident that they will also be extremely well evaluated by the Electoral Commission.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The existing canvass regime in Northern Ireland is unfit for purpose. The current system requires the register to be recreated from scratch every 10 years and specifies that electors must re-register as part of the canvass to remain on the register. Electors who do not respond to canvass are removed from the register even if the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland holds data to confirm that they are eligible. That means there is a risk that a significant number of eligible electors are lost from the register, impacting its integrity and accuracy. The Government are legislating to address those challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass.
The aim of this reform is to move towards a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. Crucially, it will also avoid the arbitrary removal of eligible voters and improve the accuracy of the Northern Ireland register. Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, with whom we are working closely on the new system.
Paul Holmes
Can the Minister outline what political engagement she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on what they make of these proposals, and whether she has had written communications from them on that?
Samantha Dixon
I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points at a later date, if I may. However, the First Minister and officers attended one of our evidence sessions, and I have engaged with colleagues who attended drop-ins as a result of this legislation coming forward.
Paul Holmes
If the Bill passes, will it require a legislative consent motion?
Samantha Dixon
I will hopefully come to that point, but it will not.
The details of the new canvass system will be set out in regulations following consultation with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission, and will be subject to piloting. This change will support increased participation in elections in Northern Ireland and bring the Northern Ireland canvass system into closer alignment with Great Britain.
Clause 27 is a consequence of clause 26. Before making any regulations under clause 26, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission. Where the commission has been consulted, clause 27 places a duty on it to prepare a report about a proposal to make regulations under clause 26, which is the new power to amend the canvass.
Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission, and officials will work closely with the commission on it. It is important that the commission has an opportunity to consider the details of the new canvass system to ensure that the proposed changes are effective and robust before they are implemented. The provision mirrors the role that the Electoral Commission had when the canvass system was reformed in Great Britain.
Clause 28 is also a consequence of clause 26. The Government are legislating to address current challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass. The aim of this reform is to move toward a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. However, these are technical and complex changes, and it is important that we get them right, so it is proper that the new canvass system will be subject to successful piloting. We will work closely with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland on the design of any pilots. I commend clause 28 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for outlining clauses 26 to 29. I believe that all parties represented on the Committee agree with devolution. The Minister outlined that there has been consultation with the chief electoral officer and officials in Northern Ireland, but given that we are entering a period of devolution, and of Governments, Cabinets, First Ministers and Members of Parliament across this great United Kingdom, I am slightly concerned that we have not had any detail about which relevant Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland has been consulted on these proposals—not only in relation to the reports from the Electoral Commission that will be required, but on the Government’s proposed pilot in Northern Ireland. We have not heard what the democratically elected Executive, local Members of Parliament or local authorities in Northern Ireland think of that, and that concerns me.
I hope that the Minister might outline, perhaps with the help of her excellent officials, whether the political leads in Northern Ireland have come back with their views on the proposals. It is okay for officials to do so, but officials advise and Ministers decide—that is my old mantra. It is one thing for the chief electoral officer, with whom I have no issue whatsoever—he is doing an admirable job—to say that he is okay with the proposals, but I would have thought that the UK Government should have the consent of the Executive. It concerns me that we have not had such an assurance from the Minister today.
David Simmonds
Although we do not have a representative from Northern Ireland on the Committee, we have had a number of debates in which a variety of these issues have been raised, and we took evidence on them specifically. The electoral system, registration system and arrangements for elections have been different in Northern Ireland for some time anyway, and that reflects part of the fairly complex political history of that part of our United Kingdom. One of the commonalities that we have with Ireland is the ability of people there to cast their vote in general elections in the United Kingdom and vice versa.
Will the Minister set out—perhaps my hon. Friend agrees with me that we need a bit more detail on this—what conversations have happened not just with the Northern Ireland Executive but with the Government of Ireland? A number of provisions mean that the Province, in which people will have the ability to vote as a United Kingdom voter and also, potentially, in Ireland, especially if they are dual electors, will have different electoral rules. It is particularly important that that is fully considered, especially before pilots, which might make further changes, are implemented without the element of local consent.
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not thought of, as is normally the case. I am concerned that the political leadership have not given their sign-off or their thoughts, and that this Committee should be given the views of the Northern Ireland Administration. Having briefly served as a shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the differences and the unique nature of the politics of Northern Ireland, and he is right to say that people who live in Northern Ireland could be eligible to vote in a number of elections in different countries. When it comes to the Province, it is therefore important that we get clarity on how the pilot, and the lack of information about it, might affect the different rules in different countries.
We remain concerned. As with the last group of amendments and clauses, there is no detail on what the pilots might look like, particularly under clause 28. In her last winding-up speech, the Minister stated that the Government are designing the pilots and are looking at how to make them the best they can be, but a Government propose things, and they should know what they want a pilot to look like in order to get the policy outcome before they come to this House and expect us to approve legislation. I say gently to the Minister that if the Government have a policy they want to achieve, they should have some idea about how they will get there and what a pilot might look like.
Clause 28, on the power to pilot proposals under clause 26, does not really contain any detail as to what such pilots might look like. Under clause 29,
“If pilot regulations are made, the Electoral Commission must…prepare a report on the pilot regulations, and…before the date specified under section 28(4), give a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.”
In none of the proposals in the Bill is the First Minister of Northern Ireland, or the relevant Cabinet Minister in the Executive, included in any reporting mechanisms; it is only the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. If we want to harness great cross-border relations, it is very important that the democratically elected devolved Government have some kind of say, even if it is after the fact and about whether they think it was a success.
We have a number of concerns about the holes in these clauses, and we look to see what reassurances the Minister can give us before we decide whether to press them to a Division.
Samantha Dixon
To reassure Members, we have worked very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, as well as other devolved Governments, in the development of the Bill. Elections in Northern Ireland are an entirely reserved matter for the UK Government. Notwithstanding that, colleagues from all parties across Parliament were invited to come to drop-in sessions. A number of Northern Ireland colleagues did, and I also met the leadership of those parties that wished to meet me as we developed the legislation.
I beg your indulgence, Dame Siobhain, and that of the Committee: I should have spoken to clause 29 at the same time that I addressed the other clauses in the group. Clause 29 is a consequence of clause 28, which provides for the piloting power in relation to amending the Northern Ireland canvass by regulations. As I noted earlier, it is proper that the new canvass system is subject to successful piloting. It is also important that the Electoral Commission has an opportunity to consider any canvass pilots and report on their effectiveness and robustness before they are implemented. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and I will have to agree to disagree about the role of piloting. In my view, it is the way that we iteratively and robustly test ways in which a policy can be delivered. When we get to secondary legislation, the specifics of the piloting powers will be set out, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those powers.
Paul Holmes
How can a policy be tested robustly if the Government have not outlined the policy position or what they want to get out of a pilot, and we do not know how robustly that is going to be tested, because the details of the pilots are not outlined in primary legislation and would come only through secondary legislation?
Samantha Dixon
We could go over and over this point. The Government have set out, in some detail, their objectives for the electoral system. In the case of the Northern Ireland canvass, we have set out the principles, we want to test them, we are taking the powers to test them, and we will come back to Parliament with specifics of those pilots so that they can be scrutinised as profoundly and deeply as Members choose to scrutinise them.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. As I am a relative newbie in this House, could you clarify why it is permitted for a request to be made to vote individually on a range of grouped clauses, when everybody is voting exactly the same way on them, such that we have had five separate votes, all of which have gone the same way, and we are about to have four more? Is it possible to stop the waste of time?
The Chair
As Chair, I am completely in the hands of the Committee. Amendments and clauses are grouped to reduce the time taken—it is an administrative thing—but if anybody on the Committee wishes a vote to be taken separately, they are perfectly entitled to request that. I can give no better reason than that.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. I think it should be entirely out of order for an hon. Member to make a point of order and say that I am time-wasting. I am taking my responsibilities as shadow Minister very seriously by calling for Divisions, as is the democratic right of any Member of this House, in order to allow our constituents to see how we voted on the clauses in this very important Bill. Can you advise me whether saying that someone is time-wasting is in order in this Committee?
The Chair
I do not think the hon. Lady meant it in that way. She wanted clarification of the procedure, and I have given it. Everybody on the Committee completely accepts that you are entitled to request separate decisions.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Dame Siobhain. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said the words, from a sedentary position, “It is time-wasting.”
The Chair
I say to all Committee members: if you want to ask a question, please ask it. There is no issue with that, and we will attempt to accommodate all Members in order to get the best possible discussion and the best possible process. I think Members may be getting tired.
Clause 28
Power to pilot proposals under section 26
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 26th March 2026
(5 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 March 2026 - (26 Mar 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning. Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the Parliament website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.
I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a vote.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful. I may ask for it to be recited back to me.
Clause 30
Local connection and service declarations ceasing to have effect
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 30, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), omit from “and except” to the end;”.
This amendment and Amendment 9 correct amendments of section 201(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 so as not to introduce a requirement for regulations made by the Electoral Commission to be made by statutory instrument. Such regulations are subject instead to procedural requirements under Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 9.
Clause 30 stand part.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Samantha Dixon
I thank all Committee members for their attendance today. We will hopefully be swift and painless as we go through our deliberations. I will turn to clause 30 first, before talking to technical Government amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20, tabled in my name.
Clause 30 provides that, where the circumstances on which a declaration of local connection was made no longer apply, the registration based on that declaration will cease to have effect. That is determined by the electoral registration officer in accordance with affirmative procedure regulations, made by the Secretary of State for non-devolved elections and Welsh or Scottish Ministers for devolved elections. Members will recall, I hope, from clause 4 that declarations of local connection allow individuals to register to vote where they do not have a fixed or permanent address, and are therefore registered on the basis of specific qualifying circumstances. Where those circumstances change, it is appropriate that registration should not continue on that basis.
The clause also requires that, where a person is removed from the register in these circumstances, whether the registration was based on a declaration of local connection or a service declaration, they are notified in writing and informed how to make a new declaration, if appropriate. That is a necessary administrative measure that helps to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate and reflects individuals’ current circumstances.
Amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20 are technical Government amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State’s existing power to make regulations under section 29(8) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is preserved. Nothing in the amendments changes policy or introduces new requirements. They simply ensure that amendments made elsewhere in the Bill do not inadvertently remove or narrow an important regulation making power that supports the effective administration of elections. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The Minister outlined this group in some detail. The Opposition have many disagreements with the Bill, but this is an implementation clause, with amendments that are technical and needed to tweak the system, in essence, in order to carry this through. We have no problem with the clause and will not contest it.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Amendment made: 9, in clause 30, page 40, line 37, at end insert—
“(1ZA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument, except in the case of regulations under section 29(8).”—(Samantha Dixon.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Seniority of electoral registration officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Electoral registration officers are responsible for maintaining accurate and complete electoral registers, which are fundamental to the integrity of elections. The clause ensures that those appointed to that role are senior officers within their authority, with the authority and accountability needed to oversee this important function effectively.
By defining “senior officer” with reference to existing statutory roles, the clause provides clarity while allowing appropriate flexibility for councils. The clause applies across England and Wales, taking account of the different local government frameworks in each. Taken together with section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, this change means that the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, must be a senior officer of the local authority, who can command the use of the local authority resources needed to run elections effectively. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Anonymous registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
A person, or someone in their household, who would be at risk if their name and address were published on the electoral register, can register to vote anonymously. Anonymous electors have their names and addresses withheld from the electoral register. The anonymous registration regime has been in place for close to two decades, and gives confidence to a vulnerable group of electors to participate in our democracy. For example, survivors of stalking or domestic violence, and staff working in certain sensitive fields, are users of this registration route.
As things stand, anonymous electors have to reapply annually to maintain their registration, or are removed from the register. That places a substantial burden on both that group of applicants and on administrators. To support this vulnerable group of electors and reduce the burden on administrators, we are extending the period of anonymous registration by increasing it from one year to three years. A three-year period of anonymous registration ends the burden of yearly reapplication for applicants, while maintaining the requirement for reapplication, which is vital to ensure that an individual’s electoral registration arrangements are suitable for them. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause and the proportionate measures that the Minister is proposing. It goes without saying, and I think everybody across the Committee would accept, that vulnerable people in our society—who may be going through difficult circumstances through no fault of their own—should have the absolute right to register and participate in our democratic processes. We think the change from annual registration to three-year registration is proportionate.
Can the Minister briefly outline how the change will be monitored? Is she confident that the resources are in place so that, when we move from annual to three-year registration, EROs have the systems and emphasis to ensure the register is refreshed and people are removed when they wish to be? On the whole, we agree with the clause entirely, and will not be contesting it.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure, which is important for a particularly vulnerable group of electors. The three-year cycle that is proposed aligns with the three-year postal vote cycle, which many of these voters will be using for a variety of reasons. Given that it aligns with that particular cycle, we can be assured that it will be no less of a burden—in fact, it will ease the administrative burden. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Pre-election applications for registration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 33 sets out in law a clear and unambiguous deadline to register to vote in advance of a poll. Subsections (2) and (3) set the deadline at 5 pm, 12 working days before a poll. That brings the deadline forward by seven hours from the existing deadline of 12 working days before a poll. We believe that is the right thing to do for electors and administrators. It creates consistency by aligning the 5 pm deadline with other citizen-facing deadlines, including absent vote and voter authority certificate application deadlines. It will also allow any queries or issues with a registration application to be effectively addressed within the working day by electoral administrators.
Subsections (4) and (5) introduce a power for the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make regulations to change the deadline for elections that they have a responsibility for. In doing so, they might consult the Electoral Commission. Regulations must be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 34 repeals unique requirements for additional documentary evidence to always be provided by anyone trying to register to vote just before an election, even if the chief electoral officer is confident of their eligibility based on the data held. The current late-registration requirements in Northern Ireland require that additional documentary evidence to support an application to register must always be provided by anyone trying to register just before an election, even if the routine data checks carried out by the chief electoral officer provide a clear address and identity match.
The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him. That allows him to be confident in the identity of the vast majority of people making applications to register to vote. Therefore, it is necessary to request supporting evidence from applicants only where the data check is not clear. The repeal of these requirements will make voter registration easier for many people. In particular, it will remove an unnecessary barrier for many younger electors who may have fewer forms of documentary evidence than those over 18.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Electoral identity card issued in Northern Ireland: month and year of birth
Samantha Dixon
Clause 35 allows for a change to the electoral ID cards that are produced by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will enable the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to produce a card that is sufficient to meet a narrower electoral requirement and will prevent misuse.
By moving to a system where cards display only the month and year of birth, we maintain the electoral requirement of the card, while also relieving pressure on the resources of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will ensure that electoral ID cards are used for their intended purpose of facilitating participation in our democracy. It will allow the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to focus its limited budget on delivering effective and secure elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Regulations as to registration etc: information to assist registration officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The clause will support EROs with their duties to maintain complete and accurate registers, and facilitate the implementation of other clauses in the Bill related to direct registration, such as clauses 17 and 18. Clause 36 has two main effects. First, it will clarify the level of access that EROs should have to local authority datasets, and secondly, it will build the legislative framework to allow data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs.
On the first point, EROs currently have powers to access data from local authorities, or anyone providing services to that authority, to enable them to discharge their duty to maintain a complete and accurate register. However, in some cases, they face barriers to accessing the data they need. Local authorities interpret the extent of access they can provide in different ways, which creates an inconsistent picture of data access for EROs across the country. To address that, subsection (2) amends an existing power to clarify the rights of EROs to access local authority data to support electoral registration processes.
I now turn to the second impact of the clause. We know that there are opportunities to make better use of citizen data from across the public sector, including in the electoral registration space. The clause also includes a new power to enable better data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs. Subsection (3) introduces that power, which provides the legal basis for regulations setting out specific data-sharing arrangements and further data-sharing agreements. Given the importance of the clause to implementing clauses 17 and 18, I urge Members to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Edited register: electors to opt in
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Our electoral registration system relies on public confidence, part of which is knowing how personal data is used and having genuine control over it. As we update voter registration processes and prepare to extend the franchise to younger citizens, it is essential that the protections around personal information keep pace.
The open, or edited, register is not used for elections. It is available to be purchased and used for a wide range of purposes. The Bill introduces a clear and important safeguard. Electors will no longer be placed on the open register by default. Instead, they will be asked directly whether they wish to appear on it. That ensures that inclusion is an active decision rather than a presumption.
An opt-in approach gives people stronger control, aligns with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reflects modern expectations of consent with regard to personal data. As we move towards more automated forms of registration, individuals might not always complete an application form themselves. In that context, it would no longer be fair or appropriate to assume inclusion on the open register. Moving to an opt-in system ensures that no person appears on the open register without their explicit consent.
Strong protections for younger people are built into that change. Anyone under the age of 16 registering as an attainer will be automatically excluded from the open register and will not be able to opt in. At its core, this measure strengthens the standard of consent, protects personal data and supports a modernised approach to voter registration. It contributes to a system that is secure, transparent and respectful of individual choice, ensuring public confidence as registration processes evolve. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause, but I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. We must seriously consider anything that the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators have called for, and the Government have. The open register seems quite outdated and does not give the user or the person on it convenience or security. It is used for a number of different things that opens people up to unsolicited advances by dodgy people, if I can say that in Hansard. We therefore think that the clause is perfectly sensible.
This is perhaps my ignorance, but I want to ask the Minister about these changes in connection with the duties of Members of Parliament. I might be entirely wrong, and I do not expect officials to have a quick answer, so if the Minister wants to write to me, she may. I am not sure whether the software that Conservative Members of Parliament use for their casework relies on buying the open register, or what Labour Members use when they get a piece of casework to search for somebody who has not written to them before. If that is in the purview of the Minister’s Department—if not, that is fine—perhaps she can write to me about whether our duties and roles in this respect might be affected. Other than that, we think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not seek a Division.
Samantha Dixon
As the hon. Member suspected, I do not have the answer to that question to hand. It is an interesting question, and I will supply a response as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Provision of assistance by local authority officers to returning officers
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clauses 38 and 39 deal with returning officers. As Members will know, returning officers play a central role in delivering elections and maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Their decisions carry significant legal and operational responsibility. Returning officers rely on the support of local authority officers to support the effective and efficient running of elections. That is particularly important where constituencies cross local authority boundaries.
Clause 38 ensures that all local authorities in England and Wales are required to make their officers available to support the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections that fall wholly or partly within their area. That removes any ambiguity about local authority support responsibilities to returning officers, and helps to ensure that elections are administered smoothly and consistently. It aligns the position in England and Wales with the existing statutory arrangements in Scotland, promoting a coherent approach across Great Britain. The clause provides clarity and certainty, ensuring that returning officers have access to the local authority officer support they need in order to deliver well-run and trusted elections.
Clause 39 ensures that those appointed as returning officers are senior officers within their authority, with the experience, authority and accountability needed to manage complex electoral activity. In Scotland, the clause requires a senior officer to be appointed as returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, with provision for a designation where a constituency spans more than one council area.
In England, equivalent seniority requirements apply for returning officers at local elections, including those administered by London borough councils and the Greater London Authority. By ensuring that returning officers hold appropriately senior positions, the clause strengthens accountability and supports the effective administration of elections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to start of the Bill.
Clause 40
Timing of proceedings for nominations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 40 makes changes to the deadlines for submitting nomination papers to returning officers at elections. Currently, nomination papers may be delivered between 10 am and 4 pm on any day in the period for submitting nominations, including the final day. Under the proposals in the clause, at a UK parliamentary election and at Northern Ireland local elections, nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer between 9 am and 5 pm on any day of the nomination period except the last day, and between 9 am and 12 noon on the last day for submitting nomination papers. The change will therefore provide greater flexibility for political parties and prospective candidates when submitting their nominations.
As indicated, the clause will also move the deadline to submit nomination papers on the final day earlier, to midday. The deadline for making objections to nominations at UK parliamentary elections is set at 12 noon, except in relation to nominations delivered on the last day, for which the deadline will be 1 pm. That will allow returning officers to begin printing ballot papers earlier, and so reduce pressure on printing and delivery of postal ballot papers.
Alongside the planned forthcoming change to the postal vote application deadline—to be made by secondary legislation, and detailed in the Government’s strategy for elections, published last July—the adjustments will provide additional time for electoral administrators to process postal vote applications and to prepare and issue postal ballot packs, while still ensuring adequate time for candidates to submit their nominations. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clauses 41 and 42 strengthen the candidate nomination process by introducing new safeguards. That will protect the integrity of our elections and prevent impersonation or false nominations.
Recent years have seen individuals stand for election in order to be disruptive, or as sham candidates. A recent case saw multiple individuals standing under the same name across a number of constituencies, highlighting the need for identity checks. The Speaker’s Conference recommended introducing candidate ID and stronger nomination requirements to prevent candidates from misleading the electorate or undermining the integrity of the democratic process.
Clause 41 introduces a new requirement for those wishing to stand for election to provide evidence of their identity. The returning officer can deem a nomination invalid if there is a discrepancy in the ID that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, or reject it if the ID leads them to doubt that the candidate is who they claim to be. If we are asking electors to identify themselves to register and vote, it is perfectly reasonable to ask candidates to do the same to stand.
We are reinforcing the integrity of the nomination process by introducing a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration with their nomination, setting out that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers and that their papers do not include any false information. In combination, these measures will deter prospective candidates who wish to abuse the system and undermine our democratic processes.
Clause 42 mirrors, for local elections in Northern Ireland, the provisions in clause 41 requiring candidates at UK parliamentary elections to provide proof of identity as part of the nomination process. To summarise, candidates at local elections in Northern Ireland will be required to include proof of identity with their nomination papers and to sign a new statutory declaration confirming that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers. We intend to extend these measures through secondary legislation to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
In one of our evidence sessions, we heard clearly from a KC who said there were almost no examples of personation prior to the introduction of mandatory ID. We also heard, quite alarmingly, that about 1.7% of people—potentially enough to swing an election—were turned away at polling stations under the current system. Clearly, this is about getting the balance right. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly feel that the balance is currently right, given the evidence we heard in that session?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman’s figures are slightly wrong. It was 0.8% of people who were not able to vote at the last general election due to being turned away without identification.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the official figures, but we heard from election volunteers that they believe that the official figures are not accurate, because that is only the people who made it to the clerk’s desk. They saw lots of evidence of people being turned away at the door because they were arriving without identification.
Paul Holmes
With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.
Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.
Paul Holmes
I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.
The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.
Samantha Dixon
To respond to the question’s from the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, we are currently finalising the details of the proposals, to make sure we strike the right balance between security and accessibility, and we will set more details out soon.
We anticipate that the candidate ID check will be different from the voter ID check. Voters show ID once, at the ballot box; candidates are in the public eye for weeks. If somebody attempts to mislead the public, there should be multiple opportunities for scrutiny, but the new checks will add an early safeguard that does not currently exist.
Later today, we will discuss our views around identification for those coming to the ballot box, but this important step forward for the nomination process will prevent people from disrupting our democratic process.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Withdrawal of certificates authorising candidate descriptions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
The purpose of the clause is to enable political parties to withdraw support for candidates prior to the close of nominations, which is not currently possible. Parties will be able to take appropriate action when concerns about a candidate arise during the nomination period. Under the clause, at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in Northern Ireland, the registered nominating officer of a political party will be able to revoke their authorisation for a candidate to use the party’s description in their nomination papers up to 48 hours before the close of nominations.
Upon such a request being made, the candidate’s nomination would be cancelled, and their name would not appear on the ballot paper for that party. The clause will only allow such requests to be made up to 48 hours before the close of nominations. We have decided that to ensure that the candidate would still have time to resubmit nomination papers to stand for another party or as an independent candidate by the close of nominations. The party would also be able to nominate a new candidate to stand in place of the original candidate. We believe that making this change is right in order to ensure that, when concerns arise about a candidate during the nomination period, political parties will be able to withdraw their support and nominate a new candidate.
Paul Holmes
We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step.
Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not go into that particular arena. I will say that we are taking a balanced approach and that we have discussed the issue with electoral administrators. We do not believe that this approach is going to impose administrative burdens on returning officers, and it should allow the polls to run more smoothly than under the current arrangements.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
As we have just discussed, clause 43 enables a political party to withdraw authorisation for a candidate to stand on its behalf prior to the close of nominations. Clause 44 makes provision in relation to the subscription to nomination papers as a consequence of that change.
Under clause 44, if a person who has previously subscribed to the nomination paper of a candidate at a parliamentary election but the party withdraws its support for that candidate, which as a consequence invalidates the nomination, that person may subscribe to another nomination paper. That also applies to any time a nomination is ruled to be invalid due to a problem with the party description.
We believe that it is right for a subscriber in that circumstance—when the original nomination has been deemed invalid, through no fault of the subscriber—to be able to subscribe to another nomination paper if they wish to do so. That would allow them to subscribe to an alternative candidate put forward by the party, or to the same candidate if that candidate was now running as an independent or for a different party. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure.
Paul Holmes
We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others.
Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Police contact form
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following—
New Clause 56
“Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance
(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.
(2) The guidance must include information about—
(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;
(b) physical and online security measures; and
(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.
(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.
(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “election periods” means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of “election expense” of the RPA 1983).”
This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 45 seeks to enhance the security of candidates by ensuring that candidates at UK parliamentary elections are able to receive appropriate and tailored security briefings from the police in a timely and effective manner. The clause makes provision for a new form to capture candidates’ contact details, which candidates will be able to complete and return with their nomination papers.
The returning officer will send the contact details to the relevant local police force or forces, so that they can contact the candidate to invite them to security briefings for the election or in case of emergency. Completion of the form will be optional and any submitted forms will be kept confidential. This is a simple and straightforward measure to improve the support that police forces are able to offer to candidates.
New clause 56, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidates’ safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination had been confirmed. The Government are clear that harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Consequently, we are highly sympathetic to the goal that the new clause seeks to achieve; that is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.
The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.
Specifically, ahead of the upcoming May 2026 elections across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales for distribution to candidates in early January—earlier than previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.
The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt and the cyber-security services available to them, as well as guidance on reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage action plan. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland, to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats.
The Electoral Commission already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has also updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated. In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation.
However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning, and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.
In the Bill, the Government will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination form papers. The purpose of that additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer, specifically so that the returning officer can then share those details with local policing. Once local policing has that information, the relevant force elected official adviser will make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates to take up the opportunity of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.
Given past and ongoing work by the Government and the Electoral Commission in this space, co-ordinating with the relevant policing authorities and providing guidance, the Government do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the commission to perform such functions. For these reasons, and with these reassurances in place, I hope that new clause 56 will be withdrawn.
Paul Holmes
The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times.
Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent.
We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue.
Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official.
Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates.
Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces?
I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.
If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly.
I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.
Lisa Smart
The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 45, but I will speak particularly in favour of new clause 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, regarding the duty of the Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which looked at the safety of candidates in elections. It did a huge amount of very detailed work and came up with some really strong recommendations. We should all be grateful to those who served on it.
New clause 56 is quite a straightforward proposal. We sadly live in times where candidates—those standing both in national elections and in local elections—too often face abuse and hostility. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley was entirely right to talk about Operation Bridger, while Operation Ford works with candidates for local elections. Those are both really big steps forward in recent years towards helping candidates know what support is out there, and helping police forces know what their duties and responsibilities are and what good looks like. There is real inconsistency between police forces about how they treat the activity that none of us wants to see in elections, including hostility and abuse both online and offline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to introduce consistency. The Electoral Commission is a national body, and it can make the point to police forces and others about what their roles and responsibilities are. Political parties can support their candidates, but not all candidates represent a political party, so there is inconsistency in that regard. Some parties are newer than others, and do not have the experience necessarily of some of the spikier sides of election campaigning.
New clause 56 would place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance. It would require returning officers to provide it to their candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted. I take the point about the level of bureaucracy it could introduce, but if it is one set of guidance for all candidates standing in local elections, I do not believe that is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. Providing it would ensure that all candidates in elections have access to consistent and quality guidance. The proposal is supported by the Jo Cox Foundation, which was set up after the absolutely horrific murder of a Member of Parliament. The foundation knows of what it speaks, and recommended in its evidence to the Committee that we look at this. I encourage the Committee to support the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for tabling it.
Samantha Dixon
I deeply appreciate the warmth that Members have shown for these measures. As someone who also served for a short time on the Speaker’s Conference and having experienced harassment myself, as many on the Committee have, I know that this is an important measure that will protect our candidates. Operation Ford is a great step forward, but I reassure the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that we do not stand still in this sphere. The work of the joint election security and preparedness unit, the defending democracy taskforce, Operation Ford and Operation Bridger does not rely on this legislation. That continues constantly, and not just during elections.
Paul Holmes
I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states:
“The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.”
We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will take away and consider carefully. I would not want to hamper the passage of information in any respect, and I would want to think through carefully with officials whether such a timescale would do that.
I absolutely understand the sentiment and ambition behind new clause 56. However, the Government do not support it because we believe a non-statutory approach gives us flexibility. The nature of political campaigning is changing very fast, and to oblige a code of conduct in a statutory framework would not leave us—or the Speaker’s Conference and the Electoral Commission—the flexibility to respond to new and emerging forms of political campaigning. We need to respond promptly and swiftly, and to freeze something in a statutory aspic may have the unintended consequence of not enabling us to do that. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Calling out and completed corresponding number lists etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Clause 46 removes the unnecessary and outdated requirement for polling station staff to call out the name and elector number of a voter when delivering a ballot paper. This change will bring Northern Ireland in line with practice in Great Britain. This practice can be intimidatory and unwelcome for voters, and its removal is in line with the Government’s wider commitments to tackle harassment and intimidation in the democratic process.
Calling out is also unnecessary given the requirement to produce photo ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland. This change will apply to all elections in Northern Ireland. The clause will also make some technical amendments to ensure that legislative references to the corresponding number list are correct. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Voter identification requirements
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“, and
(iii) shows when the card expires (see also paragraph (1NA)).”
This amendment and Amendment 11 provide that a payment or cash withdrawal card can only be used as voter identification if the card shows when it expires and has not expired.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—
“(iii) is issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in connection the issuance of the bank card, which is recorded on the individual’s credit file, and visible to other lenders.”
This amendment would ensure that only bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment would be able to be used as voter ID.
Government amendments 11 to 13.
Clause stand part.
New clause 19—Repeal of voter identification requirements—
“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).
(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”
This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 22.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak to clause 47 before turning to Government amendments 10 to 13. I will then respond to amendment 30, tabled by the Opposition, and new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. We believe it is unacceptable for legitimate voters to be prevented or discouraged from voting, and any barriers to voting must be addressed. While we believe it is appropriate to retain the requirement to show ID to protect electors from the risk of personation, the current voter ID rules are too restrictive. Research has consistently shown that between 2% and 4% of electors report not owning a currently accepted form of ID, and thousands of electors have been recorded being turned away from polling stations due the policy.
Clause 47 will amend the voter ID rules to allow the use of UK-authorised bank cards at the polling station. These are widely held and our research estimates that allowing their use will bring the number of electors reporting not owning an accepted ID to under 1%. This significant step will greatly improve the accessibility of this policy and support democratic participation.
The clause will also make changes to modernise the legislation with regards to digital forms of ID. The measure will require that any digital ID must be verifiable by a visual inspection feature in order to be accepted at the polling station—for example using a digital hologram. All currently accepted digital IDs have such security features. This change will ensure that any new digital ID without such a feature will not be accepted and so not create a new route for electoral fraud. Finally, this clause amends existing and creates new powers to make regulations relating to voter ID.
Together, the measures will ensure that our elections continue to maintain a proportionate voter ID check to prevent the risk of personation, while allowing a greater proportion of legitimate electors to more easily meet the voter identification requirements and engage in our democratic system.
Government amendments 10 to 13 ensure that only in-date bank cards are accepted as Voter ID at the polling station. Allowing UK-authorised bank cards to be used as voter ID will allow a greater proportion of legitimate electors in Great Britain to more easily meet the voter identification requirements, particularly newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds. However, improving accessibility and participation in our elections must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain their security and integrity.
An in-date bank card is likely to be kept carefully by its owner and unlikely to be discarded or given to others. However, unlike an expired photographic document, which is unlikely to be usable by anyone other than the legitimate owner due to the photograph, there is a risk that an expired bank card might be discarded, given away, or not noticed missing by the owner, as it no longer poses a financial risk. It therefore makes sense for photographic ID on the accepted list to continue to be able to be used as voter ID after it expires, so long as the photo remains a good likeness to the individual, but for a bank card to need to be in date in order to maintain the security of the policy. The amendments will make that change.
The amendments will also allow that if further types of non-photographic documents are added to the list of permissible forms of ID in the future, the same requirement that they be in date can be imposed. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I rise to oppose clause 47, as well as speak in support of Opposition amendment 30. I will also speak to new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Not one person or organisation at the first evidence session of this Bill Committee supported changing this element of the legislation to enable bank cards to be shown as an acceptable form of ID. Witnesses said that t1hey had great concerns about that change. Across the House, we should all agree—and I am sure we do—that the integrity, security and safety of the electoral process in this country must be upheld.
I strongly contend that the Government’s watering down of voter identification will lead to more impersonation, more prosecutions and a less safe electoral system compared with the one we currently have. Under the Elections Act 2022, the previous Government brought in photographic voter identification. It is a simple fact that, if people do not have one of the acceptable forms of ID, they can apply for one for that specific circumstance. I ask the Minister, seriously, to listen to those witnesses again. They are experts in their field and they gave strong warnings about the integrity or ability of a bank card to be shown as a viable form of identification.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. Clause 47(3), which refers to the treatment of digital forms of bank cards, says that, in digital form, they are a specified document and valid for ID purposes
“only if a person can form a reasonable view about whether it is a specified document by means of visual inspection alone.”
That is a significant burden to place on a polling clerk, the returning officer or another election official—the paragraph does not specify who that person is—to determine whether, when an individual shows them an image that may or may not be that person’s bank card, which is not required to contain a photograph or anything like that, it is the genuine article. Particularly given the significant growth of online banking, does my hon. Friend agree that that opens to door to this supporting impersonation in a way that would constitute electoral fraud?
Paul Holmes
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.
I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.
Lisa Smart
The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?
Paul Holmes
Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge.
The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
While the majority of young people already possess a bank card, they may not have other forms of ID like a driving licence or a passport. Does the hon. Member think that allowing a bank card will encourage more 16 and 17-year olds to participate in the electoral process?
Paul Holmes
I do not think that simply changing legislation to enable a bank card already in existence to be used as ID will encourage younger people to vote. The fact that the Government are reducing the voting age to 16 will encourage more young people to vote, and when they are excited to go and cast their first vote, as I was at 18—I still think it should be 18, by the way, but we are past that point—then they will find a way of making sure that they can get a form of identification that is already catered for in this country under the Elections Act 2024.
In the 2024 general election, the Electoral Commission estimated that 99.92% of people who turned out were able to cast their vote successful. Only 0.08% of those who attempted to vote were unable to do so due to voter identification requirements—a figure that has been acknowledged by the current Government. At the same time, there has been a marked increase since 2019 in public confidence in the integrity of our elections, with more people believing that polls are free from fraud and abuse. Importantly, any eligible elector without recognised identification can obtain a free voter authority certificate, ensuring that no one is prevented from voting because of a lack of ID. There is no current barrier to anyone being able to vote.
Sam Rushworth
I understand the hon. Member’s point about the 0.08%, but does he accept the evidence that we heard about that figure most certainly being at the lower end? There are people who do not go out on polling day because they realise that they do not have the correct ID, and there are people who get turned away before they make it to the clerk’s desk, so that figure is certainly an underestimation.
I also accept that there is a way for people to acquire ID that does not have to cost them money. None the less, every person here has had the experience on polling day of finding people who are unhappy because they do not drive or they do not have a passport. They are normally people who are poorer and already feel more disenfranchised. Yes, they have not taken that step, but does the hon. Member at least accept that there is an administrative barrier that we are expecting people to make, which means that people who are generally more vulnerable and left behind are less likely to get a vote?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman will think I am being facetious in my response; I promise him I am not. Society is full of barriers that mean people cannot do something, but there are measures already in legislation that enable those people to get identification. I was annoyed at 16 that I could not go into a pub and have a drink until I was 18. That was a barrier; it stopped me doing something. There was no loophole in the law that allowed me to go into that pub and buy a drink. I do not know if that is the right analogy—to be fair, I did find ways of having a drink way before I ever went into a pub—but there is an acceptable form of identification catered for under the legislation.
I will say it again—I am trying not to repeat myself—people know, through the advertising campaigns by the Electoral Commission and the bedding in of the system, that there are no barriers to voting. I accept that this issue affects certain demographics, but that makes it even more beholden on us, in accepting that the integrity of the system must be upheld, to get better at enabling those people to find that acceptable form of ID to vote. That is my contention.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Let me indulge in an example. The hon. Gentleman is a persuasive man; he has knocked on a door in Hamble Valley on 2 May ahead of the local authority elections on 7 May, which he has talked about. At that point, the deadline for registering for the free ID has passed. The person who he has visited might have been busy—they might be in their early 20s working shifts—so they were not aware of the option to get free ID and that window has passed. In that circumstance, the bank card might be the only ID they have. If the hon. Gentleman does not allow that to be presented, they may not have the option to vote for his party’s candidate on 7 May. Does he accept that that is a problem?
Paul Holmes
No, I do not, because everybody knows that elections are coming up. If someone is at the stage where they cannot get the acceptable form of identification shortly before, my view is, quite frankly—tough. There is a system in place that allows people to get the necessary identification to vote. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do—I sat next to him for two years at Clarion Housing when he was the director of comms and I was the director of public affairs, and he is a personal friend of mine—I know that, at 20 years old, he would have made sure that he got the right identification to vote. He would have never fallen into that trap. I contend that many people would be as honourable as him and as determined to go out and get the correct identification to cast their vote.
Andrew Lewin
The hon. Member is right to call us friends, but let us be honest: we are unusual people who were involved in politics at a young age. That perhaps reflects many of us on the Committee. I ask the hon. Member again to reflect on the example of a busy shift worker. Their door was knocked a few days before the election. They cannot get the ID. They were not aware. Does the hon. Member accept that he has not quite addressed that challenge?
Paul Holmes
No. I absolutely do not take the hon. Gentleman’s comments as an insult to me. He is absolutely right; as young activists for our respective parties, and from some of our conversations at our desks, we could only be described as “odd”. I am sure that applies to pretty much all members of the Committee, as he insinuated.
Again, we have a set election period. People who want to go out and vote will know the expectations of them in the current system. Therefore, the scenario the hon. Member described would be a very minor issue. My line is that, for the integrity and safety of the system, people should know what the system expects of them and there are ways to allow them to cast their vote.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making an excellent speech. He has probably seen, like I have, leaflets from all the political parties represented on this Committee that tell people what form of ID is acceptable way before we even get into the election period or the election date is just around the corner. Does he agree that there are multiple touchpoints for people to understand what forms of ID are acceptable for when they cast their vote?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who was even younger than me when he got into politics, and is even younger than me now, as a very young member of this House. He knew when he was expected to go out and vote. He is right that all political parties are able to put out in their literature the expectations of people and what forms of ID are available. The Government’s watering-down is disastrous for democracy and will weaken the integrity of the system.
Paul Holmes
I will give way briefly; then I want to finish my remarks. This will be the last intervention.
Warinder Juss
I have a quick question. We have a crisis in democracy at the moment in that there are not as many people going out to vote as there should be. Should we not be making it easier for people to vote, rather than more difficult?
Paul Holmes
Of course I think that everybody who can cast a ballot in this country should be able to, but I am not willing to compromise the integrity, safety and security of the voting system to make it easier for people to vote. Of course I want the turnout to be higher, more people to be able to vote and, when the legislation has passed, 16-year-olds to go out and vote and be able to engage in the system—I still think the voting age should be 18—but that should not be to the detriment of the safety and integrity of the system. The hon. Gentleman may be willing to contend with weakening that to make it easier to vote, but the Opposition, or at least the Conservative party, as the official Opposition, are not. That is why we oppose these measures. [Interruption.] I will not take any more interventions because I want to finish my remarks on this clause.
As I have outlined, we are concerned about the proposals, particularly on bank cards. Bank cards do not have a photograph, and the name displayed, often as vague as “Mr J. Smith”, does not provide sufficient assurance of identity or date of birth. That creates a real risk of impersonation, especially in communities with common surnames. Those concerns are heightened by the Government’s indication that pre-paid cards, which do not require credit checks, could also be accepted. Some companies, such as Suits Me, actively market bank cards that can be obtained without formal identification, often targeting individuals who are new to the country. Although such products may serve a purpose in enabling access to goods and services, their use as voter identification introduces a significant risk of electoral fraud.
We should also reflect on the experience in Northern Ireland, where voter identification has been required for decades: paper ID since 1985 and photographic ID since 2003, when it was rightly introduced by the Labour Government of that time. Those measures have proven effective in tackling fraud and preventing the serious crime of personation, without reducing participation. Ministers at the time were clear that requiring photographic identification would make fraud far more difficult, while ensuring that honest voters were not disadvantaged. They emphasised that no one would be disenfranchised, and that such reforms would not have been introduced if it would mean large numbers of voters being unable to participate.
Sam Rushworth
The hon. Gentleman cited the example of his constituency, but I have looked at the data, and there have been only three convictions in a six-year period in all elections. Now, that is three convictions too many, and I agree that we need to increase security, but can he not see that going from a system in which literally nothing is needed to vote to a person needing to acquire their neighbour’s bank card to vote in their name is a significant added measure of security, and that it might bring three down to zero?
Paul Holmes
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating new clause 19, but it is absolutely clear that three is too many. He may be willing to accept that there were three cases that were proven—as was the 2022 case in Eastleigh—but I do not think there should be any examples of voter fraud, and I certainly do not think that any responsible Government should make it easier for that to happen. I agree that it will be harder to impersonate somebody than it would be under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, but photo ID shows the face and eyes of the person who is going to vote.
Allowing the use of a bank card, which can have a different form of the person’s name, and has no date of birth or address, would make it easier to impersonate somebody. I have four bank cards in my wallet—probably because I am in so much debt. On each and every one of those cards, my name is written differently: there is “P Holmes”, “Mr P. J. Holmes”, “Mr Paul Holmes”, “Mr Paul John Holmes” and “Mr Paul J. Holmes”. They are all different, and a card would be the only thing that a volunteer at the polling station would have to adjudicate.
I put it to the Committee, and I strongly put it to the Minister, as I did in the evidence session, that this is a retrograde, reckless step that will increase identity fraud and voting fraud. Every expert in the evidence session who was asked said that they had concerns about bank cards being used, and that it would water down the system. We strongly contend that that is the case, and we oppose the new clause. We obviously support amendment 30. The official Opposition think this proposal is a bad thing, and we vigorously oppose it. I urge the Minister to change her mind before we get to the final stages of the Bill.
Lewis Cocking
I rise in support of Opposition amendment 30, and I will make some comments new clause 19 as tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The biggest thing that puts votes at risk is to keep changing the eligible ID on the list. We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley about the different names that can appear on a bank card. We are yet to hear from the Government what name would need to be on a bank card—would it need to be the person’s initials, their surname, their first name, or their middle initial and surname? That will make it very difficult for clerks and polling station staff to adjudicate in busy polling stations.
If guidance comes out and says, “You need your first initial and your surname. We won’t accept anything else,” that will be confusing for people. People will turn up with bank cards that are not eligible under this system. The Government are trying to make it easier for people to cast their vote by not safeguarding democracy and not requiring ID. That will create confusion.
I do not see how we have come to the conclusion that we should put bank cards on the list. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what other forms of ID were considered when she sat down with her officials and said, “I know what we are going to do. We are going to add bank cards to this list.” What other forms of ID were considered, and what was considered not appropriate? I think that is a fair question to the Minister.
We also heard from the shadow Minister about electronic bank cards, which will be a particular issue when people turn up to the polling station and polling clerks need to check them. When I did telling at polling stations before people needed photographic ID to vote, most people turned up with ID anyway, and most people I spoke to were shocked when I told them that they did not need ID. The fact that voter ID has added integrity to the process, and that most people now think voting is more secure, is a good thing. I do not support new clause 19, which would be a step backwards in that regard.
We can all play our part in enabling people to access free voter ID. The hon. Member for Ashford suggested earlier that 16 and 17-year-olds might be put off voting if they did not have ID, so why have the Government not come forward with a programme to give out free voter ID at secondary schools when people are registering to vote? That would be a way to solve some of the problems that he thinks may come out of the Bill. The Government could be doing that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about younger people, but what about the older end of the spectrum? My mother decided that she would give up driving at the age of 84, last February. No longer being behind the wheel of a car was a sound decision for her and probably for most of the people in the local area, but it means that she has given up her form of photo identification.
My mother has voted in every election in which she has been able to; it is something that she finds particularly important. She is not particularly up on online banking or digital banking, but she has a physical bank card and is happy to use it. What advice would the hon. Gentleman give my mother, who is very wary about spending lots of time applying for passes and does not have photographic identification?
Lewis Cocking
We will not stray into the issue of online banking, banking hubs and high street banks, but I have some sympathy: I have family members who do not want to do online banking. The hon. Lady’s mother can get a free voter authority certificate from the council, or she could choose to vote by post, and then her signature would be checked and verified by the council. There are two options for her to pick from. I do not understand why we think this is so difficult.
As I said when intervening on my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I have seen political leaflets from every party represented on this Committee showing what forms of identification people need. That is before we even get to the election day, and way before the deadline that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned regarding the voter authority certificate. Voter ID has been in place now for a number of elections. I have been turning up at polling stations since the legislation came into place, and in all those hours I think one person did not have ID—and they came back with it later in the day.
As I said in the evidence session, I question the data that is being collected. It is not clear that we are capturing the data on whether people come back later in the day with their identification. It was also mentioned that people get turned away at the door and might not even make it to the clerk’s desk. How many of those people come back? They will not be captured in that data. Voter identification is a good thing, and I am extremely concerned that we are watering it down. As I said, the Government are putting people who work at polling stations in a very difficult position, because it is not clear what type of name—first name, initials or surnames—needs to be on the bank card. We will have more disputes under the new system that the Government are trying to introduce than we have under the system that we have now.
Lisa Smart
It will not surprise anybody that I am not in favour of amendment 30 and will speak in favour of new clause 19. Before I get into that, I will speak briefly in favour of clause 47 and Government amendments 10 and 11. If we have voter ID, it should be as wide and as accessible as possible, so I will not speak against those provisions.
Lewis Cocking
What the hon. Lady has just outlined has no effect when it comes to a provisional licence, which is photographic ID.
Lisa Smart
The point I am making is about bank cards in particular. I want it to be as easy as possible for people to vote, and the Electoral Commission’s evidence was that the barriers put up by requiring photographic ID particularly impacted certain demographic groups, including young people, who often face additional barriers in terms of understanding how the world works.
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about how they have a number of bank cards and understand the system. That is great, but they are from a demographic group for whom the modern world is built, and it is not the same for everybody. If a person rents, often changes address or does not speak English as a first language, the world is harder to navigate, but everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote.
Bank cards are among the most common everyday items, but amendment 30 seeks to restrict that widened category, creating a barrier to entry that mimics a credit score-based franchise. Many legitimate voters, particularly younger people, including the 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be enfranchised, and lower socioeconomic groups, use basic banking services that do not require formal credit searches. We heard in the oral evidence sessions last week from Peter Stanyon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who pointed out that the measure would add unnecessary complexity for polling staff, some of whom are volunteers. It would require them to understand the nuances of credit check markers on cards, which would be an impossible administrative burden.
New clause 19 would abolish the legal requirement to show photo ID when voting in person in Great Britain. Liberal Democrats were not in favour of it when it was introduced, and we remain not in favour of it today. I have heard it described repeatedly as a solution in search of a problem. Before the introduction of voter ID legislation between 2019 and 2023, out of tens of millions of votes cast, only 10 people were convicted for personation during a UK election, and yet the scheme saw 16,000 voters turned away, according to evidence from the Electoral Reform Society.
This is not a crisis that required the legislation that was brought in. The Government are now trying to extend that, and it is certainly not a crisis that justifies the Conservative amendment before us. We believe it would make things worse rather than better. Restricting bank card voter ID only to cards issued after a formal credit check would significantly narrow eligibility, and we do not support that.
We believe that voter ID requirements should be scrapped because they are a deeply unfair policy. If bank cards, which include only a name to provide verified information, are seen as acceptable forms of ID, would it not make sense to extend the provision and allow any form of personal ID to be shown at the polling booth? Partial improvements are not enough when the underlying principle and policy remain deeply flawed.
I have mentioned some of the evidence presented to us by the Electoral Commission. Further evidence from the organisation showed that the number of voters turned away was 50,000 at the last election, with 34,000 of those people returning to exercise their right to vote. Meanwhile, the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people did not have the right ID to vote in 2024. These people are not just a statistic; they are individual citizens who were not able to exercise their democratic right.
I remember knocking on doors at the last election and speaking to somebody who was livid that she could not exercise her right to vote. She had recently been divorced, and she had changed her name as a result. That meant that a lot of her ID was in her old name and so she was unable to cast her vote, which she felt very strongly about. She talked to me about the women—the suffragettes and suffragists—who had died to ensure that we had a right to vote. I remember that conversation on polling day very clearly.
We have talked already about how these measures disproportionately affect some communities over others. Hope Not Hate reported that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Evidence from the Electoral Commission shows that those in the C2 and DE social grades were significantly more affected, with 8% of lower-income non-voters saying that they did not vote because they lacked the required ID, compared with 3% of higher-income voters. We should not be stopping people who are entitled to vote for want of the correct photo ID. This is a solution in search of a problem—and for that reason, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I support clause 47 and the removal of the requirement for ID to be photographic and the introduction of credit and debit cards as acceptable ID insofar as those are important improvements for accessibility. However, they do not go far enough.
I want to speak in favour of new clause 19, tabled by my hon. Member for Hazel Grove. The Green party believes that we should be scrapping voter ID. Mandatory photographic voter ID was introduced via the Elections Act 2022, despite there being no evidence of a need for it in the first place. It was widely criticised at the time as a blatant act of voter suppression by the utterly discredited Johnson Government, who were presenting a solution looking for a problem—as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said.
We have heard today about the importance of defending the safety and integrity of our democracy, but I would contend that there are numerous other, far more pressing threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy: the influence of dodgy donors; the widespread prevalence of disinformation; the giving of covid contracts to mates; the stuffing of the other place with political appointees—including donors; and parties breaking election law without adequate penalties or prevention.
There are many threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy. I would contend that the threat of personation, which, as we have heard explained several times, is a numerically tiny and very rarely occurring offence, is not the main one. I very much hope to see a proportionate level of passion expressed by some colleagues in other parties when we come to discuss the urgent need to clean up political finance and stop disinformation later in discussion of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.
Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is
“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.
That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.
For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.
During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are
“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”
The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that
“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”
She was also right when she said:
“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]
We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.
I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.
Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.
Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.
I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
I have to say that I find it quite shocking to hear Members of the official Opposition supporting the exclusion of thousands of eligible voters from the polling station. That really is shocking. This proposal represents a broadening and an enhancing of the voter ID system so that those eligible can cast their vote. It is a very simple principle. I must correct the shadow Minister: there was support for this measure from the Electoral Reform Society, which said that
“Allowing IDs like bank cards and digital ID, which voters are likely to be carrying on them, will help voters who do not have access to the other accepted forms of ID and make it easier for all voters on the day.”
That is the point.
Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 14th April 2026
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 April 2026 - (14 Apr 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. Please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode. We now continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Representation of the People Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first; in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate by bobbing that they wish to speak in the current debate. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate that they wish to withdraw the amendment for the new clause or seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment to a vote, including grouped new clauses and schedules, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful.
Clause 48
Absent voting
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Government amendments 14 to 17.
Schedule 3.
New Clause 40—Expired postal votes—
“(1) The Representation of the People Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 4, paragraph 3 (Absent vote at elections for a period) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
‘(5A) In the case of a person whose entitlement to vote by post at elections of the kind in question has expired, the registration officer shall make available, upon request from a registered political party, that person’s details as supplied to the registration officer in his application to vote by proxy at parliamentary elections.’”
This new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
I will speak first to clause 48 and associated schedule 3, before addressing Government amendments 14 to 17 and new clause 40, tabled by the Opposition.
The current legislative framework for absent voting was designed for a very different electoral landscape. Today, far more people vote by post; supply chains and administrator resources are under greater pressure; and expectations around reliability and timely delivery have changed. Developed in consultation with the electoral sector, clause 48 modernises and strengthens the absent voting system to reflect those realities. It streamlines administration, gives electors greater flexibility and ensures that safeguards around the integrity of absent vote applications remain robust.
These measures will enable postal voters to take part in elections with confidence, by helping to ensure their ballot is issued and delivered in good time, while allowing a switch to voting in person or by emergency proxy if their ballot is delayed. They will not apply to Northern Ireland because of the different absent voting regime there and the stricter security requirements around absent voting, which are a result of the history of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.
Setting clearer rules and deadlines will give electoral administrators the confidence and certainty needed to manage their workload effectively and keep the absent voting system running smoothly at the most demanding points in the electoral timetable. The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. The clause also strengthens safeguards in the absent voting system by clarifying identity verification requirements, and introduces a clear statutory determination deadline for identity verification. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Government amendments 14, 15 and 16 remove a regulation-making power that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised is unnecessary. The Bill already provides that a proxy with a long-term proxy postal voting arrangement can make temporary arrangements for a particular poll without affecting that long-term arrangement. Where a proxy instead applies for a proxy postal voting arrangement for a particular election, the correct outcome is that the long-term arrangement is cancelled. That is the policy intention, and the Bill already delivers that without the need for regulation-making powers. The amendments therefore simplify the legislation, remove redundant provisions and ensure the law operates clearly and consistently for electoral administrators.
Government amendment 17 ensures consistency between the absent voting regime and the proxy voting offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill already allows someone who has applied to be registered, and is only awaiting the end of the objections period, to be treated as a person who “will be registered” for absent voting purposes. Without the amendment, that same person could be granted a proxy vote but might not be legally capable of committing the offence of acting as a proxy for too many electors if they knowingly breached the proxy limits. The amendment closes that gap, reflects the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and ensures that the law operates clearly, consistently and as intended. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
New clause 40 seeks to require electoral registration officers to share information with political parties about electors whose postal voting arrangements have expired. While supporting voter participation is important, the Government do not consider the new clause to be workable, proportionate or necessary. As drafted, it does not provide access to postal vote expiry data itself; instead, it links disclosure to details supplied in proxy vote applications for parliamentary elections, which is not how postal voting arrangements are recorded or renewed in practice.
Most postal voters will never have applied for a proxy vote. As a result, for many electors whose postal vote has expired, there would simply be no proxy application data to disclose, meaning that the new clause would not achieve its apparent policy aim. There is also a clear mismatch in scope. The new clause refers to postal vote expiry for
“elections of the kind in question”
but limits disclosure to proxy applications made for parliamentary elections, significantly narrowing and distorting the dataset that would be available.
A question of principle is also at stake. Electoral registration officers already have a legal duty to notify electors directly about when their postal voting arrangements are due to expire and to provide them with information about how to make a fresh application to vote by post. That ensures that voters are informed at the right time without reliance on third parties.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.
Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds.
I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those.
The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting
“should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience”
within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error.
However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off.
I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote.
It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off.
I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I understand the points he makes. There is a statutory duty for EROs to notify postal voters that their postal vote is due to expire at the end of January that year, and they will be contacting them. The Government’s view is that there needs to be a proportionate approach that does not add a burden in what is already a busy time for EROs. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out current Government thinking in light of his remarks.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Absent Voting
Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8.
This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll.
Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert—
“20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended.
(1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49
Power to obtain election-related information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. To achieve that, it is essential that electors are kept well informed about elections and referenda in their local area and about other pertinent information, such as the candidates running and the locations of polling stations. The clauses will enable us, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to improve online information services to provide that information to the public. Although the information is already available to electors, that service will help ensure that electors have access to consistent and complete information via a central service. The information that election officers may be required to provide will be limited to factual information about the poll and will not include details on the policies of candidates or political parties.
Clause 49 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to require returning officers, counting officers, petition officers and electoral registration officers to share specified information relating to elections and referenda. The Secretary of State can require the information to be shared with the Department, the Electoral Commission or both.
Clauses 50 and 51 specify which officers can be required to provide information, and for which types of elections and referenda. That power will be exercised via secondary legislation, so the exact details of the information required and processes for sharing it will be confirmed in due course. At this stage, our ambition is that the information will be collated by the Electoral Commission and shared with the public via its website. Electoral administrators will be supported to provide the required information and for electors to provide their location to quickly find the most relevant information. This is a straightforward and proportionate measure that we believe will greatly improve the electorate’s access to information and support increased engagement.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal.
Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating.
What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.
Samantha Dixon
I agree; we should remove all barriers to electors participating in elections. I thank the shadow Minister for describing how those barriers are in effect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Effect of the death of the Sovereign on certain elections and referendums
Samantha Dixon
The clause and schedule 4 ensure that in the event of the demise of the Crown, effective and consistent processes are in place for scheduled local elections and other polls, including mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, as is already the case for a parliamentary general election. In the event of the demise of the Crown, if a UK parliamentary general election is taking place, legislation provides for a 14-day pause in the timetable for the general election to allow time for public mourning and the funeral arrangements, and the date of the poll is moved to after the date of the funeral. Different provisions are in place for other types of polls.
We believe that the 14-day pause in proceedings used for UK parliamentary general elections is the most appropriate arrangement, so the clause extends those provisions to a number of other types of election and referendum, including parliamentary by-elections, scheduled local elections, London Assembly elections, mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The measures also apply to certain Welsh elections in specific circumstances, when they are combined with UK parliamentary or police and crime commissioner elections.
A royal proclamation may already adjust the date of a postponed poll for a UK parliamentary general election by up to seven days. Under the Bill, when such a proclamation is made, any other polls combined with the general election will also move so that they remain combined. The Bill also creates an equivalent ministerial power to adjust postponed polls that are not UK parliamentary general elections by up to seven days. The provisions will ensure that consistent and appropriate provisions are in place for polls being held in such circumstances. I hope that Members will support the measure.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 53
Form of documents for elections and referendums
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 18.
Schedule 5.
Samantha Dixon
The clause, schedule 5 and Government amendment 18 deal with parliamentary processes used to update various forms. A range of prescribed electoral forms are set out in legislation, including poll cards, nomination forms and ballot papers. The rules for each type of poll, be it UK parliamentary, mayoral or local government, are set out in separate pieces of legislation. Each set of rules includes a full set of forms, despite the content of each prescribed form being almost entirely the same from one type of election or referendum to the next, so even a minor amendment to a form results in significant duplication across legislation, which is hugely inefficient.
That process is made even more difficult by different parliamentary procedures being required to update the forms in the different pieces of legislation. A good example of that is the recent legislation to add a veteran card to the list of accepted voter ID. That simple addition required an a affirmative instrument to be debated in both Houses to make the change for UK parliamentary elections, a negative instrument replicating the changes for local elections, and a third no-procedure statutory instrument making the same changes to Welsh language forms. That one small change therefore resulted in three instruments and more than 171 pages of legislation.
To reduce the unnecessary burden on parliamentary time, the clause makes a number of streamlining changes and amends the powers in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow the forms to be updated far more efficiently. The sector and stakeholders have been asking for this change, which will allow a relatively small but none the less important consolidation of electoral law.
Government amendment 18 is a purely technical change designed to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. It corrects a minor drafting error relating to the proposed changes to improve how electoral forms are updated. It is a routine correction identified during the drafting process and does not affect the Bill in substance. I commend the amendment, clause 53 and schedule 5 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Form of documents for elections and referendums
Amendment made: 18, in schedule 5, page 135, line 5, leave out “and (2)”.—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment corrects an error by removing a reference to regulations made under rule 8(2) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 from provision about the parliamentary procedure applying to certain regulation-making powers under that Act. Rule 8(2) does not confer power to make regulations.
Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 54
Removal of requirement to publish election agents’ addresses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation.
Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents. These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee.
These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
To prevent attempts to circumvent spending limits, current rules require campaigners to seek permission from the courts before they are able to pay invoices late. In practice, most late or disputed claims are delayed due to routine administrative issues. The Electoral Commission has said that the court-based process for leave to pay applications is inefficient and costly, delaying prompt payments and placing unnecessary burdens on campaigners, the courts and suppliers, especially small businesses.
Clause 55 addresses those inefficiencies by transferring responsibility for granting leave from the courts to the Electoral Commission. The commission will be able to give permission to campaigners to pay late or disputed claims. It is right that such decisions are made by the specialist regulator of political finance. By transferring that function to the commission, the clause will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, support both suppliers and campaigners, and maintain the integrity and transparency of the broader campaign finance framework.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 56
Delivery and inspection of returns and declarations
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 7.
Clause 57 stand part.
New clause 47—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 43(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to bring into force section 9(2) of that Act (declaration as to source of donation).
(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to exercise the power to commence section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 which inserts section 54A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires declarations to be provided as to the source of donations.
New clause 48—Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 83 (declaration by treasurer as to return relating to campaign expenditure), in subsection (3)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.
(3) In section 123 (declaration of responsible person as to return relating to referendum expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.”
This new clause reduces the threshold for two offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false declarations are provided in relation to election expenses an offence is committed if they have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are making a false declaration.
New clause 49—Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount—
“In section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration as to source of donation)—
(a) in subsection (1), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’;
(b) in subsection (2)(B), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’.”
This new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration as to its source (rather than the current minimum of £7,500).
New clause 50—Penalties for false declarations—
“(1) Schedule 20 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (penalties) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for section 54A(5) (making a false declaration as to source of donation), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.
(3) In the entry for section 83(3)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.
(4) In the entry for section 123(4)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.”
This new clause raises the maximum penalties for submitting false declarations from 1 year’s imprisonment upon conviction on indictment to 3 years’ imprisonment upon conviction on indictment.
Samantha Dixon
Under current rules, candidates or their election agents must deliver a return and declaration and any accompanying documents relating to their election expenses to the returning officer. To supplement the extension of the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role, clause 56 will require candidates or their election agents also to deliver a copy of the return and declaration and accompanying documents to the Electoral Commission. Those incurring expenditure in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners will likewise be required to deliver copies of relevant returns and declarations to the commission.
That will ensure timely receipt of returns and declarations by the Electoral Commission, which is essential to its ability to perform its new regulatory functions quickly, scrutinise returns and deal with those not complying with the rules. The Electoral Commission will also have new responsibilities for making candidate returns and declarations available for public inspection, promoting transparency by facilitating the collection and publication of data on candidate finance in a single source. Allowing the Electoral Commission to prescribe a form of return that campaigners must use will also help campaigners comply with reporting requirements and facilitate scrutiny of returns.
Turning to clause 57, the Electoral Commission has existing duties to monitor and secure compliance with the expenditure and donations rules set out in PPERA, as well as other enactments promulgating rules concerning candidates or their election agents. To enable it to perform those duties effectively, it also has powers to make regulations relating to information that must be included in donations reports that are required under these pieces of legislation.
Paul Holmes
We think these clauses are sensible, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on their implementation. First, has she had any feedback from the Electoral Commission regarding these added responsibilities? Does she think they are within its current operational capacity? Has the commission given her Department any feedback on whether it is happy to undertake the new requirements that the Government are placing on it, and that it is resourced properly to implement and enforce them, particularly those in clause 56?
Clause 56 places a duty on candidates to send a copy of their returns to the Electoral Commission as well as the local returning officer. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are political parties and independent candidates of all shapes, sizes, abilities and internal machinery. There are associations of all political parties across the country that are run by a couple—at best—of well-intentioned volunteers, who might not necessarily be at the forefront of new electoral law changes. Has the Minister taken that into account? How will she communicate these regulations effectively so that we do not have the unintended consequence of some well-intentioned candidates and agents falling foul of them, just because of the postcode they seek to represent?
The Opposition have a wider concern about changes like this one, especially in the light of the answer given to a written question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Government have proceeded with these legislative changes without consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Given that clauses like this one will have a direct influence on and consequences for political parties of all shapes and sizes, it is regrettable that the panel has not been consulted at all on the Bill whatsoever.
I urge the Minister and the Government to take a step back in progress with the Bill’s passage and reset their view on consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel when they are seeking to make changes of this nature. In that way, political parties represented on the Committee can actually be consulted and give the Government their views. It is regrettable that they have not done so. The Minister has rightly brought the clause forward, but she has absolutely no information about the views on these changes of parties—not just the Conservative party but smaller parties and independent candidates—
I hope the Minister takes that as a genuine nudge. It is a complaint from the official Opposition that these changes, and the Bill in general, have changed precedent. When the last Government introduced the Bill that became Elections Act 2022, the panel was consulted because that legislation affected all political parties on an equal basis. This Government have chosen not to do that. That is regrettable. I look to the Minister to change the course of this Government when it comes to future changes to electoral legislation.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. This discussion about part 4 feels slightly odd because we are having part of the conversation but will have a further conversation on Report, for all the good and understandable reasons that we have talked about, after the publication of the review by Sir Philip Rycroft. Many people truly welcome Sir Philip’s work and some of us were fortunate enough to take part in it, but we are discussing the measures under consideration while fully aware that we expect further movement from the Government.
I will speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We Liberal Democrats welcome clauses 56 and 57, but the JCNSS did a huge amount of work looking at money and interference in our politics, and it has made some recommendations, which are manifested in the new clauses. The JCNSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to commence section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That section was inserted in 2009 but never commenced. It covers requirements for donors to make a declaration about their donation, but the Committee found that the provisions need more work to adequately address concerns about donors acting as conduits for foreign money. New clause 47 would require the Government to commence section 54A of the 2000 Act within three months of the Bill being passed. The subsequent linked new clauses change the provisions of section 54A to address its shortcomings.
Regarding new clause 48, the JCNSS heard evidence that law enforcement often faces prohibitively high thresholds for taking action on suspicions of wrongdoing, and that part of the problem is linked to the wording of the legislation, which requires law enforcement to prove that actors “knowingly” broke the rules. New clause 48 would lower the threshold and use wording in line with that of anti-money laundering regulations, whereby persons are liable if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are facilitating impermissible donations.
Regarding new clause 49, the JCNSS questioned why it would be appropriate to have such a high threshold—£11,180—for making a declaration. It perceived a gap that could be exploited. For example, a UK donor might receive £11,179 from a Russian source in connection with a planned donation but would, apparently, not need to declare that when making a £11,179 donation. The JCNSS noted the general principle that donations below £500 are largely outside the reporting scope of PPERA and would not need to be reported or recorded. A £500 threshold might therefore prove a more robust basis to guide the level at which money received in connection with a donation needs to be declared. The new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration on its source, and whether related gifts have been received. Transparency and consistency are both good things, of which there should be more.
Paul Holmes
I wonder if I could urge the hon. Member to change her view. Does she not think that the £500 threshold is very low, if we consider the fast period when a candidate may be fundraising, during the longer term of an election period? Many of our constituents will give money during that period. At £500, the burden placed on candidates and on the person giving the money would be probably too harsh. The threshold needs to be lifted to something more realistic.
Lisa Smart
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion.
New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name.
On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent. Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I rise to speak to both the clauses and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke to.
Briefly, commencing section 9 to PPERA, as proposed by new clause 47, is something that was put into legislation 17 years ago, so it feels really quite overdue. Regarding the points that were just discussed around new clause 49, which proposes the reduction to £500 of the threshold for declaring the source of a donation, making such a declaration is not necessarily a hugely onerous process. I imagine that when someone makes a donation and fills in a form, they just put, “Source: my salary”. This is not necessarily a hugely problematic part of the process of creating more transparency. We surely all agree that more transparency is needed in our political financing system, to protect from the corrosive effect of foreign donations, and of huge inequalities and the lack of transparency over domestic donations. I strongly support all the new clauses.
I will raise a couple of additional points, which I would like the Minister to respond to. First of all, regarding the provision in clause 56 and schedule 7 to submit two returns now—to both the local returning officer and the Electoral Commission—I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing to the Committee, argued that this provision clearly makes things more complex and problematic, and it argued that the primary responsibility for submission should be to the Electoral Commission. Does that not make more sense? Given that the Bill is introducing a requirement to submit to the Electoral Commission, why do not we just say, “Submit the return to the Electoral Commission”? Then the Electoral Commission can correspond with the returning officer if it wants to. But let us just have one submission and make the process as simple as possible for candidates and parties. Could the Minister respond on that point from the Electoral Commission about the requirement to submit two returns?
Secondly, a point raised by Philip Rycroft in his extremely useful report, under recommendation number 7, is that
“The Electoral Commission should mandate political parties to submit their annual reports and accounts and campaign spending returns in a standardised format.”
Could the Minister comment on whether she proposes to take that recommendation forward? It would be very helpful in improving transparency and clarity in the system.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will just make some very brief remarks on the record.
I welcome this landmark Bill, which does a great deal to bring our democratic landscape into the 21st century, but I will briefly put on the record some thoughts about new clause 47.
As we digest the Rycroft review, I think that the new clause is worth further consideration, particularly about how we can have meaningful deterrence for the most egregious flouting of political finance rules. If we want to be able to deal with that issue, we also need to have effective prosecutions for serious breaches. My concern at the moment is that there is something of an enforcement gap, and I know that that is a description that the Electoral Commission has outlined as well. I remain concerned that when it comes to the real risks posed by foreign interference, we are leaving that gap open, which would run contrary to the rightful and important aims of this Bill.
The director general of the National Crime Agency highlighted here in Parliament in February that there is a “gap in law” and that
“a foreign state or foreign individual—someone who is impermissible—can transfer money to someone who is in the UK, who is permissible, and that person can give money to a political party or a politician, and there is nothing to stop that. That is perfectly lawful.”
There is an enforcement gap there that I know that the Minister, along with other Ministers and officials, will want to address. It is worth reflecting further on the aims of new clause 47 and how it tries to strengthen this Bill further beyond the work that it already does. As we look to digest the Rycroft review, and the Bill proceeds to further stages, it is important that we give the aims in the new clause rightful consideration, and think about some of those issues around the gap in enforcement when it comes to the most egregious breaches of political finance rules.
Samantha Dixon
A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood.
In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did.
Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them.
On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently.
We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote.
New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had
“reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting”
that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing.
The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.
The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed.
The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system.
In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most.
New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.
Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.
Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.
Paul Holmes
Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.
Samantha Dixon
The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 58, page 67, line 38, leave out “, when it” and insert “—
(a) the party has not previously undertaken a risk assessment in relation to a relevant benefit accruing to the party in the same calendar year, and
(b) when the value of the donation”.
This amendment would mean that a risk assessment is required for donations when the £11,180 threshold (for donations or regulated transactions) is breached the first time in a calendar year. (See also amendment 40, which requires a risk assessment the second or subsequent time the threshold is breached.)
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 40 and 41.
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—
“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.
(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.
(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—
(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,
(b) that person’s previous donation history,
(c) the type of donation,
(d) the amount of the donation, and
any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 68, line 20, at end insert—
“(da) whether the person from whom the donation is received is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme established by the National Security Act 2023.”
This amendment would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.
Government amendments 42 and 43.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 44 to 78.
Schedule 8.
Government new clause 60—Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000—
“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—
(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—
(a) ’;
(b) at the end insert
‘, or
(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”
This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.
Samantha Dixon
I will first speak to clause 58, schedule 8, Government new clause 60, and Government amendments 39 to 41 and 44 to 78, before turning to the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
In line with recommendations from the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life—now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission—clause 58 addresses a long-standing gap in electoral law. Current rules require recipients of donations to verify the permissibility of the donor but do not require them to assess whether a donor may be facilitating a donation from an impermissible source. Existing permissibility checks remain important, but they do not always provide sufficient assurance where donations are routed through third parties or where risk indicators are present.
The clause introduces a clear, proportionate due diligence duty on campaigners to look beyond current permissibility checks and determine whether there is a material risk that a political contribution originates from an impermissible source. The new framework strengthens the ability of campaigners to assure themselves that donations come from permissible sources. Its purpose is not to impose unnecessary burdens, but to ensure that campaigners take reasonable, proportionate steps to understand who is behind a donation. By embedding a culture of risk-based due diligence, the clause helps to guard against foreign interference, increases confidence in the integrity of donations, and aligns political finance rules with best practice in other sectors.
Government amendment 39 to 41 and 44 to 78 seek to clarify the point at which a political donation exceeds the £11,180 thresholds and requires a risk assessment under the new “know your donor” rules. Currently, the Bill requires a risk assessment once a recipient receives cumulative contributions from the same donor surpassing £11,180 in a calendar year. However, after that point is reached, every further donation received from the same donor in the same calendar year, regardless of value, would require another risk assessment. That was not our policy intention.
Under the updated approach, a risk assessment will be required each time a donor gives £11,180 cumulatively or as an individual donation, after which the running total in effect will reset to zero. That replaces the previous rolling aggregation threshold, removing unnecessary repetition and ensuring that parties complete a risk assessment only when receiving a further significant donation from the same donor. Risk assessments could be carried out on every donation if a campaigner feels the need to do so.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak to clause 58 and to Opposition amendments 32 and 31, which would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the foreign activities and foreign influence registration scheme.
As the Minister outlined, clause 58 would make changes to PPERA to require registered political parties to undertake risk assessments on reportable donations—those more than £11,180. Multiple donations from the same donor within a calendar year would be aggregated for the purposes of the threshold. Similarly, schedule 8 would require third-party campaigners and others already regulated under PPERA to undertake “know your donor” risk assessments. We welcome the Minister’s approach to tightening the regulations around political donations. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, we need to talk much more about this issue, including domestic donations. We think that the clause has some really strong attributes to increase transparency and equalise the donation procedure.
I take issue with the Minister’s interpretation of the consequences of amendments 31 and 32, although she recognised that they are well intentioned. I fail to see how they narrow the scope of the risk assessment, when they would actually broaden it. It seems alien that the Government are not willing to broaden the scope of those risk assessments with a system that has been in place since 1 July 2025. If we reject these two amendments, do we not risk creating two frameworks? We would be wilfully leaving out an existing framework when trying to do risk assessments. It would strengthen the risk assessment if we brought into play an existing framework that already undertakes regulation.
Our amendments would broaden the scope of the risk assessment rather than narrow it. When somebody is making a donation to influence the role of Members of Parliament, and they are voluntarily registering themselves under the foreign influence scheme, it is important that that is included in our donations regime. It does not stop the well-intentioned aims of the clause from operating, because this already exists. I fail to understand the Minister’s resistance to the two amendments.
We are discussing very important attributes of the Bill and very important subject matters: donations to political parties. We have all had our bad ones. We have all had our good ones, which enable democracy to take place. We have had a comprehensive and welcome review from Philip Rycroft. The Minister has outlined that the Government will undertake a solid consultation response to that review, but we are pushing ahead with clauses that will, let us face it, be passed in this Committee and then in the House at later stages of the Bill. The Minister will bring forward amendments that will be debated, but there has not been a consultation.
We have always contested that the measures in the Bill could be paused until there is a proper cross-party review of the Rycroft review. If we could come to some agreement on a cross-party basis, the later passages of the legislation could be fast-tracked. It is regrettable that the Minister and the Government—although I do not blame the Minister personally—are coming to this House with important and forward-looking legislation without taking into account a proper review to directly influence the proposals they have introduced. I do not think a general election is imminent—unless the Minister suddenly gives us cause for concern—so a pause would not be detrimental to the passage of the Bill. It could give scope for cross-party agreement on the proposed reforms and speed up the passage of the Bill.
The Bill is a significant piece of legislation, but it has been introduced only at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. I am aware that there is a carry-over motion, and the Conservatives fully support that through the usual channels, so why rush the clauses when we have not had the proper implementation and review of the Rycroft review? It would make far more sense to introduce a consolidated Bill in the next Session after cross-party consultation so that we can have a proper discussion, rather than fast-tracking the Government’s tabled amendments.
I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in her usual courteous way, but I would be grateful if she could outline why she seems to think that amendments 31 and 32 would somehow hinder the operational regulatory implementation of her proposals. They would actually broaden the scope, and, we would argue, back up its implementation through already existing legislation. We regret the attitude that the Government have taken to the importance of the Rycroft review and the consultations with all political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. I remind her that a written question has outlined that there was no consultation on a cross-party basis before the Bill was introduced to the House. We will be push amendments 31 and 32 to a vote.
Lisa Smart
We Liberal Democrats support greater scrutiny of the sources of political money. We will not oppose any of these amendments, whether from the Government or His Majesty’s Opposition, but we want to raise some issues because we believe that they could have gone further.
The amendments were tabled, as has been mentioned, following the publication of the Rycroft review, but revisions around cryptocurrency donations are not included in them. In a welcome statement to the House, the Secretary of State talked specifically about banning crypto donations, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. The Government accepted Sir Philip’s recommendation on the day that it was published, so why is there nothing about that in this group of amendments? The Government have a ready vehicle for it in front of them, so the Committee would welcome an explanation of why that is. Can the Minister set out a planned timetable of future actions, including a firm commitment on when a cryptocurrency amendment will appear?
The shadow Minister talked fairly about how this process is running in parallel, making it quite difficult to understand what is ahead of us. The Government are working on a response to the Rycroft review in full, and there are measures in the Bill that they will be keen to ensure are implemented in time for the next general election, including votes at 16 and automatic voter registration. Those will take time to implement, so I understand that the Minister is playing a reasonably sticky wicket, trying to go at pace but in a thorough and considered manner. She has not been dealt an easy hand, but I would appreciate hearing about her planned timetable for issuing further amendments.
I am sure that the Minister agrees about the scale and immediacy of the threat that some of the amendments seek to address, including foreign interference in our elections and democracy. Urgency on those actions is needed. It is important to get these measures in place as soon as possible, but they really should be the right measures. I would welcome hearing from the Minister about when she plans to bring forward further information, and I am sure that we all look forward to scrutinising that in due course.
Dr Chowns
Broadly, I hugely welcome all measures to improve the risk assessment of donations, which is critical, so I am glad to see those here. I agree that much more needs to be done than is currently in the Bill, as outlined by Philip Rycroft, among others, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that. I share the frustration expressed about the fact that we have two processes going on in parallel and so, from my perspective, we will not have sufficient opportunity adequately to scrutinise the proposals that the Government are promising to bring forward in relation to Rycroft. However, I absolutely feel their urgency and look forward to whatever opportunity we do have to scrutinise them.
I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that there are critical missing elements that we could and should be addressing in this part of the Bill: crypto donations, in particular, but also the desperate need for an overall cap on political donations. We will be able to discuss those issues later, when we come to the new clauses, but it seems rather odd that the Government have put nothing in this part of the Bill in relation to those critical elements.
I want to raise two specific issues in relation to this group of amendments. First, the Electoral Commission has made two points about the articulation of risk factors. It would like the list of risk factors to include any other risk factors that a reasonable party would consider relevant, rather than any other risk factors that a political party itself considers relevant, because that would constitute marking its own homework. It seems to me that that small tweak to language would clarify the risk factors. The Electoral Commission also recommends the inclusion of a risk factor relating to a person’s connections to other countries and jurisdictions. That might be a more inclusive way of addressing some of the points about a foreign influence registration scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those two recommendations—requests, essentially—from the Electoral Commission.
Secondly, in a report produced last month, CenTax—a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick—pointed out that it would be potentially much more sensible to establish a donor registration system operated by the Electoral Commission itself. That would mean transferring responsibility for the risk assessment for “know your donor” checks to the Electoral Commission rather than to political parties, which, depending on their size and longevity and so forth, might have varying capacities to do that. When a donor wished to make a donation to a party above a certain minimal threshold, they would apply to the Electoral Commission for a donor registration number and then use that when making the donation. That would make it much easier to keep track of multiple donations by a given donor, either to a single party over a period of time or to multiple parties.
That seems to me a sensible and workable proposal for improving transparency and clarity in the system, recognising and addressing the burden of compliance requirements that will be placed on parties—including local parties, which, as has been mentioned, are very much reliant on volunteers—and ensuring a consistent approach to donor risk assessment and monitoring. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that recommendation from CenTax that a donor registration system should be established.
Lloyd Hatton
Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year.
I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them. Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the clause is important. We do need to have a greater say. He says he supports the clause, and I agree with him, because he is very sensible. But given some of the headlines we have had across the House in recent weeks about the origins of donations and the facilitation of bad donations, why does he not agree with us that foreign influence registration should be part of the risk assessment? Does he share my concern that the Government have rejected that?
Lloyd Hatton
I do not believe that the Government are rejecting that carte blanche. As I was about to say—it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has my notes before him—the Rycroft review commissioned by this Government notes that the “know your donor” provisions are similar to the anti-money laundering checks that are required by thousands of organisations, large and small, in the private sector, the third sector and elsewhere. Those are about ensuring that financial transactions, such as a donation, are indeed legitimate. As we digest the Rycroft review, I hope and expect that the Minister will give careful consideration to what it sets out and look at the idea that “know your donor” checks should more closely mirror the due diligence checks we see elsewhere, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering regulations.
In making my second point, which I think is worthy of further consideration, I think it will be helpful to provide a case study. As Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, earlier this year the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), a former Reform UK MP—I notified him that I would be mentioning him—launched a new political party, Restore Britain. Before that, however, he set up a “political movement”, and he may or may not—we do not know—have received substantial contributions from impermissible sources before Restore Britain was registered officially as a political party. The fact is that we simply do not have a clear understanding, and the current legal landscape means that there are no checks on the funds that a party may hold prior to formal registration.
I should make it very clear that the Bill goes far in strengthening controls on the sources of donations to political parties, and goes a great way to shoring up our democracy against foreign interference. However, I would really welcome the Minister’s thoughts and ideas on how we can ensure that a political party does not seek to sidestep controls on donations and loans by accepting substantial contributions from a potentially impermissible source simply because it has not yet set itself up officially as a political party.
I know that this is something that Rycroft seeks to understand at a top level in his review, so I do not expect it to be dealt with in Committee—I think that would be wrong, because we had the review only just before the Easter recess—but I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts, as the Bill proceeds, on how we close down the potential problem whereby political movements, political projects or whatever we want to call them seek to gain donations outside the controls and checks that would apply if they were a registered political party.
The Chair
Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that it is not necessarily befitting of the House to make comment on whether other hon. Members may or may not have conducted matters in a dishonourable fashion.
Samantha Dixon
I thank Members for the wide-ranging and constructive points that they have made. The Government accept the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley; however, we believe the existing clauses already allow for foreign links, the status of the foreign influence registration scheme and other relevant indicators to be considered.
It is important for us all to consider—this speaks to a point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made—that, as drafted, the list of statutory risk factors is capable of amendment by secondary legislation, so that the framework can remain up to date. As new risks emerge, they can be addressed through secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that this is a very fast-moving landscape. When the Government introduced the strategy last July, it was prior to the conviction of Nathan Gill. New risks have emerged in considerable number in the past year, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described how new parties are emerging. It is important that legislation is not prescriptive in a way that hampers consideration of risks as they emerge.
I appreciate the sensitivity that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove expressed—I think the hon. Member for Hamble Valley understands this too—to the challenge of legislating in a fast-moving landscape. The Government are responding as promptly as we can. On the timetable, Parliament will be prorogued soon—I do not know when; my hon. Friend the Government Whip may have more intelligence on that—but this is a carry-over Bill, and that is important given the consideration and consultation that needs to happen as we respond to the Rycroft review.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I want to pick up on the implications of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and the hon. Member for South Dorset. We are all aware that Reform was the first political organisation to come into being as a private company. It operates outside the framework of a traditional political party, and that carries with it some risks.
As the Minister has outlined, the intention is that the framework identifying those risks can be regularly updated. However, that organisation has been in existence for some six years, so this is not something that has suddenly materialised. The point that my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, and in the amendments covering things such as FIRS, is that that these are emerging risks that we have all been aware of for some time.
I appreciate the Minister’s point about the timetable and where we are in this Session, but it would be helpful to understand from her how soon those long-standing risks that we have been aware of for some time will find their way into secondary legislation and therefore the framework, or where they might feature in amendments on Report so that they can be properly taken into account.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member will appreciate that implementation of the Bill will require substantial secondary legislation. As tempting as it is to set out a timetable, we have to focus on getting the primary legislation through first. There is the tension, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove described, between going at pace to implement measures such as votes at 16 and considering as comprehensively as possible the matters that arise from the Rycroft review. It is a challenge, albeit not an insurmountable one, for the Government to do both.
Considerable parliamentary time will be devoted to the secondary legislation; that will become clearer as time progresses. We need to move forward as swiftly as we can. We will introduce the amendment regarding crypto when parliamentary time allows, and we will ensure that it has parliamentary scrutiny. I have noted the comments by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about a donor registration scheme. None the less, it is beholden on political parties, candidates and campaigners to take seriously the risks from donors. It will be their responsibility, under this legislation, to assess those risks, and if they are found to wilfully, recklessly or knowingly circumvent them, they will be subject to prosecution.
We need to move forward with this legislation as much as we can. I sense the frustration from Members across the Committee about the time that will be required to do this, but we need to do it thoughtfully, carefully, and at pace but not too fast. I jest, but we will do it as soon as we possibly can in a way that does not jeopardise scrutiny.
Amendment 39 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—
“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.
(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.
(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—
(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,
(b) that person’s previous donation history,
(c) the type of donation,
(d) the amount of the donation, and
any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”—(Paul Holmes.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Samantha Dixon
With the introduction of votes at 16, 14 and 15-year-olds will be able to pre-register as attainers for up to two years before they reach voting age. To safeguard the data of young people, their electoral register data will be subject to enhanced protections. These enhanced safeguards will restrict access to under-16s’ electoral registration data, meaning that political parties and other recipients of political donations will not be able to independently verify whether a 14 or 15-year-old is on the register.
Clause 59 closes a potential loophole by prohibiting donations from under-16 attainers, ensuring that the electoral regime remains secure, while still allowing 16 and 17-year-olds, whose details can be verified, to donate like all other voters. The clause reduces the risk of impermissible or potentially foreign-linked donations entering the electoral system via routes that are unverifiable. Given the wider context of foreign interference concerns, we believe it is right to take this preventive step. Sixteen and 17-year-olds will still be able to donate like any other eligible voter, enabling early registration while ensuring that the political finance system is safeguarded from impermissible donations as younger voters become active participants in our democracy. I commend clause 59 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Donations by companies and LLPs etc
Lisa Smart
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 60, page 72, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”
This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 35, in clause 60, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) After section 54D (inserted by section 58 of this Act) insert—
‘54ZE Criminal liability of nominated director or partner to follow requirements
(1) A director or partner nominated by virtue of section 54(3ZA)(c) commits an offence if without reasonable excuse they cause or permit a breach of any requirement imposed under this Part.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding £500,000, or to both.’”
This amendment provides that the director or partner who has been nominated to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations commits an offence if they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Amendment 36, in clause 60, page 77, line 14, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 77, line 28, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Clause stand part.
New clause 13—Permissible donors not to include property development and construction undertakings—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of PPERA 2000 and any other enactment, a person is not a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant if they meet the conditions in subsections (2).
(2) The conditions in this subsection are that the person is a property development or construction undertaking as defined under subsections (3) and (4).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ if they are a body corporate, partnership, limited liability partnership, or unincorporated association, of such an undertaking which carries out, whether wholly or substantially, activities consisting of—
(a) the acquisition, disposal, or development of land for commercial or residential purposes,
(b) property speculation,
(c) the construction, renovation, or substantial alteration of buildings or infrastructure, or
(d) the provision of construction services as a principal contractor,
and whose principal business activities fall within such Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Further to subsection (3), a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ includes—
(a) any person who is acting on behalf of a property development or construction undertaking,
(b) any person who is funded either directly or indirectly by a property development or construction undertaking, and
(c) any subsidiaries or holding companies of a property development or construction undertaking.
(5) The Electoral Commission may issue guidance for the purposes of determining whether an undertaking is a property development or construction undertaking.”
This new clause would mean that a property developer or construction undertaking would not be a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant.
New clause 32—Restrictions on permitted donors: public contracts—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) has significant control of a company which has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) has significant control of a company which is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(2B) A company which would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(b) is not a permissible donor if that company—
(a) has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section—
“public contract” has the meaning given by section 3 (public contracts) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“significant control” has the meaning given by section 790C (key terms) of the Companies Act 2006;
“parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) of the Companies Act 2006.’”
New clause 52—Permissible donors not to include oil and gas companies—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘, subject to the exemption in subsection (2A).’
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A company is not a permissible donor if it is an oil and gas company.’
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) For the purposes of this section, “an oil and gas company” means any company which derives over 50% of its annual revenue from the extraction, acquisition, transportation, processing, supply or disposal of petroleum or natural gas, or a combination of the two.’”
This new clause provides that an oil and gas company would not be a permissible donor for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Lisa Smart
Before I speak to the amendments, I should say that I welcome clause 60, but I do not support new clauses 13, 32 or 52. The overall thrust of these provisions is that the UK is one of the only countries that still allows donations by companies, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she and her colleagues gave any consideration to putting a stop to that altogether.
Amendments 34 to 37 are, again, in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. The Committee’s report identified a need for tighter rules on corporate donations. That includes ensuring that proportionate civil and criminal sanctions can be targeted at those who deliberately engage in wrongdoing.
Amendment 34 would ensure that corporate donors must nominate a director or partner who would be responsible for complying with the legal requirements. Otherwise, the JCNSS fears that there is a risk of inadequate deterrence if accountability can be attributed to a complex corporate structure. The amendment would help to enable the Electoral Commission and law enforcement to hold specific individuals to account for wrongdoing.
Amendment 35 is a linked amendment, and specifies that the responsible director or partner would be criminally liable for breaching political finance rules. To ensure appropriate deterrence, it would raise the penalties from 12 months to three years in prison. Those higher sentences would also enable law enforcement to make use of more extensive investigatory powers when examining potential wrongdoing. The National Crime Agency said that the use of many investigatory tools is curtailed by the fact that sentences are only 12 months.
On amendments 36 and 37, the JCNSS report highlighted a potential Bill loophole relating to corporate donation limits. The Committee supported the Government’s proposal of limiting donations in line with the amount of revenue generated in the UK, but the report highlighted assessments from the Electoral Commission that the upper limit appears to apply to the individual recipients of donations, rather than to the individual company. That suggests that a company could donate its upper limit to a political party and then donate the upper limit hundreds of times over to individual MPs and regulated entities—for example, candidates. The Committee concluded that this unlimited limit is the wrong policy choice and a major issue with the Bill’s drafting. It seeks to fix that loophole with the amendments.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak first to clause 60, before addressing the amendments tabled by hon. Members.
Clause 60 directly responds to long-standing concerns about vulnerabilities in the current political finance system and about the risk of illicit foreign money influencing UK democracy. Under the current framework, it is possible for shell companies or companies with weak UK connections to be used to channel money into our political system. The Electoral Commission and many other stakeholders have consistently called for stronger safeguards to ensure that only legitimate entities can donate.
The new tests will require companies and limited liability partnerships wishing to donate to registered political parties to meet stricter criteria to show a genuine UK connection. The company must have generated enough income in the previous three calendar years to justify its donation. That will help to prevent shell companies from being used as fronts for foreign money. Additionally, companies must meet strict criteria related to control. They will need to be headquartered in the UK, and the majority of persons with significant control must be UK electors or UK citizens. That will ensure UK electoral control and prevent foreign influence. To prevent companies from being set up solely to make political donations, donors must have at least one up-to-date set of accounts filed with Companies House.
Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)
Tuesday 14th April 2026
(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 14 April 2026 - (14 Apr 2026)
The Chair
Good afternoon. Will Members please ensure that all electronic devices are switched to silent or switched off? We will now continue line-by-line scrutiny. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website, and shows the clauses, schedules and amendments that have been grouped for debate. I remind Members who have put their name to the lead amendment in a group that they will be called first. In the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate, by standing in their place, that they wish to speak.
At the end of a debate, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment, new clause or new schedule again, and they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or press it to a decision. If a Member wishes to press other provisions in any group to a vote, including new clauses and new schedules, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which the amendments appear in the amendment paper. I hope that is helpful.
Clause 60
Donations by companies and LLPs etc
Amendment proposed (this day): 34, in clause 60, page 72, line 36, at end insert—
“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”—(Lisa Smart.)
This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 35, in clause 60, page 73, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) After section 54D (inserted by section 58 of this Act) insert—
‘54ZE Criminal liability of nominated director or partner to follow requirements
(1) A director or partner nominated by virtue of section 54(3ZA)(c) commits an offence if without reasonable excuse they cause or permit a breach of any requirement imposed under this Part.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding £500,000, or to both.’”
This amendment provides that the director or partner who has been nominated to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations commits an offence if they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Amendment 36, in clause 60, page 77, line 14, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 77, line 28, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Clause stand part.
New clause 13—Permissible donors not to include property development and construction undertakings—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of PPERA 2000 and any other enactment, a person is not a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant if they meet the conditions in subsections (2).
(2) The conditions in this subsection are that the person is a property development or construction undertaking as defined under subsections (3) and (4).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ if they are a body corporate, partnership, limited liability partnership, or unincorporated association, of such an undertaking which carries out, whether wholly or substantially, activities consisting of—
(a) the acquisition, disposal, or development of land for commercial or residential purposes,
(b) property speculation,
(c) the construction, renovation, or substantial alteration of buildings or infrastructure, or
(d) the provision of construction services as a principal contractor,
and whose principal business activities fall within such Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Further to subsection (3), a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ includes—
(a) any person who is acting on behalf of a property development or construction undertaking,
(b) any person who is funded either directly or indirectly by a property development or construction undertaking, and
(c) any subsidiaries or holding companies of a property development or construction undertaking.
(5) The Electoral Commission may issue guidance for the purposes of determining whether an undertaking is a property development or construction undertaking.”
This new clause would mean that a property developer or construction undertaking would not be a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant.
New clause 32—Restrictions on permitted donors: public contracts—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) has significant control of a company which has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) has significant control of a company which is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(2B) A company which would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(b) is not a permissible donor if that company—
(a) has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section—
“public contract” has the meaning given by section 3 (public contracts) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“significant control” has the meaning given by section 790C (key terms) of the Companies Act 2006;
“parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) of the Companies Act 2006.’”
New clause 52—Permissible donors not to include oil and gas companies—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘, subject to the exemption in subsection (2A).’
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A company is not a permissible donor if it is an oil and gas company.’
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) For the purposes of this section, “an oil and gas company” means any company which derives over 50% of its annual revenue from the extraction, acquisition, transportation, processing, supply or disposal of petroleum or natural gas, or a combination of the two.’”
This new clause provides that an oil and gas company would not be a permissible donor for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This is the first time we have met in this Committee, but I know you like good order, so I will be brief.
Paul Holmes
That is the only time the Liberal Democrats have ever cheered me on, so I am glad we are in agreement.
The Minister gave a comprehensive outline of the proposals in clause 60. I will briefly talk to amendment 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) but moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. The Conservatives think the amendment is well intentioned, but one of my big concerns—I think the Minister outlined this, but perhaps she will return to it in winding up—is the burden that would be placed on businesses, which already have quite extensive regulatory burdens placed on them by Government. I think all parties in this Committee have intimated that everybody wants more transparency and wants to talk more about donations to ensure that we really tighten up the regulatory regime on political party donations. However, although I am not averse to being radical, I think amendment 34 is probably a bit over-burdensome and we do not support it, but we are content to support clause 60.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Desmond. In clause 60, we are considering company donations in UK politics, and I ask the Minister to consider outright banning them, as happens, for example, in France and Canada. There is no real reason for companies to be permitted to make donations, particularly when we are concerned, as in this Bill, with ensuring that company donations are not a mechanism for channelling funds from outside the country into British politics. Why not make the situation clear and allow only individuals, whose connection to the country can be clearly tested, to donate? Company donations have been nearly half the size of individual donations in UK politics in recent years. These are really significant sums.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The hon. Member is speaking about company donations. I am not saying I agree with this, but does she feel that the same logic should apply to trade union donations? If she feels that companies cannot donate, does she still feel that trade unions can?
Dr Chowns
I consider companies and trade unions to be completely different entities. One is a profit-making organisation, and the other is a membership association designed to represent the interests of its members. The two are not parallel, and I am completely fine with trade unions making donations.
Company donations have a huge influence on our politics. There is also a tax advantage for companies; there is effectively a taxpayer subsidy to them, and the advantage can be up to about 40% for companies making donations from company funds, compared with individual funds. I would therefore like to hear why the Minister thinks it is important to retain the ability for companies to make donations and does not want to follow the example of France and Canada in stopping such donations. Individuals can still make donations.
On a couple of specific points, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove referenced the fact that there is a clear problem in the Bill as currently drafted. A loophole permits companies to give donations up to the limit multiple times, both to a party and potentially to every single one of its candidates. Surely the limit should be set so that it reflects the total value of donations to all recipients. That has been argued for by the Electoral Commission and in Philip Rycroft’s recommendation 4, and it is also covered by amendments 36 and 37 in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.
It is also clear that the test should be post-tax profit, not revenue. It is far too easy for companies to inflate their revenues by engaging in what is sometimes called transfer pricing in other sectors, effectively enabling them to completely bypass the intended restrictions. Surely it is in the spirit of the Bill, and should therefore be put into the letter of it, that the test should be post-tax profit, not revenue. If we are going to permit company donations, we should be really clear that they are derived from profit made in-country, because using the revenue test provides a huge loophole. Again, that is called for in Philip Rycroft’s recommendation 2, and by the Electoral Commission and many others, so I very much hope the Minister will respond positively.
Amendments 34 and 35, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, would make the donor criminally liable. The Minister responded by saying that the onus should all be on the recipient of those donations, but that is not how the law operates in other areas when it is broken: the commissioners of the offence, as well as the recipient of the funding, are guilty. So I ask the Minister to think again. If we are talking about large companies making huge donations, they arguably have greater capacity, and certainly just as much responsibility, as the recipient to check that they are operating within the law. I refer the Minister to my comments on a previous clause about establishing a donor register, which would enable us to deal with these issues and involve the Electoral Commission in ensuring that these checks are in place.
I will briefly touch on new clause 13, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), new clause 32, in the name of the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), and new clause 52, in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). They all recognise the widespread concern in UK politics, and among all of us to some extent, about how company donations risk twisting, and in some cases have twisted, our politics. Each of those Members has tabled a new clause seeking to ban donations from particular categories of company donor. The first seeks to exclude property development and construction undertakings, the second seeks to exclude those who have had public contracts at any time in the last 10 years, and the third seeks to exclude any companies involved in oil and gas extraction.
I have huge sympathy for the arguments and for the broad thrust of those new clauses. I am not necessarily convinced that, in their current form, they are ready to be incorporated in the Bill, but they highlight a key concern. For example, there has been widespread concern about cases where large donations by a property developer were associated with planning decisions under a previous Government that went in favour of that property developer. There have also been serious concerns about the revolving door between the Government and the legislature, and profit-making companies. I would really like to hear the Minister’s response to those three new clauses tabled by Labour Members, which highlight concerns about the influence of particular groups of companies on our politics.
However, the issues I really hope the Minister will respond to are, first, stopping all company donations, because people who want to make donations can still make them as individuals; secondly, adopting the post-tax profits test, rather than the revenue test; and, finally, ensuring that the donations limit applies to the total value of donations, not just single donations.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I will keep my remarks brief. As we start the afternoon sitting, it is worth putting on the record that clause 60 goes a significant distance towards finally tightening up the rules around corporate donations, which many campaigners, including in civil society, would argue have been left unaddressed for far too long. What clause 60 seeks to do is effective.
That said, and I will not repeat in too much detail the points made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, it is worth reflecting on the recommendations in Philip Rycroft’s review around revenue versus profits, and how we can tighten things up. So I am keen to understand how, as the Bill progresses, we can potentially take his recommendations into account.
It is worth remembering some of the big case studies that have been a cause for concern. We therefore know that, in some cases, corporate donations can carry a significant risk of nefarious interference in the democratic process. There was much media coverage and speculation about the idea that Elon Musk, the California-based billionaire, could legitimately make a donation to a UK political party via a UK subsidiary of Tesla.
When we look at some of the research conducted by CenTax or Transparency International, we see that around £1 in every £10 that comes via a company as a donation could be because the individual in question could not donate directly themselves. According to that same research, around a quarter of money donated by companies is completely untraceable. So these measures are really welcome.
Paul Holmes
I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I think he is well intentioned, and his speech is well researched. However, as set out in the House of Commons Library note, the Electoral Commission itself has warned that the provisions in the clause
“would not reduce the risk of foreign money entering British politics through companies”.
What does he say to that? Does he think the Government should do more?
Lloyd Hatton
I think there is a difference between corporate and non-corporate donations. However, what would be really interesting is to see how the Bill progresses in taking forward the Rycroft review. That is a really important point, but I will not go over it again, because it has already been well articulated by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
To conclude, the Bill takes serious steps forward in addressing some of the foul play we have seen time and again with corporate donations in the past, and there is a huge body of evidence behind that. However, I would welcome any early advice or opinion the Minister can give us on how we can work on the recommendations set out by Philip Rycroft.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I will be guided by you, but I do not intend to speak to new clauses 13, 32 and 52 at this stage. However, to respond to a number of points made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire—
The Chair
Just for clarity, if you wish to speak to those new clauses, your only opportunity to do so is now.
Samantha Dixon
In the interests of time, I will continue.
On the other remarks made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, I hear her point about profit and revenue, and it is highlighted in the Rycroft review. As I said many times this morning, we will carefully consider the Rycroft review and respond to it appropriately.
The hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Hazel Grove both highlighted the Government’s view that the responsibility rests with the donor. The Government strongly believe that. The onus is on the person or organisation receiving the donation to consider its origins very carefully. They can and should decline donations if they cannot satisfy themselves that those have come through the proper and legitimate channels.
Let me turn to the issue of why we should not ban donations from companies altogether. Political parties and other campaigners will remain able to raise sufficient funds because they need to communicate their views to the electorate about protecting our democracy better against those who seek to covertly undermine it. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire referenced the Canadian model. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Leader of the House from Canada. While it is tempting to suggest that there should be a ban on corporate donations, I remind the hon. Lady that 60% of their political campaigning is funded by the taxpayer—and it is a brave politician who would enter that particular plea to the British electorate at this time.
Dr Chowns
I thank the Minister for her engagement with my point. In UK politics, about 22% of donations into politics over the past few years have been from companies. We are not talking about requiring the Government to step in and put 60% of the funding into politics; we are talking about the risks associated with a specific form of donation.
Under the measures the Government is putting forward in clause 60, we are putting in place requirements to ensure that persons of significant control are clearly allowable donors. However, it is possible for a company to restructure so that it just goes underneath that and does not meet the 25% threshold. So that could still be a channel for illicit or foreign funding to come into British politics. Would it not be simpler to require any persons who have significant control in a company and who wish to make political donations to make them as individuals?
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Member has made her point. The Government believe that there is a place for company donations from UK companies. We just feel that we should be much stricter about the arrangements by which they do these things. We have set that out in the legislation, which is what we are discussing this afternoon.
Turning briefly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, I remind all Members that these measures are not designed to prevent a specific individual or company from donating. Those who follow and meet the three tests and successfully meet the “know your donor” and section 54A requirements should be able to enrich our democracy by donating as they do. I therefore commend clause 60 to the Committee—
Samantha Dixon
We will consider those points. The Rycroft recommendations are being considered very carefully. We will respond to them in due course and we will come back to Parliament with our recommendations as they come forward. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the assurance she is seeking.
Lisa Smart
We have had a good discussion of the amendments that I spoke to on behalf of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. I do not feel a desire in the room to move to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 61
Forfeiture of certain donations to registered parties etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Samantha Dixon
This clause strengthens the electoral regime by restoring a clear, objective test for forfeiture: if an individual donor was not actually on an electoral register at the time of the donation, the donation is impermissible and liable to forfeiture. It responds directly to long-standing concerns from the Electoral Commission that the current framework is open to inconsistency. In particular, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which allowed courts to consider whether a donor was eligible, rather than actually registered, when assessing impermissible donations and their forfeiture, introduced uncertainty and risked discouraging thorough permissibility checks by campaigners.
The clause removes the ambiguity in electoral law, ensuring that permissibility of an individual is determined on actual electoral registration. It reinstates a simple and objective test that supports consistent enforcement and reinforces the integrity of the electoral regime. Campaigners already must take reasonable steps to verify donor permissibility. The clause simply removes the scope for subjective interpretation of permissibility and strengthens deterrence by ensuring that impermissible donations cannot be retained by campaigners due to ambiguity in the law. By reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics, the clause provides a clear deterrent for impermissible donations and supports compliance by political parties and campaigners.
Paul Holmes
I welcome the Minister’s comments on the clause. It is important that when we have been discussing the nature of this legislation, particularly regarding donations, we have outlined a clear stance that if people want to participate in our political process and make donations, they should have a physical stake in it. Any removal of the ambiguity around campaigners having to look to see whether it is permissible is welcome. It is a reasonable expectation from the Government that there has to be some level of participatory engagement in the political process. We have no problem with the clause; indeed we support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Unincorporated associations making political contributions
Dr Chowns
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 62, page 83, line 17, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 89 to 94, would bring the reporting threshold for donations from Unincorporated Associations in line with the permissibility threshold for donations to political parties.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 62, page 83, line 26, leave out “£2,230” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Government amendment 79.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 90, in schedule 9, page 165, line 23, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Amendment 91, in schedule 9, page 165, line 25, at end insert—
“1A For sub-paragraph (1) substitute—
(1) Where in any calendar year an unincorporated association falling within section 54(2)(h) makes a political contribution of more than £500, not having previously made any political contributions in that year, the association must notify the Commission accordingly within the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the contribution was made.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Amendment 92, in schedule 9, page 165, line 26, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Government amendments 80 to 84.
Amendment 93, in schedule 9, page 170, line 26, leave out “£2,230” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Amendment 94, in schedule 9, page 170, line 26, at end insert—
“(aa) omit sub-paragraph (5)”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 88.
Government amendments 85 to 87.
Schedule 9.
Dr Chowns
The clause contains the welcome measure of preventing donations from impermissible donors being made through the mechanism of unincorporated associations and reducing the level at which they have to register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. That is very positive. The current situation really cannot continue, so I am pleased that, through these measures, the Government will try to manage and block malicious interference and ensure democratic safety.
Although unincorporated associations are used legitimately by some, they can be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, so there is potential for them to be used to introduce foreign interference in our political system. Interesting Transparency International research published last year found that, of the £40.4 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million was unaccounted for. More than 95% of donations from unincorporated associations came from those that have not reported the source of their income, so it is clearly time for change Despite those concerning statistics, the previous Government increased reporting thresholds for unincorporated associations in the Elections Act 2022, so I am very glad that this Government are reversing that decision through the Bill.
Under normal regulations, donations to political parties must come from a permissible source if they are over £500, but if the donations are made by an unincorporated association, even with the lower threshold, the reporting requirements are not triggered until donations reach over £11,180 in a calendar year. Even with the new rules, it is possible for an unincorporated association that does not meet the threshold and is therefore not required to register to make donations without any checks. That is clearly an undesirable and unnecessary loophole, so I support the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), which aim to close this loophole, and I urge the Minister to consider reducing the permissibility threshold for unincorporated associations to £500, equal to the permissibility threshold for other sources of donation.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak now to clause 62 and Government amendments 79 to 87, which were tabled in my name. I will come to the other amendments later.
The clause introduces measures that have long been called for by the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to tighten the rules around unincorporated associations. Under the current framework, unincorporated associations are permitted to make political contributions provided their main office and activities are based in the UK, but there are no restrictions on the sources of the funds behind those contributions. Existing rules therefore do not provide sufficient transparency or assurance about who is ultimately funding the political contributions made through such bodies.
The clause introduces a strengthened framework to ensure that political contributions from unincorporated associations come from permissible sources and are subject to stricter and more consistent transparency requirements. The clause lowers the thresholds at which UAs must register with the Electoral Commission and report the gifts they receive, ensuring that significant contributors provide the same level of transparency as other regulated campaigners. It also extends transparency rules so that contributions to candidates count towards the registration threshold, and it requires UAs to appoint a responsible person, improving clarity about who stands behind such associations.
Finally, clause 62 introduces new controls to ensure that funds used for political contributions come from permissible sources. UAs will be required to verify political gifts they rely on, and they will be prohibited from using unverifiable or impermissible funds for political activity. I commend clause 62 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for her remarks. Once again, I would like to say on the record that the Government are making great strides in this area and are trying to strengthen the legislation and the regulatory regime around donations. We agree with her that the amendments—particularly amendment 88—for the reduction to £500 on the reporting threshold for donations from unincorporated associations is simply too low. There could be a debate on whether it should be lowered from what the Government are proposing; I think actually unifying the regulations between companies and unincorporated associations is a sensible thing to do. It removes ambiguity and creates a more uniform system. The burden placed at £500 would create an unnecessary reporting regime.
Lloyd Hatton
It has already been outlined by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, but I am interested to know whether the official Opposition spokesperson agrees that the previous Government’s decision in the Elections Act 2022 to inexplicably increase the threshold for UAs was wrong, and that the intention of this Bill, which is to reduce it, is the right way forward?
Paul Holmes
I have already said that I think the Government are being sensible in creating a unified or level playing field between companies and unincorporated associations. I was not an expert on the previous Act when it was passed, but in my view it is sensible for the Government to be taking this action, now that its consequences are clear, because the Act obviously did not work. If Members across the House look at some of my previous remarks on some of the proposals brought forward by the last Government, I am not ashamed to say that sometimes—I only say sometimes—we got it wrong. That is the nature of democracy.
The changes that the Government are making are sensible and my contention is that some of the amendments—especially amendments 88 and 90—use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They create an overburden compared with the Government’s good intentions and what they want to get out of the proposals.
We would not support amendment 88 and we certainly would not support amendment 90, but we do welcome the strides that the Government, and the Minister, are trying to take in tightening up the regime.
Dr Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. “Paragraph 6(3A)(a) of Schedule 19A (knowingly giving unincorporated association false information about gifts) On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Paragraph 6(3A)(b) of Schedule 19A (withholding from unincorporated association information about gifts with intent to deceive) On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”. —(Samantha Dixon.)
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 79, in clause 62, page 83, line 28, at end insert—
“(h) create offences of—
(i) giving an unincorporated association false information about a gift that may be used to make a political contribution, and
(ii) withholding information about such a gift with intent to deceive.”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This amendment is consequential on amendment 85.
Clause 62, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS MAKING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Amendments made: 80, in schedule 9, page 168, line 2, at end insert
“, unless it already has one (see sub-paragraph (6A))”.
This amendment, and amendment 81, amends the new provisions on responsible persons for unincorporated associations to make it clear that an association is not required to appoint a responsible person when it already has one in place, but that the Commission must be notified that the responsible person is willing to continue to act.
Amendment 81, in schedule 9, page 168, line 30, at end insert—
“(6A) Where an unincorporated association would be required by sub-paragraph (2) to appoint an individual to be the responsible person in relation to the association but an appointment of such a person is already in force, the notice under sub-paragraph (3) must inform the Commission that the responsible person is willing to remain as the responsible person in relation to the association (and sub-paragraph (4)(a) is to be read accordingly).”
See the explanatory statement for amendment 80.
Amendment 82, in schedule 9, page 170, line 7, after “within” insert
“any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of”.
This amendment prevents unincorporated associations from being permissible donors in relation to other unincorporated associations: it is intended as an anti-avoidance measure to prevent gifts being channelled through chains of unincorporated associations.
Amendment 83, in schedule 9, page 170, line 20, leave out from “within” to end of line 22 and insert
“any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 54(2),”.
This amendment makes similar anti-avoidance provision to that in amendment 82.
Amendment 84, in schedule 9, page 170, line 24, at end insert—
“(4) Section 162 (meaning of exempt trust donation) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if, in subsection (2)(a), for ‘27th July 1999’ there were substituted ‘7th April 2026’.”
This amendment modifies the meaning of “exempt trust donation” for unincorporated associations by providing that a trust set up before 7th April 2026 (i.e. the date of tabling this amendment) is a permissible donor to an unincorporated association.
Amendment 85, in schedule 9, page 173, line 11, at end insert—
“(c) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) A person commits an offence if—
(a) they knowingly give an unincorporated association any information relating to—
(i) the amount of any gift to the association, or
(ii) the person or body making such a gift,
which is false in a material particular, or
(b) with intent to deceive, they withhold from an unincorporated association any material information relating to a matter within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii),
in circumstances where they believe that the unincorporated association may use the gift for the purposes of making a political contribution.’”
This amendment creates a new criminal offence where a person knowingly provides an unincorporated association with false information, or withholds information with intent to deceive, about a gift that they believe the association may use for the purposes of making a political contribution.
Amendment 86, in schedule 9, page 173, line 15, at end insert—
“(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(iii), at the end insert ‘or 3A’.”
This amendment inserts a missed consequential amendment so that paragraph 7(2)(b)(iii) of Schedule 19A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 refers to the new paragraph 3A inserted into that Schedule by paragraph 9 of Schedule 9.
Amendment 87, in schedule 9, page 174, line 9, at end insert—
This amendment sets out the penalty for the new offence inserted by amendment 85.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63
Electronic material promoted by third parties
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 64 stand part.
New clause 10—Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament guidance on certain digital communication offences, including digital manipulation and artificially generated content in relation to candidates and elected officials.
(2) Any guidance issued under section (1) must include guidance on the following—
(a) the operation of section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(b) the operation of section 114A (undue influence) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(c) the interaction between the operations of sections 106 and 114A of the RPA 1983 and the duty of providers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including in relation to priority offences during election periods.
(3) Within 12 months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament either—
(a) a statement that no updates to the guidance are required, or
(b) an updated version of the guidance.
(4) Before issuing—
(a) any guidance under subsection (1) or subsection (3) (b), or
(b) a statement under subsection (3)(a),
the Secretary of State must consult OFCOM and such other persons as they think necessary.
(5) For the purposes of this section “priority offences” means an offence listed in Schedule 7 (priority offences) of the Online Safety Act 2023.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications as they relate to candidates and elected officials.
New clause 18—Information to be included with electronic material: generative artificial intelligence—
“(1) Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3)(b) insert—
“(c) where the electronic material consists of or includes image, audio or video content that has been generated or materially altered by means of generative artificial intelligence, a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.”
(2A) In this section, "generative artificial intelligence" means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined prompts or objectives, generate new image, audio or video content.”
This new clause amends the digital imprint rules in the Elections Act 2022 to require that any political campaigning material which contains images, audio, or video generated or materially altered by AI must include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.
New clause 24—Repository of digital political advertising—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 61 insert—
“Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising
61A. Establishing a repository of digital political advertising
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;
(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;
(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and
(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.
(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
(c) OFCOM.
(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.
New clause 25—Electoral Commission: powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) After Schedule 12, insert—
“SCHEDULE 13: Electoral Commission powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation
1 The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to allow the Electoral Commission to issue a notice requiring certain information from a regulated user-to-user service or search service, at any time during any regulated election period.
2 Any regulations made under paragraph 1 must specify that a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph must comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
3 Any regulations made under paragraph 2 must specify the information which may be requested by the Electoral Commission, and include the following where they relate to elections—
(a) information relating to paid-for political advertising;
(b) algorithmic systems;
(c) coordinated inauthentic behaviour; and
(d) automated or bot accounts (whether domestic or foreign).
4 Any regulations made under paragraph 2 must also provide for any safeguards considered necessary by the Secretary of State as regards data protection or commercial confidentiality.
5 Any regulations made under paragraph 2 must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
6 For the purposes of this Schedule, “user-to-user service” has the meaning given by section 3 (“user-to-user service” and “search service”) of the Online Safety Act 2023.””
New clause 27—Government review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the adequacy of the current regulated periods for elections and referendums.
(2) The review must consider the following—
(a) the impact of campaign activity outside the relevant regulated period on elections;
(b) whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient to tackle the prevalence of—
(i) manipulated content,
(ii) misinformation,
(iii) disinformation,
and their potential influence on elections.
(3) The review may make any recommendations it feels necessary for legislative or regulatory reform as a result of its findings.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “campaign activity” includes—
(a) digital campaigning;
(b) targeted advertising; and
(c) automated content distribution.
(5) For the purposes of this section “regulated period” means any period regulated under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament, together with their response to any recommendations for legislative or regulatory reform.”
This new clause requires the government to establish a review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections which would consider whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient in relation to the prevalence of manipulated content, misinformation and disinformation.
New clause 28—Information to be included with electronic material: data provenance—
“After Section 41 (requirement to include information with electronic material) of the Elections Act 2022 insert—
“Requirement to include information with electronic material created through generative artificial intelligence
(1) This section applies to electronic material which—
(a) meets the conditions in section 42 (paid for electronic material), or
(b) meets the conditions in section 44 (other electronic material),
and has been generated wholly through generative artificial intelligence.
(2) Electronic material to which this section applies must not be published unless it includes the following information—
(a) a statement that content was wholly generated by a generative artificial intelligence system;
(b) the name of the system used to generate the content.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) additional requirements for information to be required under subsection (2);
(b) the form in which the information required under subsection (2) is to be provided.
(4) The form prescribed by regulations under subsection (3)(b) must be a form which can be detected and processed by regulated user-to-user services for the purpose of providing the required information to users of such services.
(5) Any regulations made under subsection (4) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “generative artificial intelligence” means computer system or software that—
(a) is capable of producing text, images, audio, video, or other content autonomously, wholly or substantially, based on prompts or instructions provided by a user;
(b) uses machine learning or other algorithmic techniques to generate content that mimics human-created material; and
(c) may produce content that is not pre-existing but is synthesized based on patterns learned from existing data.””
This new clause requires campaign material which has been generated by generative artificial intelligence to include a statement to that effect along with the name of the system used. It creates a power for the Government to make regulations about the information to be included.
Amendment 4, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—
“(ha) Section (Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections)”.
This amendment is consequential on NC10.
Samantha Dixon
Any campaigner wishing to influence the electorate should be prepared to be transparent. Imprint rules play an important role in upholding trust in UK democratic processes by ensuring that voters can see clearly who is behind political campaigning material. Under existing rules, third-party campaigners who spend under a certain threshold are not required to include imprints on their organic digital campaigning material. That creates a loophole allows third-party campaigning groups to disseminate potentially influential content without disclosing its origin, which is concerning when such material is designed to be shared virally, especially if the material is misleading, controversial or intended to manipulate public opinion without accountability.
Clause 63 strengthens the transparency of digital imprint rules by ensuring that third-party campaigning groups spending under a certain threshold are also required to include imprints on their organic digital campaigning material. This requirement will ensure that the rules promote transparency and public trust, while protecting free expression and avoiding undue burdens on individuals simply expressing their political opinions online.
Following consultation with the Scottish Government, it was agreed that applying a single UK-wide regime uniformly will enable voters from across the UK to benefit from a level of transparency and will avoid confusion. The clause therefore also repeals part 8 of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 consequentially upon the extension of the UK-wide digital imprint regime.
Turning to clause 64, it is important that campaigners have access to clear and up-to-date guidelines. The Electoral Commission’s guidance on digital imprints plays an important role in helping campaigners to understand and comply with the rules and supports enforcement authorities in maintaining transparency and public trust in UK democratic processes.
Paul Holmes
Does anyone on the Committee intend to speak to new clauses 10 or 24?
Paul Holmes
In that case, I reserve my right to speak until after the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.
Dr Chowns
I will speak to new clauses 10, 24, 25, 27 and 28—I will rattle through them. First, new clause 10—tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), whom I thank for her work on this—relates to guidance on the law regarding digital communication offences in relation to elections. We need this clause and, although it is more complex, one word explains why: deepfakes. This new clause is, to a significant degree, about deepfakes.
Tackling deepfakes is complex, but we can take practical steps now to modernise election law and improve our ability to regulate in this area. Both the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service have highlighted the need for clearer guidance on whether deepfakes fall within existing election offences. Unfortunately, the law on digital election offences is currently unclear. That uncertainty creates confusion for candidates, platforms and law enforcement, weakens democratic protections and leads to inconsistent enforcement.
New clause 10 would require the Government to address that gap by publishing clear guidance within 12 months of the Bill’s passage, setting out how digital communication offences apply during elections, so that expectations are clear and enforcement is consistent. In terms evidence for why this is needed, we all know that deepfakes and manipulated content targeting politicians are already circulating, including outside election periods. Existing laws may technically cover those harms, but their application in digital context remains unclear.
Recent examples include a deepfake video in October last year of a Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), which falsely claimed that he had defected. I was part of an event where he explained that, under the Online Safety Act 2023, he could potentially make a complaint about that, but would have to demonstrate that he was psychologically terribly damaged by it. That is not really what this is about—it is politics that is damaged by the proliferation of such material, so we should take our collective responsibility to deal with it very seriously.
In October 2023, a deepfake audio of our current Prime Minister went viral and has repeatedly resurfaced. In Ireland last year, an AI-generated video disrupted a presidential election. Those cases and many others demonstrate the growing risk. Clear guidance is needed to ensure that the law can be effectively applied during election periods. The new clause is very reasonable. It does not require the Government to commit absolutely to something right now; it simply requires the Government to publish guidance to clarify the situation.
The Government, in their response to the Speaker’s Conference report published recently, said:
“The Government recognises that there are potential issues with Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are reviewing how this legislation should apply in a modern electoral setting. Where necessary, we will take appropriate action to clarify the scope of Section 106, particularly to ensure that it captures emerging technologies (such as deepfakes and other AI technologies) and is future-proofed.”
Where better to do that than in this legislation? This is the point when the Government should action the commitment that they have already made.
New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. Such advertising plays a key and increasingly central role in election campaigns, but remains significantly less transparent than traditional campaign materials. Voters are often unable to see who is targeting them, how much is being spent or whether messaging is consistent across audiences. Campaigners are able to use targeting on social media platforms, for example, to make very targeted adverts, so that nobody can see what material is going to whom.
That lack of transparency creates real opportunities for misinformation. It undermines trust in the democratic process and leaves the system vulnerable to manipulation by foreign or domestic actors, as well as opaque funding sources. While the Bill, as it stands, makes progress on digital imprints, it does not go far enough to ensure meaningful, real-time transparency.
New clause 24 would address those gaps by requiring the creation of a comprehensive, publicly accessible repository of digital political advertising and strengthening existing disclosure requirements. The reasons for that are well understood. Digital adverts can be micro-targeted to specific groups without wider scrutiny and there is currently no single public record of what ads are being run, by whom, at what scale or with what funding. International evidence, including from elections in the US and Europe—and, I would argue, in the UK—has shown how online political advertising can be exploited to spread disinformation and obscure funding sources.
That issue was addressed by Philip Rycroft in his very useful report; I note that, on page 47, he says:
“Strictly speaking, this issue of advert libraries strays beyond my remit”,
but that he has
“heard enough evidence to suggest that there would be considerable benefit”
from establishing this practice, and he calls on the Government to take action. I welcome that point and very much hope that the Government will consider this new clause, a practical and proportionate transparency measure that would align digital campaigning more with offline political advertising.
New clause 25 relates to the Electoral Commission’s powers to obtain information outside formal investigations. That is something we heard about in oral evidence and Philip Rycroft speaks about it specifically in his recommendations 9 and 10. The regulation of digital campaigning requires timely access to information, especially during very fast-moving election periods. At the moment, the Electoral Commission can effectively gather information from online platforms only through formal investigations, which can be initiated only once there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation there—a significant gap.
The Commission cannot proactively monitor or respond to emerging risks in real time, including the risk of foreign interference or bot activity—a growing problem that we have seen in previous elections. As election campaigns increasingly take place online, that reduces the effectiveness of enforcement. Philip Rycroft has made a clear case for that change, so I do not need to labour the point. I very much hope that that is one of the recommendations that the Government will take away and come back on, and I would welcome some warm words from the Minister on that.
New clause 27 would require a Government review of regulated periods in relation to elections—again, something addressed in the Rycroft report, which covered the need to ensure that transparency requirements apply year round. Philip Rycroft is clearly seriously concerned about the risk of gaming the system. Currently, because regulation applies only within the regulated period, but expenditure applies during the entire year, there are strong incentives for political actors to front-load expenditure just before the regulated period kicks in. There is huge evidence of that; I have seen it from another party in my own area, with huge chunks of spending coming in just before the regulated period. That is a clear loophole.
Philip Rycroft draws attention to that issue, stating that high spending limits,
“combined with unlimited spending possibilities outwith the regulated period, drives a sort of arms race among political parties and actors to out-raise and out-spend their competitors.”
The net effect is extremely problematic for our politics. He goes on to state:
“Reducing the spending limits and introducing such limits across the whole electoral cycle could potentially relieve some of the fund-raising pressure, in turn diminishing the inducement to look to non-permissible sources to stay ahead.”
Rycroft acknowledges that the issue was beyond his direct remit, but it is useful that his report comments on where issues to do with foreign influence overlap with broader questions about how we regulate finance in our system. He states:
“The issue of spending limits and wider caps is one for the political class as a whole to consider if it wishes to restore confidence in the political process and to keep big money out of UK politics. This might be something that could be usefully debated during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill.”
Indeed—so today is our opportunity to debate it. I am saddened that the Bill, as it stands, does not address the need for year-round spending limits or for caps on overall donations—we will come to that a bit later—but this is the moment when we can and should respond to Philip Rycroft’s call to discuss this issue. I challenge the Minister on this: there is a clear need for regulation outwith the regulated period—for year-round regulation of political expenditure—and I hope that she will address that and take it forward.
Finally, new clause 28, also in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central, is essentially about labelling AI-generated material. Just in the past 24 hours we have seen a global controversy over the use of an AI-generated image, posted by a person who shall perhaps remain nameless. It is clear that AI-generated material is widespread in politics. Sometimes it is easily spottable, as in the case I have just referenced, but at other times it may not necessarily be so. Legislation has not yet caught up with that issue. This new clause, like new clause 18 on the same topic, which I suspect the hon. Member for Hazel Grove may speak to shortly, is a much-needed step to improve transparency so that we know when material is produced using AI.
The Electoral Commission briefing raises some questions about the specifics of how the issue is addressed, and makes the point that there is a need for similar approaches to be taken across digital and non-digital formats. I take that point broadly, but I do not think it is beyond the wit of civil servants to come up with a form of words that will address the issue. The use of generative AI has been particularly prevalent in the digital space, so this is a real opportunity for regulation to catch up. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on all these very useful new clauses.
Lisa Smart
I support clauses 63 and 64, and I warmly welcome the comments from my colleague, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, on new clauses 10, 24, 25, 27 and 28, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central. A number of us who have been concerned with the issues that we are talking about today and which the Bill seeks to address were very pleased to see some of the measures that the Government put in the first draft of the Bill. But we were disappointed by what was not there: the lack of discussion of regulated periods, generative AI deepfakes, and mis and disinformation felt like a missed opportunity. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State spoke of the need to ensure that regulation keeps up with digital reality, and this legislation feels like the opportunity to address some of those issues.
I will not repeat what has just been said, but a number of the new clauses overlap slightly, in trying to fill in the gaps that quite a few of us feel are present in the Bill as drafted. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire and I are pleased to be co-vice chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the leading organisation within Parliament campaigning for reforming the electoral system—of which there is no mention in the Bill. We spent some time today discussing some measures around getting dark money out of politics, and we hope that the Government move further on that. We look forward to the Minister introducing the Government’s response to the Rycroft review, and also to stopping mis and disinformation in our politics.
I would like to test the mood of the Committee by pushing new clause 18 to a Division. We need to see action on these issues ahead of the next general election, and it feels like this piece of legislation is the opportunity to do that. We have talked repeatedly in this Committee about trust in our electoral processes being already very fragile—too fragile. We have seen years of scandal—of varying sorts—tarnish our political structures. Confidence in our politics and democratic processes is vital, and we should be doing everything that we can to bolster that confidence, which is too low. We should not be allowing new systems to be adopted in these structures and used to undermine our politics. Existing systems can be used to show voters completely fabricated content; some recent examples of AI-generated content that is damaging in different ways have already been mentioned. Transparency is the foundation of democratic legitimacy, and new clause 18 seeks to protect that foundation.
On deepfakes, we are deeply concerned about the increase in AI-generated material that is produced to harm individuals and our broader democracy. We should be ensuring that there is transparency and accountability within political campaigning, and we need to limit the level of mis and disinformation that could be spread through AI-generated material. Requiring that political campaign material be properly labelled when it includes AI material feels like a sensible and moderate step. This is the time for us to protect our election integrity in the digital age, and I hope that the Government accept new clause 18 and take the opportunity before it is too late.
Paul Holmes
I hope that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire did not mind that I gave up speaking to enable her to do so, but I wanted to check whether someone would speak to those new clauses. I wanted to allow her to elaborate the argument so that I could come in with some of my thoughts at the end.
As the shadow Minister, I was intrigued, in various meetings that I have had, as we have all had, with outside organisations about the Bill, by the ideas outlined in new clauses 10 and 24. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central for tabling them; they are substantive new clauses that I think are very well intentioned. The number of Members who have supported them on the amendment paper shows the importance of tackling some of these issues in a cross-party and urgent way.
On new clause 10, on the guidance on law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined the problems that we are currently having. Digital communication offences are becoming a bigger problem, and they cause harm to people. The current duty is to demonstrate that the person has been harmed emotionally. She used the example of the deepfake that went out of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, showing him saying that he was leaving the Conservative party and going to Reform. Although that has not necessarily been a strange development in the last couple of months, anyone who knows my hon. Friend knows that that is incredibly unlikely. It would also cause a great deal of distress to many of us moderate Conservatives for it to ever be thought that we could go to Reform. There is serious point behind that, which is that for anyone harmed by something like that, there should be laws relating to digital communication offences.
We do not think that new clause 10 would be arduous on the Government. It asks them to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences, and it does not ask for immediate action. It allows the Minister and the Government to go away and provide guidance. The Minister has said many times today that she is considering, for example, the Rycroft review, and that she will come back with suitable guidance and proposals. The new clause is in that spirit. It would allow her to go away and look at what we need to do in this increasingly concerning area of election campaigning. The call from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central is eminently sensible, and so we will support new clause 10 if it is pressed to a vote because we want that guidance to be brought in.
New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. I do not expect Committee members to remember the questioning in the oral evidence sessions—particularly my questions—but I was really quite fascinated by the proposal. Like the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and other members of the Committee, I have met some organisations that have advocated for it. I do not think that we should be fearful, as politicians and members of any political party, or of none, of standing by the things that we put out in elections. Therefore, instead of going in the bin, as some of mine do, they should be kept online to ensure transparency and accountability through a simple repository regime.
The Government have repeatedly proposed to put more burdens—more regulatory responsibilities, I should say—on the Electoral Commission. I do not think this proposal would be a particularly bad burden to place on it. There is a question about resourcing the Electoral Commission, but I know that the hon. Lady and the various organisations that are advocating for new clause 24 are pretty relaxed about who would manage holding the information and transferring it to the National Archives, so I think that is something that the Government should explore.
I was interested that the hon. Lady outlined that she is concerned about misinformation, manipulation and the exploitation of the electoral process by foreign actors. I hope that when we come to new clause 37, she will be equally concerned about the exploitation of votes using foreign languages in electoral literature. I hope she will look as favourably on that proposal as I am on this one, because I believe that is equally exploitative of various communities in the country.
We support new clause 24, which we think is radical, but sensible and transparent. If we stand by what we put out there, we should not fear the people who elect us holding us to account for what has been put out, so I think that is actually quite an exciting prospect for democracy.
That is where the consensus between me and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes Central and for North Herefordshire ends. I have a number of concerns about new clause 27, not because I am opposed to having a general conversation about the regulatory period. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is right that parties of all colours front-load and send out a lot of stuff before the regulated period starts. The regulated period is inherently there to protect the smaller parties from the bigger parties and to give everybody a level playing field.
I know that when the regulated period starts—and we are all currently going through the start of one—every party has equal right to put out an equal amount of election literature to people in our constituencies, boroughs or counties. All parties are held to the same standard and it can be proved if there has been—I hope not—manipulation of the election expenses. The regulated period is there to protect parties.
Do not get me wrong: in my constituency five Liberal Democrat “in touch” communications go out every year. It drives me mad. I do not like it. I do not like its content, but the Liberal Democrats have every right to communicate with their residents. Putting an annual limit on the amount of literature that can be put out is anti-democratic. It is quite good to have some element of competition, where many parties can put out election communications throughout the year. I worry that having an arbitrary annual cap on the amount of literature that we can put out will harm independent candidates and local parties—they may exist: we have the Eastleigh borough independents, of whom three were successfully elected councillors. They should not be held to the same standard as national parties, which can absorb the cost. I am slightly concerned about the unintended consequences of that.
New clause 27 does not outline whether it covers material related to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which some of we elected representatives, choose to put out. We have a budget to communicate to our constituents. Are we going to be held to the same reporting threshold for those IPSA communications, which are not party political but are elected literature? [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Herefordshire like to intervene to correct me?
Paul Holmes
I am not being adversarial; there is an argument that although the literature that goes out via IPSA is not party political, as an elected official, IPSA is giving me the ability to send out literature that would not be included within the threshold. Other parties that oppose me at the next general election should be entitled to put out resources to match those, and I do not think that should be governed within an annual spending limit.
It worries me that if we get to a period in which we are controlling smaller, larger, regional and local political parties and holding them to the same standard in election spending as national, established parties such as those that hon. Members on the Committee represent, that would start to erode free and fair democratic access to the people who elect us and elect our colleagues in local government across the country. I am uncomfortable with that, although we could have a conversation about the lengths of regulated periods.
Lisa Smart
I am genuinely intrigued in several ways by the shadow Minister’s contribution. He talks about a level playing field. Most of us would always agree with a level playing field, in pretty much all circumstances. Does he think that the national spending limits for the larger political parties should be brought down significantly? He expressed real concern about smaller parties, whether localist parties or groups of independents, that do not have a national political machine with a multimillion-pound budget at a general election. If I understand correctly what the shadow Minister says, he would not see that as a level playing field. Does he agree that spending limits for local candidates should probably go up a little but spending limits for national parties should come down significantly because, after all, people put a cross in a box next to an individual’s name, not just a political party?
Paul Holmes
We are discussing a new clause that starts a conversation about the regulated period and would create a year’s limit on the amount of literature that can go out, outside of an election period. That seems different from what the hon. Lady is describing, which is the regulations and limits on political parties, and candidates not in a party, during an election period. Those are two very different things. I am quite happy with the fact that I have to raise the money to stand for my seat at a general election, and that national parties have to account for that.
The new clause includes provisions not just for general elections but for outside election periods. What I find concerning is that council groups—such as those of the hon. Lady’s party in Eastleigh, or my party’s in Fareham, Hampshire and all across the country—would have to be accountable for putting out communications to people who end up putting councillors in their jobs. I do not think that we should get in the habit of limiting political parties outside an election period, because I think that is an entirely different prospect, and an entirely different area from how we are governed in an election period.
I am perfectly okay to start talking about funding levels during an election period, but I do not want to do so for candidates who wish to start a campaign before the current regulatory period. As the hon. Lady will know—she is a very successful politician, both locally and nationally—we do not begin to build an election campaign just in the regulated period. Many of us started trying to get involved in politics a long time before we were elected, and I think that limit is a very dangerous thing in today’s democracy.
However, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am open to a conversation about election financing. I am looking at my Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—who is probably horrified by me saying that, but I am not against that argument or discussion. I just think that this goes a bit too far, and it does not sit well with me. After that rambling oratory, I just say to Green and Liberal Democrat Members that, if they choose to push new clauses 10 and 24 to a vote, the Opposition will support them, but we would vote against new clause 27.
The Opposition also think that the accountability in new clause 18 is very sensible. If we use AI, we should be honest about it—it is as simple as that. If any politician wants to put forward an AI-generated image, I first think there is a question about why they would want to do so anyway. We all think that our constituencies are beautiful, and we would not want to change them. We also all know that politics is acting for ugly people, so why would we want to change the way we look?
I do not understand why someone would want to use an AI-generated image, but if they do, they should actually be big enough and strong enough to own it. Therefore, it is important to have some extra regulation, particularly as some people might not be au fait with AI-generated images, as some are very believable—not the one of Donald Trump pretending to be Jesus, but the more sensible ones. People cannot necessarily pick that up, so if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove chose to push new clause 18 to a vote, the Opposition would also support it.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 18 seeks to require digital campaigning material, in scope of the digital imprint regime, that contains images, audio or video generated or materially altered to include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used. The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes, and the risks they present to democratic processes and public trust in the online information environment. We agree that helping voters understand the authenticity of digital campaigning material is an important objective.
However, AI technologies are developing at pace, and there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining when content has been generated or materially altered by AI. That would make enforcement by the Electoral Commission and the police difficult in practice, and it would risk undermining campaigners’ compliance with the rules.
The new clause, as drafted, would also create uncertainty and disproportionate legal risks for campaigners. For example, it would create a new criminal offence for failing to include a statement about AI use, even where the AI involvement may be trivial, automated or outside the campaigner’s knowledge or control. Further consideration would also be needed on how liability for offences should apply to those who republish material.
There would also be a considerable chance of the new clause quickly becoming obsolete. AI is evolving rapidly, so adopting a definition of “generative artificial intelligence” in primary legislation might struggle to keep pace with technological developments and it could quickly become outdated. Although we share the intention to strengthen transparency in digital campaigning, the Government do not believe that the new clause is currently workable or proportionate. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently announced that the Government will establish a taskforce to put forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report to be published in the autumn. I urge Members to follow the progress of that taskforce.
I turn to new clause 10 and amendment 4. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for those and for her commitment to strengthening online protections. I know Members feel strongly about that area. I share the objective of seeing the powers of the Online Safety Act 2023 being fully and effectively utilised. With that in mind, the Government have carefully considered new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications, as they relate to candidates and elected officials.
Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope service providers are already required to have effective systems and processes in place to identify and remove illegal content. That includes content that amounts to the two offences identified in new clause 10: the “false statements about candidates” offence and the offence of undue influence. Those duties apply equally to AI-generated and manipulated content where such material meets the threshold of either offence.
As the independent regulator, Ofcom issues codes of practice that provide clear guidance on what action providers should take to manage and mitigate illegal content. The codes recommend various measures across risk management, user reporting and content moderation. Ofcom has already produced guidance to assist providers in making judgments about whether certain content is illegal, and such guidance includes usage examples where possible. As the independent and expert online safety regulator, Ofcom, not the Government, is best placed to offer such guidance.
The Government have no plans to widen their role within the Online Safety Act regulatory regime by issuing guidance on matters within Ofcom’s remit. Introducing a new duty for Government to publish parallel guidance on two specific offences, and committing to regularly updating that guidance, would blur the lines between Government and the independent regulator, undermining the model for which Parliament has only recently legislated.
The Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that protections keep pace with evolving threats to democracy, and I welcome continued engagement with parliamentarians on that important issue. As Members will know, Rycroft made recommendations in his review supporting the principle of advertising libraries and suggested that the Government could use their convening power to work with social media companies to extend the practice of advert libraries to achieve consistency in how they are presented. That is not the same as setting a legal requirement for a repository of digital political advertising, as intended by new clause 10. None the less, we are carefully considering all of the recommendations in the Rycroft review and will issue a response in due course.
New clause 24 seeks to establish a repository for paid-for digital political advertising. Digital political advertising plays an important role in supporting democratic engagement. It remains one of the most accessible and cost-effective ways for political parties and campaigners to connect with the public and have their message heard. However, the Committee will be aware that the European Commission introduced similar requirements to new clause 24 in 2024, including mandatory transparency notices containing information such as spending and targeting, and the requirement for platforms to upload all political adverts to a European repository.
In response, major platforms such as Meta and Google chose to cease hosting paid political advertising entirely in the EU, citing operational complexity and uncertainty as to whether compliance by platforms and campaigners was realistically achievable. If the UK were to adopt comparable measures without fully understanding their operational impact, we could see similar unintended outcomes here.
The potential removal of political advertising from major platforms in the UK could risk reducing political pluralism online by restricting the ability of political parties, civil society organisations and candidates, many of whom rely on digital platforms to engage effectively with the public. Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates may be disproportionately impacted by such an outcome, losing an affordable channel to reach voters, while larger, well-followed parties and campaigning groups would likely be less affected. That would make campaigning more challenging for newcomers, potentially undermining the level playing field.
The Government agree that transparency in digital campaigning is important, but any reforms must be carefully balanced to protect freedom of expression and avoid placing undue burdens on campaigners and platforms. This is a complex area, and the implications need detailed consideration to avoid replicating the unintended consequences seen in other jurisdictions. In the meantime, we welcome the steps already taken by platforms such as Meta and Google, which have created publicly accessible political advert libraries. We encourage other platforms to do the same.
The measures in the Bill will extend the scope of digital imprint rules and place enforcement on a clearer and more proportionate footing, ensuring that voters can continue to make informed decisions on digital material in elections and referenda. We will continue to keep wider policy relating to electoral campaigning under review.
I turn to new clause 25. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of protecting our elections from online interference, including concerns about how algorithms, such as recommender systems, can amplify harmful or misleading content. The current legal framework to tackle online electoral mis and disinformation has the Online Safety Act 2023 as its core pillar. New clause 25 would risk creating overlap and confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act.
Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope services must take action in relation to any content that amounts to existing election offences during an election period. The Online Safety Act already provides Ofcom with extensive powers to gather information from services and scrutinise how algorithms operate as well as a mandate to require services to conduct illegal content risk assessments. That includes assessing the likelihood of users encountering illegal content through algorithms, how systems may exacerbate or mitigate those risks, and what safeguards are required. From 2027, categorised services will also be required to report information about their algorithms, including how they influence the display, promotion or recommendation of content. Creating overlap or confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act also increases the risk of regulatory uncertainty. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause.
That said, the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with the regulatory framework it is responsible for enforcing. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference.
As Members know, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose, including recommendations relating to the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.
New clause 27 would require the Government to establish a review to consider the adequacy of regulated periods of elections and referendums. More specifically, it would consider whether they are of sufficient length to combat mis and disinformation, and the impact of digital campaigning outside regulated periods.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I have a lot of sympathy for what the Minister is saying. It seems to me that there is a risk of a “may contain nuts” kind of solution emerging: campaigners could simply put, “This may contain artificially generated imagery” on every item of digital campaigning and comply with the law, but that would not tell us whether what is being represented has been materially altered. In the light of her earlier comments about the autumn timeline, will she give the Committee a clear commitment to work not just with political parties but with industry, with a view to ensuring that we have effective copywriting and watermarking, which we know many of these organisation are already developing, so that anybody looking at political content can be confident that what they are seeing is genuinely what was said by that politician, candidate or party?
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. As I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that the Government have established a taskforce to take forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated material. With the interim report due to be published in the autumn, I think it is timely that I should write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to outline the concerns that have been debated in the Committee—I am looking to my officials to ensure that we pick this up—because I think it will be very informative for the taskforce’s work. If the hon. Gentleman is happy for me to do that, I will do so.
Finally, the Government recognise that there are potential issues with section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned. We are reviewing how that legislation should apply in a modern electoral setting and, where necessary, we will take appropriate action to clarify the scope of the section, particularly to make sure that it captures emerging technologies such as deepfakes and other AI technologies and is future-proofed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65
Decriminalisation of certain requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Schedule 10.
Clause 66 stand part.
Schedule 11.
Clauses 67 to 69 stand part.
New clause 41—Electoral Commission: civil penalties and enforcement—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In Schedule 19C, in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
‘(1A) When deciding whether to impose a fixed monetary penalty under this Act, the Commission must have regard to whether the penalty will—
(a) change the behaviour of the offender;
(b) eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance;
(c) be appropriate for the particular offender and regulatory issue;
(d) be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm caused;
(e) restore the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance, where appropriate; and
(f) deter future non-compliance.’”
This new clause would put the ‘Macrory principles’ for regulators on to a statutory footing as regards the Electoral Commission.
New clause 46—Power of Electoral Commission to require disclosure from financial institutions—
“In Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (investigatory powers of Commission), after paragraph 1 insert—
‘Power to require disclosure from financial institutions
1A (1) The Commission may give a disclosure notice to a financial institution requiring the institution—
(a) to produce, for inspection by the Commission or a person authorised by the Commission, any documents which—
(i) relate to the income and expenditure of an organisation or individual to which paragraph 1 applies, and
(ii) are reasonably required by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out their functions; or
(b) to provide the Commission, or a person authorised by the Commission, with any information or explanation which relates to that income and expenditure and is reasonably required by the Commission for those purposes.
(2) A financial institution to whom a disclosure notice is given shall comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) In this paragraph, “financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).’”
This new clause gives the Electoral Commission the power to require information from a financial institution relating to the income and expenditure of political parties and associated individuals.
New clause 53—Electoral Commission: pre-investigation decision notices—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In Schedule 19B, paragraph 3, subparagraph (5), at end insert—
‘or;
(b) relevant to determining whether to start an investigation.’”
This would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation.
New clause 57—Electoral Commission fining power—
“(1) Schedule 1, paragraph 5, to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) For ‘is £20,000’, substitute ‘is the greater of—
(a) £500,000, or
(b) 4% of the total campaign expenditure incurred by the person or organisation during the relevant regulated period.’
(3) At end of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 of Schedule 19C to PPERA 2000 insert—
‘(1A) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State may only make a supplementary order which amends the percentage of campaign expenditure incurred by the person or organisation during the relevant regulated period which can be used as a maximum monetary penalty by the Electoral Commission, if the condition in sub-paragraph (1B) has been met.
(1B) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that a recommendation for the amendment has been made to the Secretary of State by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission.’”
This new clause amends the Electoral Commission’s power to fine, increasing its maximum from £20,000 to £500,000 or 4% of campaign spending, whichever is higher. It further prevents the percentage used being changed through Order unless a recommendation has been made by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission.
The Chair
While it was convenient to debate those new clauses with the last group, it will not be convenient to reach a decision on them until much later in our proceedings.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak to clauses 65 to 69 before turning to the new clauses tabled by hon. Members.
Under the current enforcement framework, most political finance offences, regardless of their severity, are treated as possible criminal offences, even when they amount to minor administrative breaches, such as the late submission of campaign expenditure reports. While criminal investigation and prosecution for such offences is rare, key stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission, have expressed concerns that the possibility of criminal prosecution for minor errors can deter participation in campaigning. Clause 65 and subsequent secondary legislation will address this by decriminalising administrative offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, so that they will be punishable only through civil sanctions by the Electoral Commission rather than criminal prosecution.
We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to determine which offences under PPERA should be decriminalised. Broadly, they relate to failures to comply with reporting requirements, such as failing to deliver a campaign expenditure return within the statutory time limit or failing to deliver a proper statement of accounts. Serious breaches, including intentional or reckless misreporting, will remain criminal offences and will continue to be investigated by the police and subject to criminal prosecution.
This will provide much-needed clarity that the Electoral Commission is responsible for enforcing such administrative breaches, allowing police resources to be directed towards tackling more serious criminal offences and clamping down on foreign money entering politics. In addition, by removing the threat of criminal prosecution for minor infractions, the clause will encourage participation by individuals and organisations that wish to campaign, while ensuring more proportionate enforcement of the rules.
Turning to clause 66, robust and proportionate enforcement of political finance law is essential for sustaining trust in our democracy. However, there is currently an enforcement gap in electoral regulation. Since 2010, to provide for more flexible and encompassing enforcement, the Electoral Commission has been able to impose civil sanctions for certain offences committed by political parties, third-party campaigners and referendum participants. In contrast, offences committed in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners are subject only to criminal sanctions and enforcement by the police. Practically speaking, this means that breaches of the rules can be addressed only through police investigation and criminal prosecution, even where a breach is minor or unintentional. Yet criminal prosecution for minor infractions is frequently considered disproportionate to the offence and not in the public interest, which means that breaches of the rules often go unaddressed and unsanctioned.
This enforcement gap risks undermining public trust in the integrity of the electoral system by creating the perception that the rules are not being enforced and that campaigners are not complying with them. At the same time, it can create a fear of criminal prosecution for candidates, election agents and recall petition campaigners, who could face police investigation for relatively minor breaches of the law.
Clause 66 is intended to close that gap by extending the Electoral Commission’s enforcement remit, including its investigatory and civil sanctioning powers, to cover offences in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners. Criminal prosecution will remain available for the most serious offences involving intentional or reckless breaches of the rules, but the EC will also now be able to apply its considerable knowledge and expertise to the enforcement of breaches across the political finance framework, providing for a more encompassing, proportionate and robust regime.
Clause 67 removes the statutory cap on the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for certain offences. Currently, where an offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine, the penalty imposed by the EC may not exceed that which can be imposed by the court. The maximum fine that can be imposed by a court in such instances is unlimited in England and Wales, but £10,000 in Scotland and £5,000 in Northern Ireland.
The purpose of removing these restrictions is to ensure that the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine can be applied uniformly across all relevant offences around the UK. We will be increasing the maximum fine level in secondary legislation. This will ensure that the Electoral Commission’s new maximum fine provides a meaningful deterrent against violations of the rules across the UK, no matter where the offence is committed.
As the regulator, the Electoral Commission is invaluable in upholding trust in our democracy. That is why we are expanding the commission’s role and powers, including extending its enforcement remit and increasing its maximum fine. We intend for the Electoral Commission’s expanded role and powers to apply UK-wide at all elections, including parliamentary and local government elections.
Paul Holmes
I am sorry to ask this question, because it is completely and utterly about my ignorance—could the Minister believe it? Is she setting a maximum fine at secondary legislation, or is she removing the maximum fine?
Samantha Dixon
As I understand it, we will be setting the maximum fine in secondary legislation, but I will confirm that, because I have almost lost the thread of what I was saying.
Paul Holmes
I apologise to the Minister for making her lose her trail. I also am at that stage in the afternoon where things are not going in as well as they probably were this morning. I asked the question because, at the moment, the courts have an unlimited maximum fine. I just got confused about whether the Minister was setting a maximum fine through secondary legislation, which she has now clarified. As we on the Committee are discussing the changes to the Electoral Commission’s responsibilities, which the Minister has been clear about throughout the day, would she give us an indication of what that maximum fine might be? Why is she waiting until secondary legislation to set the level of that fine?
Samantha Dixon
It is our intention to increase the maximum fine level in secondary legislation, as I stated earlier. Its level will be debated at that time. We will debate it in secondary legislation, but it needs to remain proportionate, and we need to move towards it in a considered way and debate it then.
David Simmonds
I think there is a high degree of political agreement that this is the right direction of travel. Could the Minister say a little bit more about the assessment that the Department will have done about the resource implications for the Electoral Commission? We are all conscious that regulatory enforcement can come at an enormous cost to the regulator, especially where bad actors have specifically structured arrangements to evade rules and enforcement.
We have seen examples in other jurisdictions where political action committees, fake political parties and short-term political parties have been set up specifically to get around the regulations set out in light terms in the Bill. Given that that is likely to be partially funded by a costs award in the event of somebody having been found to be in breach, alongside the fine, could the Minister indicate what she thinks the cost implications are for the Electoral Commission? That is especially given that we have seen regulators in multiple jurisdictions face enormous costs for the legal process required to enforce their judgments.
Samantha Dixon
My officials work very closely with the Electoral Commission and would not have acted without consideration and with consultation with it. I remind the Committee that decisions about the resourcing of the Electoral Commission fall to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is the route by which it is funded. We would not want to make regulation too burdensome, but correspondingly, the Electoral Commission reports to the Speaker’s Committee regularly about its resourcing needs. Indeed, mostly recently, it returned money to the Speaker’s Committee that it did not feel it needed. To reassure Members, officials work closely with it to ensure there is sufficient resource.
Our policy ambition is for these legislative changes to be consistent across reserved and devolved elections and to be commenced in a way that provides clarity to campaigners on how the rules will be enforced across all elections. Clause 68 provides for that, as it allows the Secretary of State to make provisions that could otherwise be made by Scottish or Welsh Ministers, but only with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers. In practice, subject to the agreement of the devolved Governments, that will enable us to introduce a uniform set of changes to the role and power of the Electoral Commission in relation to local government elections in Scotland and Wales.
I turn to clause 69. The Electoral Commission currently lacks an explicit statutory gateway to disclose information to other regulators and law enforcement bodies. The lack of an explicit legal basis for information sharing forces the commission to rely on incidental powers or bespoke memorandums of understanding to disclose information. Those arrangements create unnecessary complexity and delays, and make information sharing more burdensome than it ought to be. They have embedded unnecessary friction into the system, slowing co-operation between regulators on important cross-cutting regulatory issues, and frustrating the very bodies charged with upholding the integrity of our democratic processes.
To underpin our wider reforms to strengthen enforcement, the clause provides a clear legal basis for information sharing, enabling the commission to disclose information to specified regulators and enforcement bodies. It will nurture an environment of collaboration between relevant bodies on cross-cutting issues such as foreign interference, data protection and digital campaigning. To ensure that the information-sharing gateway remains effective as the regulatory landscape evolves, the list of bodies can be amended by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Electoral Commission and subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure.
The Government note that one of the recommendations of the Rycroft report is to build on this measure and make the information-sharing gateway reciprocal, to provide clarity that the Electoral Commission can also receive information from relevant bodies. We are carefully considering all the recommendations from the Rycroft review. We will issue a full Government response in due course, and, where appropriate, we will introduce new amendments to the Bill.
With those assurances, I commend clause 69 to the Committee. I will allow other Members to speak to the new clauses and I will respond to them in due course.
The Chair
I reinforce that this is the only opportunity that the Committee will have to debate those new clauses.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister again for—I am not being facetious—her comprehensive explanation. We have been here for most of the day. These are very complicated issues, and she has been speaking an awful lot because of the importance of this legislation. I do not envy her. I will speak to new clause 41 in my name, to be voted on at another point. We welcome clause 65, but we have some questions on clause 67.
As the Minister outlined, clause 65 and schedule 10 decriminalise certain offences in PPERA. They relate to administrative requirements for political parties and others regulated by that legislation and the commission. For example, it is currently an offence for a party treasurer to fail to deliver annual accounts or reports of election expenses to the commission. The provisions will also make the necessary consequential amendments to allow the requirements to come under the commission’s civil sanctioning regime.
Clause 66 is a fairly simple clause, which extends the Electoral Commission’s remit to be the primary enforcer of all imprint rules. I would like to pick up on a theme from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which I also brought up earlier: the impact on the Electoral Commission’s ability to do its job properly, in relation to what it currently does compared with what the Government will ask it to do after the legislation passes.
The Minister has made it clear that officials are working with representatives of the commission. I know that she works with them as well, and they have not necessarily said that they are unhappy about receiving this new responsibility. However, my general experience from working in the public sector and serving as a local authority councillor is that, in this world of organisations that are often controlled by Treasury spending budgets, or, as the Minister outlined, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, no one says no to extra responsibility if they think they are going to get some more dosh—let us put it that way.
Will the commission get enough cash to be able to manage the regulatory burdens that the Government are placing on it? I am beginning to worry that with the plethora of new responsibilities, we will have to see quite a large uplift in the commission’s budgets. I have not heard convincing defences that the Electoral Commission has verbally or formally remarked to the Government that it is content to receive that much responsibility. I am sure that the Minister will come back to talk about that.
Clause 67 will increase the maximum fine that the commission could impose in a civil sanction for some summary offences. We have concerns about the size of the proposed increase in Electoral Commission civil sanction fines. The courts already have powers to levy unlimited fines. At the very least, the Macrory principles on proportionate regulatory enforcement should be embedded in law—that is what we aim to achieve in new clause 41. The Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy statement recommends the application of the Macrory principles, including
“the use of requests for improvements before resorting to fines and the need to conduct investigations in a timely manner.”
The Electoral Commission has civil sanctioning powers that apply to national referendums and elections. More serious criminal matters can be—and are—referred to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, and are then considered by a court of law. The courts already have the power to levy unlimited fines and criminal sanctions. Unlimited fines are potentially a heavy, significant punishment. That is why it would be appropriate for a judicial check and a fair hearing in a court of law. Indeed, such massive civil fines would likely be challenged via lawyers in the courts anyway, as we have seen with the Information Commissioner and general data protection regulation fines.
In relation to the Minister’s opening remarks about setting the level of the Electoral Commission fine at secondary legislation, I am concerned that that is because of, quite frankly, the unpreparedness of the Government. They have put a lot of legislation forward without properly consulting the Electoral Commission and are rushing, as we have said all along in this legislation, to try and legislate without necessarily thinking things through.
Samantha Dixon
Opposition Members did ask about the level at which we would set the fine. I have now consulted my notes; we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the limit to £500,000 per offence. That will be done through secondary legislation.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for that; that clarity is welcome. I still question why that needs to be done at secondary legislation. If the Minister knows the maximum fine limit for the Electoral Commission today, she could have put that in the legislation or brought forward an amendment to be discussed in Committee. She has chosen not to do that; I am interested to know why she has chosen not to do that and is waiting for secondary legislation to do so. Perhaps she will come back and tell the Committee why that is the case.
My point still stands. The fact that she is looking to set the fine at the secondary legislation stage outlines that, once again, the Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a great number of things that it currently does not do. I am not convinced, unless the Minister can reassure me in writing or come back after this Committee, that the Electoral Commission has been properly consulted. Let us not forget that it was the Electoral Commission that criticised the Government for not consulting it on trying to postpone the elections. That was a process where the Government were found to be unlawful—by the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House.
I am concerned that, as we have gone through this legislation, a huge amount has been asked of the Electoral Commission in terms of its responsibility and purview, and the Minister has not reassured me that it is happy with that. I am not convinced that the resource that it currently has would allow it to conduct its operations or, if necessary, investigations on its current physical envelope.
Samantha Dixon
The reality is that the Electoral Commission already imposes fines; it is just that they are not big enough. I argue that, by not setting the level in primary legislation but doing it in secondary legislation, it can be responsive should it need to be changed in the future, which it may need to be. We have talked about the revolving nature of foreign interference; in similar ways, the offences and their gravity may change over time. To be able to respond to that through secondary legislation is important, and we should not be hidebound by requiring primary legislation.
The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament, not to Government. It is a very important point to make that the consideration of its comfortableness, abilities or capacity is a discussion for Parliament. My officials work with it collaboratively, and I meet with it regularly. It is comfortable, but we must always remember that it is accountable to Parliament, not to Government.
Paul Holmes
I absolutely accept the Minister’s point that it is accountable to Parliament, but her party and her Government have a majority in this Parliament, and her Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a huge amount more. She says that it has been consulted, but all I would say is that, in other areas, it was not consulted when the Government have arbitrarily gone ahead and decided to do what they want to do.
The Minister is also correct, and I thank her for her correction, that the Electoral Commission already issues fines. I do not dispute that, but this Government, through schedule 10 and clause 65, are trying to remove some of the fine elements from the judicial system and place more responsibility on the Electoral Commission. That is my concern about the extra responsibility it would have, which has been taken away from the judicial system, as well as some of the other responsibilities that it is being asked to take on, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we look across the system, we see other regulators—Ofcom probably comes to mind—where fines have been issued through a civil process like the one this legislation envisages. We know that Ofcom is currently engaged in a battle with 4chan, which it has fined a very significant sum for failing to meet legal requirements in the United Kingdom for age verification checks for online pornography. 4chan’s response has been to refuse to pay the fine and to counter-sue in the courts of the United States, arguing that, because it has a headquarters in the US, it is effectively a restraint on trade by the British Government and a breach of its rights under US legislation.
Clearly, there is a significant possibility, given that civil courts have a different burden of proof than criminal courts, that this could end up entangling the Electoral Commission in all sorts of long-running and extremely expensive disputes in a way that is not currently envisaged. We need to foresee that risk and plan for it appropriately.
Paul Holmes
I agree. I am all in favour of streamlining and making things more efficient, but I am worried that the unintended consequence of essentially removing the judicial oversight element is that the Electoral Commission cannot actually enforce—or, if it does try to enforce, adherence can simply be refused. The Government have done this in another organisation, Natural England, through measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. They gave Natural England—an organisation that has limited finances—an enforcement role in legislation, but with no teeth. Therefore, I share my hon. Friend’s concern that this simply will not work.
I have said what I have to say on those clauses, and I would like to press new clause 41 to a vote. We will not oppose any of those clauses, but I warn again that we are concerned about the Electoral Commission’s ability to undertake its responsibilities, and I know that the Minister has responded to that.
Lisa Smart
I should start by reminding the Committee that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, so I have been a part of some of the discussions the Minister mentioned. I also met the chief exec of the Electoral Commission to talk about what is in the Bill, what the Electoral Commission welcomed and worked with officials on, and what it would have liked to have seen more on. That was a useful and productive meeting. The commission made some public comments, and I cannot remember the exact wording used, but it was underwhelmed at some elements, I think.
I am particularly keen to speak to new clause 46 and new clause 53, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. New clause 46, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), has drawn attention to Electoral Commission comments about a Catch-22 in its powers to investigate suspicious transactions:
“Despite our statutory duty to monitor and take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance…we currently have no ability to obtain any information from financial institutions that we can use to monitor and independently verify provenance or the permissibility of funds, unless we open a full investigation. This is a weakness: to open such an investigation needs clear evidence—but we can’t always obtain that in the first place.”
The Government said that they would keep the Electoral Commission’s powers under review, and noted that they were increasing planning powers per offence to provide a greater deterrent. However, the report emphasised that the Electoral Commission can impose fines only if it can prove an offence has occurred in the first place. The fact that it often cannot do so is precisely the problem and underpins the need for stronger information-gathering powers. New clause 46 would increase the commission’s powers to require financial institutions to provide it with information in relation to the permissibility of donations.
New clause 53 is complementary to new clause 46. It would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation. When I met the commission’s chief executive with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause, we talked about exactly that issue. The Rycroft review, which has been mentioned many times today, states that the Electoral Commission, unlike the other regulators, cannot demand information outside a formal investigation, meaning that it cannot work in real time to head off offences. The review recommends extending powers so that the commission can require information from relevant bodies and persons.
By comparison, the Charity Commission has the option of a regulatory inquiry, which gives information-obtaining powers without the necessity of enacting a lengthy statutory inquiry. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy report, describing the Catch-22, recommends powers for the Electoral Commission to compel information, deployable in appropriate cases outside formal investigations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s 2021 review recommended extending the commission’s powers to compel document information and explanation outside an investigation.
Election-related harms are increasingly amplified online. The Electoral Commission evidence to the Speaker’s Conference explicitly links disinformation and platform algorithms to harassment and intimidation, and it describes concrete candidate harms, including deterrence and avoidance. The Speaker’s Commission earlier called for electoral law review, including addressing the disinformation that can fuel abuse and intimidation, and a number of people involved in the democracy sector and the implementation of the enforcement of electoral law would welcome looking at a review of all the many Representation of the People Acts that have taken place over time, so that we can look at where they complement one another and where, on occasion, they do less than that.
The last point to make is that if platforms can micro-target voters in real time, surely the regulator must be able to obtain basic information in real time. On that note, I commend new clauses 46 and 53 to the Committee.
Lloyd Hatton
I will keep my remarks brief in the interests of avoiding repetition. It is important to put on the record the changes in the Bill, which are hugely welcome. One of those is massively improving the information sharing and investigatory powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure closer working with regulators and law enforcement.
It should go without saying that the commission is the key watchdog in our democratic process and that it ensures that our elections and our political parties operate with integrity day to day. That is why it is particularly important that we look at some of the points being made as part of new clause 46. As has been said often today, that is touched on in some detail as part of Philip Rycroft’s review; the need to ensure that the information-sharing and investigatory powers of the Electoral Commission are as effective as they need to be, and that they work in a two-way direction to ensure that that work is undertaken.
I note that the Minister already touched on this at the start of this grouping, and that her and her officials will be wanting to look at it in more detail. I look forward to that, because it is important that we get this right as we make these positive steps forward in this part of the Bill. We must ensure that the Electoral Commission, as our key national watchdog for elections and the democratic process, has the powers and information at its fingertips to operate as effectively as possible.
Dr Chowns
I strongly support measures to strengthen the capacities and powers of the Electoral Commission, which plays a crucial role in regulating our politics. I will speak briefly to new clauses 46 and 53. As has already been highlighted, they are basically fully in line with Philip Rycroft’s recommendations 9 and 10, so I hope that Government amendments will be tabled in due course to address those recommendations, the justification for which has been clearly outlined.
My new clause 57 concerns the Electoral Commission’s fining power. I very much welcome the Government’s announcement that they will bring forward secondary legislation to increase the commission’s maximum fine to £500,000 from £20,000, which is clearly peanuts and no disincentive at all. That will be a significant improvement, and of course will bring the measure in line with the penalty that can be imposed for breaches of electoral finance rules in relation to referendums in Scotland.
Lloyd Hatton
Does the hon. Member share my view that the old system that we inherited meant that foul play by a political party was essentially priced into the system, because the fine was so small? What the Government are doing, by increasing the fine to £500,000 for a single offence via secondary legislation, means that that type of culture, in any political party, will come to an end—no party can simply say that these fines are the cost of doing business.
Dr Chowns
Absolutely. It is clear that the previous level, £20,000, was utterly inadequate, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthen that. The purpose of my new clause 57 is to suggest ways in which it could be strengthened further, namely by putting the maximum fine into primary legislation, and by providing that the maximum fine would be £500,000 or 4% of campaign spending, whichever was the higher. I will explain why.
Most other regulators in the UK can impose unlimited fines, a high multimillion-pound fine or a fine as a percentage—for Ofcom, for example, 10%—of annual turnover. In its 2021 review of electoral finance, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the fine should be 4% of the value of campaign spending or £500,000, whichever was the higher. My new clause simply calls for what the Committee on Standards in Public Life argued for.
Analysis from Spotlight on Corruption has shown that the currently proposed increase to a £500,000 maximum fine would amount to a mere 1.5% and 2.1% of the campaign spending of the Labour and Conservative parties respectively, as the two largest-spending parties. If those parties had committed an egregious offence during the 2024 general election and the 4% measure had been in place, the maximum fines would have been £1.2 million or £955,000 respectively—double the current maximum. Arguably, it should be even higher—Ofcom can fine 10%—but my new clause simply puts forward the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The Minister touched on the question of whether to have the limit in primary or secondary legislation. She argued—I think I am paraphrasing accurately—that one of the advantages of having it in secondary legislation is that it can be easily updated. However, the previous level of the fine, which was £20,000, was set out in secondary legislation—it was in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010—and it was never updated. The Minister said that the level of the fine might need to be set out in secondary legislation so that it could be more easily updated to make it higher, but the historical record shows us that we have had fines that are far too low and that they are not adapted.
Samantha Dixon
I will speak to each of the new clauses, beginning with new clause 41, which seeks to place the Macrory principles on a statutory footing in relation to the Electoral Commission’s use of civil sanctioning powers.
We fully recognise the importance of the Macrory principles and agree that regulatory enforcement should always be flexible, transparent and proportionate. These principles were designed to guide the construction of regulatory systems and sanction regimes. As such, the Macrory principles directed the development of the Electoral Commission’s regime of civil sanctions, which was introduced by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and therefore is already embedded in the commission’s regulatory practices. That includes the ability to issue fines for a wide range of offences, the use of stop notices and enforcement undertakings, and provision for representations and appeals.
The Electoral Commission is also required to publish guidance on its use of such powers, which it must have regard to when exercising its functions. It does this through its enforcement policy. Therefore, fairness and proportionality are already central to how the Electoral Commission operates. Indeed, the commission’s enforcement policy explicitly states that it will impose sanctions where appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest. For that reason, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to apply the Macrory principles as the new clause proposes. The Electoral Commission is, and must remain, an independent regulator. It is vital that it retains the flexibility it needs to decide how best to use its enforcement powers, rather than being tied to a rigid statutory checklist for individual enforcement decisions.
The Government have been clear in our commitment to strengthening the Electoral Commission’s independence, including through the repeal of the strategy and policy statement, which the commission was previously required to consider in the exercise of its functions. Introducing further statutory requirements of this kind risks cutting across that principle and altering the balance of the commission’s operational autonomy. There is a very real risk that amending PPERA to codify these principles in this way is unnecessarily duplicative and could lead to legal uncertainty. Enforcement decisions could become a quagmire of legal challenge, which would delay action and weaken the commission’s overall effectiveness as a regulator. Having given these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will not press new clause 41.
I turn now to new clause 53, which seeks to provide the Electoral Commission with powers to request information from any person where such information is relevant to determining whether to open an investigation. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the right tools it needs to make informed decisions about potential breaches of political finance rules. The commission already has substantial information-gathering powers to support its regulatory functions, including the enforcement of political finance and imprint rules. That said, the Government recognise that we cannot be complacent, which is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference.
Although we do not support the amendment, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review that reinforce measures already included in the Bill to ensure political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose. There will be a full Government response to the review, and we will consider whether further amendments to the Bill are appropriate in the light of that work. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
New clause 57 seeks to increase the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine from £20,000 per offence to a new maximum of £500,000 or 4% of campaign expenditure, whichever is greater. It also requires that any order seeking to amend the suggested percentage can be made only if recommended by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has robust enforcement powers. A strong and proportionate civil sanctions regime is essential for securing compliance with the rules and upholding trust in our democracy.
The current maximum fine of £20,000 does not provide a meaningful deterrent against rule breaking. The Electoral Commission has argued for a long time that it risks becoming a mere cost of doing business for the largest political parties and campaigners. The Government agree that increasing the maximum fine is essential, so that sanctions reflect the scale of modern political campaigning and ensure that all campaigners, no matter how large, face significant repercussions when the rules are broken. That is why we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the commission’s maximum fine significantly to up to £500,000 per offence.
The reason why the change will be made through secondary legislation is that Parliament has already provided the Secretary of State with the power to make supplementary orders in relation to the Electoral Commission’s civil sanction regime. Any such order is subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure. It was through the exercise of that power, and through that process, that the existing maximum fine was established in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010, which is referenced in the new clause. It is therefore appropriate to follow the same process for making changes to the commission’s regime of civil sanctions where it is already provided for in legislation.
In terms of adding statutory requirements that must be met before the Secretary of State can make a supplementary order, the Government have seen no evidence that such conditions are necessary. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission through the development of the measures in the Bill, and we will continue to work collaboratively as we develop the detail of proposals for increasing the maximum fine that it can impose. Those details will be set out in secondary legislation in due course, and at that time Parliament will rightly have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the Government’s approach and consider whether to approve the legislation. For those reasons, and with those reassurances in place, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Samantha Dixon
We have considered it, and we have decided to opt for a fine of £500,000. However, when we introduce the secondary legislation, the debate may flesh out that argument, and the figure may change, should secondary legislation and the debate lead to that conclusion. However, at this stage, we will not accept the amendment.
New clause 46 seeks to give the Electoral Commission powers to compel financial institutions to disclose information related to income and expenditure of regulated entities, such as political parties and candidates, where it is reasonably required by the commission to carry out its functions. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with political finance rules. The commission already has substantial information gathering powers to support its regulatory functions, including the enforcement of political finance and imprint rules.
That said, the Government recognise that we cannot be complacent, which is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference. As Members know, we are considering the relevant recommendations of the review that could reinforce measures already in the Bill to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remains robust and fit for purpose. I note that new clause 46 draws on a recommendation from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and covers very similar ground to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)
Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 16th April 2026
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 April 2026 - (16 Apr 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning. Could everyone ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; this shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
A reminder: a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first, or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses or schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper.
Finally, for your information, the House’s official photographer will be present during this morning’s sitting—I hope you are all dressed in your best—in order to record the work of Hansard colleagues and to take some wide shots of the Committee in action. I hope no one has any objections.
Clause 70
Hostility towards officers and their staff
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 71, page 92, line 35, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.
This amendment would, with NC55, include family members and staff of candidates as people towards whom hostility would be treated as an aggravating factor.
Clauses 71 to 74 stand part.
New clause 55—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.
“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—
‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates
(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—
(a) a relative; or
(b) a member of staff;
of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”
This new clause would, with Amendment 38, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to clauses 70 to 74 first, and we will come to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats later.
Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on the UK’s democratic processes. We know that electoral staff faced unacceptable abuse and intimidation during the 2024 general election. That is why we are extending the scope of the disqualification order to ensure that electoral staff are provided with the same protection as candidates, campaigners and elective office holders.
Clause 70 will enhance the disqualification order’s ability to protect those who participate in public life, and those who play a crucial part in the administration and delivery of elections. It will also act as a deterrent, signalling that intimidatory behaviour is a serious matter that must not be allowed to damage our democracy.
It is clear that more must be done to tackle the abuse and intimidation directed at those who participate in elections and political debate. While disqualification orders are a key part of tackling the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of those in public life, they do nothing to prevent those who have no interest in standing as a candidate from engaging in intimidatory or abusive behaviour. Clause 71 introduces a new statutory aggravating factor, which will empower courts to apply an uplift when passing sentence for an offence linked to intimidation. This is where the offender was motivated by hostility towards candidates, campaigners, elective office holders and electoral officials and their staff.
Clause 72 introduces this new statutory aggravating factor in Northern Ireland, and amends the location of the pre-existing Scottish aggravating factor. This is a significant new deterrent for those who seek to damage the UK’s democracy or intimidate those who uphold it, and will ensure that anyone who does so will be subject to appropriate criminal justice penalties.
Let us turn to clause 73. Disqualification orders were introduced in the Elections Act 2022, to be imposed on offenders throughout the UK who commit crimes of hostility against electoral candidates, campaigners and officer holders. Scotland introduced Scottish disqualification orders in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, which gave similar protection to a fourth category: Scottish electoral officials. The Bill extends the scope of the disqualification order in the Elections Act 2022 to protect electoral officials throughout the UK, but Scottish electoral officials will continue to be covered by the Scottish legislation.
To ensure that there is a fully reciprocal relationship between disqualification orders in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the Bill also applies the effect of Scottish disqualification orders to relevant elective offices throughout the UK. That ensures that if someone is disqualified from standing for or holding office in Scotland, they will also be unable to stand for or hold office in the rest of the UK, and vice versa.
That will ensure a consistent approach throughout the UK for intimidatory behaviour towards those who participate in public life. If a person is convicted of specific criminal offences, motivated by hostility towards candidates, future candidates, substitutes, nominees, campaigners, holders of relevant elective office or electoral officials, they will be prohibited from standing for or holding office for five years across the UK. Clause 74 builds on the measures introduced in clause73, and makes amendments to various pieces of legislation to apply the Scottish disqualification order to relevant elected offices across the UK.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Good morning, Dame Siobhain; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for the information about a photographer being present; had I known, I would have had a shave this morning. Normally, we can only be heard in audio and, as my mother says, I have a face that only a mother could love.
We welcome the Minister outlining the parameters of the clauses, and welcome the fact that the Government are taking the safety of election staff seriously. They are public facing, and work with us on an equal basis to ensure that democracy works. We therefore strongly welcome the fact that the Government are extending these protections to election staff. Officer teams across the whole country are very busy at the moment; we know that from our various involvements with election returning officers, and the election staff who are making sure that everybody who is entitled to vote can do so via different methods.
When an officer reads out the results on television, and faces an inquiry from somebody who they do not satisfy, that can spur on the kind of attacks and threats that we receive as publicly elected officials. It is therefore absolutely right that such officers should enjoy the same protections that we do. As I say, the Government should be congratulated on taking this matter seriously.
It therefore makes perfect sense to amend the sentencing code for England and Wales in clause 71 regarding offences that have been committed under the Elections Act 2022, so that going forward this can be treated as an aggravating factor. Of course, it is also perfectly sensible that the provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.
We strongly welcome the Government’s action on this; it should be supported by everybody. I wanted to put it on the record that the Minister should be congratulated for it.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy.
Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates.
The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them. Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed.
New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people
“employed by or working under the direction”
of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor.
I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions. If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I rise briefly to say that I fully support these measures, which are clearly welcomed across all parties. I also support the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford in relation to extending the measures further, because by definition, anybody who is essentially associated with the political process is potentially subject to the hostility that we have discussed. Extending those protections is clearly important.
Samantha Dixon
Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. As I have set out, the Bill will also introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.
Amendment 38 and new clause 55 would extend the list of relevant persons to include candidates’ staff and their relatives. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the regime already covers those circumstances. The application of the existing disqualification order and new aggravating factor is based on the motivation behind the offence committed, regardless of precisely who the offence was committed against. For example, if it were found that a relevant offence was committed against a candidate’s relative for the purpose of intimidating the candidate, ultimately the offence was motivated by hostility towards the candidate, and thus a disqualification order or aggravating factor could be applied.
Regarding employees of candidates specifically, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Guildford to the fact that campaigners employed by candidates are already directly protected under the regime by section 34 of the Elections Act 2022. Other employees would be covered indirectly in the same way that I have outlined for a candidate’s relatives. I hope the hon. Member is reassured by that and will consider not pressing the amendment.
Paul Holmes
On new clause 55 and amendment 38, I understand why the hon. Member for Guildford, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is attempting to change the legislation.
The Minister may remember that we had a back-and-forth in relation to the security briefings being offered to candidates through Operation Ford, and the Government’s amendments. Has she given any more thought to a statutory timeline, and guidance on making sure that candidates are offered those briefings in a reasonable timeframe so that nobody slips through the net because the police force has not got around to it? That may inform the decision of the hon. Member for Guildford regarding whether to press the new clause and amendment to a vote.
Samantha Dixon
The Government’s view is that the Electoral Commission is working hard, and that to prescribe timetables would place a restriction on it that we do not feel is required. Given the good, proactive work that it already does in this area, with the Government working alongside it, we do not feel it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Electoral Commission. With JESP, the Department and the Electoral Commission working hard across the electoral landscape, we do not feel that the amendment and the new clause are necessary, so I respectfully ask the hon. Member not to push them to a vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 71 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 14
Removal of strategy and policy statement
“(1) In Part 1 of PPERA 2000 (the Electoral Commission) omit—
(a) sections 4A to 4E and the italic heading before those sections (strategy and policy statement);
(b) section 13ZA and the italic heading before that section (examination by the Speaker’s Committee of the Electoral Commission’s performance of duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).
(2) Omit sections 16 and 17(1) of the Elections Act 2022 (which inserted the sections repealed by subsection (1)).
(3) The Electoral Commission is not required to publish a report under section 4B(4) of PPERA 2000 in relation to any 12-month period ending on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This new clause removes provision about the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Samantha Dixon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause removes provisions allowing the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. For the health of our democracy, it is essential that the Electoral Commission is fearlessly independent, commands trust across the political spectrum and the public, and is seen to operate free from political influence. We have listened to stakeholders and recognise that re-establishing the principle of independence for our elections regulator is vital for public confidence in our electoral system.
That move is a response to the recommendations of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, parliamentary Committees, the Electoral Commission itself as well as civil society organisations such as Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption, all of whom emphasised that Government powers to designate a statement are incompatible with the commission’s independence.
That is why we have taken clear action by tabling this new clause. Ministers will no longer have the power to designate a strategy and policy statement, and the Electoral Commission will no longer be required to have regard to one. The Electoral Commission will rightly remain accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. The new clause would reinforce the foundational principles of the Electoral Commission’s independence, and it would restore confidence in its ability to oversee elections and regulate political finance, without fear or favour, into the future. For that reason, I urge Members to accept the new clause.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Lady very much.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 60
Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000
“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—
(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—
(a) ’;
(b) at the end insert
‘, or
(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)
This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual is, or has been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to
a foreign administration.’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In subsection (2A)—
“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”—(Lisa Smart.)
This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Permissible donors not to include persons who have promoted political violence—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3ZB) insert—
‘(3ZC) A person is not to be treated as a permissible donor in relation to a donation if the person has been convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence.
(3ZD) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the offences which fall within subsection (3ZC).’”
New clause 15—Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of any foreign nation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation mean anyone who has at anytime been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to a foreign administration.’
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
‘(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities in order to be validly nominated. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure their candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on behalf of the party.
New clause 16—Annual statements on foreign donation risks and independent investigations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (Declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Annual statement on mitigation of foreign donation risks
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, prepare a statement setting out the steps taken by the party to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation.
(2) The statement must be delivered to the Commission alongside the party's statement of accounts for that year.
66B Annual independent investigation of donations by foreign-owned UK entities
(1) A registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, arrange for an independent investigation to be conducted into any donations received by the party from a foreign-owned UK entity.
(2) A report of the independent investigation must be submitted to the Commission by the treasurer of the party within six months of the end of the calendar year to which it relates.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the appointment and qualifications of an independent investigator for the purposes of this section;
(b) the definition of a “foreign-owned UK entity”; and
(c) the required contents of the investigation report.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’”
This new clause requires registered political parties to produce an annual statement detailing how they have mitigated risks relating to donations from foreign nations. It also requires parties to commission an annual independent investigation into donations they receive from foreign-owned UK entities, with the findings submitted to the Electoral Commission.
New clause 17—Payments from foreign state broadcasters to politicians and candidates—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments from foreign state broadcasters
6A (1) A regulated donor must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from a prescribed foreign state broadcaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations proscribe a foreign state broadcaster for the purposes of this paragraph where the Secretary of State considers the broadcaster is acting on behalf of, or producing propaganda for, a foreign power.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for appearing on, hosting, or contributing to broadcasts or programmes.’
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of past earnings from foreign state broadcasters
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received any past or current earnings, payments or benefits from a foreign state broadcaster prescribed under paragraph 6A of Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.’”
This new clause prohibits politicians (regulated donors) from receiving any payment from prescribed foreign state broadcasters. It also amends the parliamentary election rules to require candidates (including incumbent MPs) to formally declare any past earnings from these entities in order to be validly nominated to stand for election.
New clause 38—Permissible donors: foreign citizens—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 54 after paragraph (2) insert—
‘(2AA) For the purposes of this section, subject to the exemptions in section (2AB), an “individual registered in an electoral register” does not include a person who is on a register by virtue of being a “qualifying foreign citizen” for the purposes of—
(a) Section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, or
(b) Section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020.
(2AB) The exemptions in this subsection are that the person is on an electoral register because they are—
(a) a qualified Commonwealth citizen,
(b) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, or
(c) a citizen of the European Union who would be eligible to vote in local elections under the English and Northern Ireland franchise.’”
This new clause prevents people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 from being permissible donors but are not qualifying Commonwealth, Irish, or EU citizens.
New clause 39—Mitigating the risk of foreign interference in political donations—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a consultation paper on how Government will enhance information-sharing between relevant agencies and public bodies and registered political parties to help to identify and mitigate the risk of foreign interference in political donations that are regulated by electoral law.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on how to enhance information sharing between relevant public bodies or agencies and political parties to minimise the risk of foreign interference in political donations.
New clause 45—Permissible electors to include overseas electors with previous tax residence etc—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a), at end insert ‘(but this is subject to subsection (2ZA))’.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) An individual registered in an electoral register who at the date of a donation qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency is only a permissible donor for the purposes of this Part if—
(a) the individual was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes,
(b) the individual has a Unique Taxpayer Reference, and
(c) the individual holds funds or assets that may be charged to tax in the United Kingdom that are at least equivalent to the value of the donation.
(2ZB) For the purposes of subsection (2ZA)—
(a) whether a person qualifies as an overseas elector is to be determined in accordance with section 1A of the Representation of the People Act 1985;
(b) whether a person was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes is to be determined in accordance with Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013.’”
This new clause limits permissible donors who are overseas electors to those who have previously been resident in the UK for tax purposes, have a Unique Taxpayer Reference and holds funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK which have a value of at least the amount to be donated.
New clause 51—Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding—
“(1) The Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency must each produce and publish an annual report about—
(a) the risk of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations, and
(b) the adequacy of any systems designed to address risks of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations.
(2) The Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.
(3) In this section—
‘controlled donation’ means—
(i) a donation to a registered party, individual or members association that is subject to Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(ii) a donation to a candidate or their agent that is subject to Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983;
‘foreign interference’ includes the commission of a relevant electoral offence to which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 applies (foreign interference in elections).”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to make annual reports about the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
Lisa Smart
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Trust in our democracy is not something that we can afford to take for granted; it is earned, and it is increasingly fragile. Years of scandals, sleaze and foreign money flooding into our politics have eroded that trust, and we must act to restore it. My new clauses are designed to restore transparency to our democracy, and to restore that trust.
New clause 2 would ban anyone who is or has been a member of, or a politically appointed advisor to, a foreign Administration from donating to a political party, think-tank or campaigning body. If a person has served in a foreign state in a political capacity, they should not be able to use their personal wealth to shape British politics—that is the reason behind the new clause. The resulting risk of strong potential conflicts of interest, and of foreign influence by proxy, is self-evident. The current permissible donor rules focus on nationality and residency; they do not ask whether a UK-registered donor has served a foreign Government in a political role, which is a gap that a determined adversary could drive a coach and horses through.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increased transparency in political donations. We believe that protecting democracy is a national security policy priority. If Ministers are serious about closing the loopholes that exist, which allow foreign and dark money to shape British politics, they will welcome new clause 2.
Dr Chowns
I completely support the thrust of these new clauses tabled by the hon. Member, in terms of protecting British democracy. I have a specific question in relation to new clause 3. Last year the Government proscribed a protest organisation. That proscription has since been overturned in the High Court, and it is still being considered. Is the hon. Member concerned about her new clause might interact with that particular case? Is there a case for thinking carefully about that issue?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to wade into such a thorny political issue—and an issue where it is important to stay on the right side of what can be said in discussing a proscribed organisation. The Government should use their powers of proscription proportionately, in all cases, and should be able to robustly back up their decision to proscribe an organisation with very clear evidence that is made public. I am on the record many times as saying that.
The police and any authorities that we are asking to implement the law must do so according to the law as it is at the time. At the moment there is a live case where an organisation was proscribed and there are relevant court cases. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that. Over the weekend, arrests were made in relation to that proscription. New clause 3 is about donations to political parties. If an organisation is proscribed—and it is still proscribed—it would fall under the scope of new clause 3, even if there are ongoing legal processes that have not yet concluded.
Dr Chowns
Just to be clear, my concern is that literally hundreds of people have been arrested for holding placards in relation to that organisation. Potentially, under the hon. Member’s new clause 3, all those hundreds of people could be forbidden forever from donating to any political party. I am not sure that that is proportionate. It strikes me that there is complexity there, relating to the specific new clause. I am fully on board with excluding promotion of political violence and so forth, but that particular case highlights a complexity, particularly around the hundreds of people arrested for holding placards.
Lisa Smart
The arrests were made for support for a proscribed organisation via holding a placard that said the holder supports that organisation. I think we are talking about the same case. I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Proscription of organisations is a tool that the Government rightly uses, although I have questioned the proportionality of the use of that tool. New clause 3 particularly mentions political violence; the hon. Member is talking about peaceful protest, if I understand her correctly. All hon. Members on this Committee, and everyone beyond it, should support the right for people to tell a Government that they think the Government have got it wrong. We should all support that and not make it harder for people to do it. If, however, someone is guilty of a
“prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”,
I do not think that they should be able to financially support a political party. The promotion of an organisation is the same as supporting an organisation. There are ways of supporting organisations and causes that stay exactly the right side of the law. While I am not of the view that the Government have always used proscription rules proportionately in recent months, I do think that, if those rules exist, they should be able to be used in that way by those who are enforcing the law.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. I have listened carefully to what she said about new clauses 2 and 3. With respect to new clause 3, it would be helpful to consider the treatment of those who may have been opponents of an oppressive foreign political regime who have been convicted in this country of an offence that might be a proscribed offence under mutual recognition arrangements, but where they perhaps sought asylum in the UK. We have seen examples of people who were vocal opponents of the Putin regime in Russia coming to the UK and joining a political party. Those are people who we recognise as good citizens. How would they be treated should that offence be on that proscribed list?
In respect to new clause 2, again, I have sympathy, but I raise the issue of business people undertaking consular roles in other countries. It is quite common, for example, for a British business person who may be the British consul in a particular town to then be appointed by a series of other Governments to act for them as an agent in that respect. Subsequently, on returning to the UK that business person would be caught by the rules in new clause 2, even though those restrictions are in no way intended to target those types of activities. Has the hon. Member given some thought to how those types of roles would be captured and how they might be excluded?
Lisa Smart
New clause 3 talks specifically about political violence. While we can sometimes agree with the message that opponents of our adversaries use, it is right that we are against political violence and those who promote political violence. I think that covers his question on new clause 3.
Lisa Smart
We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so.
On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point. I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written.
Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly.
On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability. Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support.
New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree.
This new clause makes transparency operational. It requires parties not simply to accept or reject donations, but to demonstrate annually that they have actively assessed and mitigated the risks of foreign money entering their finances through UK-registered vehicles. Foreign-owned UK entities are a known vector for influence. The public record of recent years—Russian money, oligarch links and opaque corporate structures—makes that plain. An independent annual audit is a proportionate and practical response.
New clause 17 is about prohibiting politicians from receiving payment from proscribed state broadcasters. State-controlled broadcasters have been used as instruments of foreign influence, disinformation and political interference for decades. It would be extraordinary to allow individuals seeking or holding elected office to receive financial benefit from those very organisations. That is not a blanket ban on media appearances—heaven forbid—it is a prohibition on financial relationships with broadcasters acting as foreign propaganda arms.
Moving on to new clauses 45 and 51 proposed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Joint Committee that he chairs noted potential risks around permissible donors being used as “conduits” to channel foreign money into UK politics. It further noted a discrepancy between corporations needing to have a UK connection—for example, generating enough revenue in the UK to cover their donation—and individuals, for whom there were apparently fewer such requirements. The report considered various options, balancing security interests against the risk of creating chilling effects.
New clause 45 would mean that overseas individuals wishing to donate would need to hold funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK, sufficient to cover the cost of their donation. That broadly mirrors the Government’s proposals for corporations to have generated sufficient UK-based revenue.
On new clause 51, the Joint Committee’s report also highlighted the resourcing challenges faced by the Electoral Commission and law enforcement bodies such as the National Crime Agency, and noted that legislative changes will be effective only if there is adequate resourcing to enforce the rules. New clause 51 would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to report annually on the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak briefly to Opposition new clauses 38 and 39 in my name. They are proportionate measures to enhance the legislation and assist the Government in their aim of tightening up on foreign political donations.
New clause 38 would prevent people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020, but are not qualifying Commonwealth citizens, from being permissible donors. We have tabled it because we are concerned that modern changes to devolved legislation have created loopholes in who can give money from foreign origins.
The Labour Government in Wales have given all foreigners the right to vote in local and devolved elections. The SNP Scottish Government have done the same in Scotland. Those Administrations have made those changes through section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act and section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act.
Such legislation has also given foreign residents the right to make unlimited donations to UK politicians and political parties. We contend that that opens the door to Russian, Chinese and Iranian foreign influence. For example, a Chinese “student” resident at a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any UK political entity. We have raised that issue in Parliament, but the current Government have declined to address it. The new clause would essentially ban that from happening, except where a person is a Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizen, as we believe those historical links are much more in keeping with the current electoral guidelines and legislation.
Samantha Dixon
The Government fully recognise the seriousness of the threat posed by foreign interference in our democracy. Protecting the integrity of UK elections is essential, which is why it is a criminal offence to accept or facilitate donations from foreign sources, and why the Bill seeks to strengthen the system further. However, while I can understand and appreciate the intention behind new clause 2, we do not believe that it is the right way to address this threat.
First, new clause 2 takes a broad and untargeted approach that would permanently bar any individual who
“is, or has been…a member of, or…adviser to a foreign administration”
from making political donations, regardless of how long ago that role was held, its nature or whether there is any ongoing connection to a foreign state. That risks excluding individuals who are entitled to participate in UK political life, and who pose no credible risk of foreign interference.
Secondly, there would be issues of enforceability. I will not spend much time on this particular point, because it is important that I set out our arguments on the principle, and what I think the right answer to this is, but following the approach of new clause 2 would mean relying on definitions of persons that are difficult to get right and can be unenforceable in practice. The amendment relies on concepts such as a “politically-appointed adviser”, which is opaque, legally speaking, and risks creating legal uncertainty for campaigners and regulators.
Thirdly, and more fundamentally, where the concern is hostile activity by, or on behalf of, foreign states, we already have robust and targeted tools in our national security legislation, which is complemented by safeguards in electoral law that we are seeking to enhance through the Bill. The National Security Act 2023 provides a clear criminal framework for tackling hostile state activity, including the foreign interference offence, which is specifically designed to capture conduct carried out on behalf of a foreign power to influence the UK’s political system.
Existing electoral law is designed to ensure that money can only come from permissible sources and criminalises the acceptance or facilitation of donations from impermissible foreign sources. The Bill significantly strengthens the existing rules so that in future even donations that are potentially risky are identified earlier, scrutinised more closely, and returned where necessary.
By introducing robust “know your donor” checks and requiring all donors to declare any benefits they have received in connection with their donation, we are reducing the space in which individuals who pose a real risk, or their proxies, can operate under the radar. Our new measures directly respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, as well as those of other key stakeholders, such as the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency. With that, I hope she feels she can withdraw her amendment.
New clause 3 seeks to prevent those convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence from making political donations. Currently, if an individual is convicted of such an offence, that conduct rightly affects their democratic rights, including their ability to stand for election or to hold elected office. This helps to deter those who would undermine the democratic rights of others, such as candidates contesting an election.
The Government are absolutely aligned with the intention behind this proposal. Political violence and its promotion or incitement have no place in our democracy, and we are clear that those who seek to undermine democratic participation through violence or intimidation should face serious consequences. The question, however, is not whether this behaviour is unacceptable—it plainly is—but whether this is the right legal mechanism to address it.
If this amendment were to be accepted, it would represent a significant shift in the purpose of political finance law, which is about ensuring only those individuals who have a legitimate interest in our elections can support candidates and campaigns through their vote, volunteering their time or offering financial support. Although I share the hon. Member’s concern, the Government believe that this amendment does not address a regulatory gap and would not further our shared aim of reducing harassment and intimidation in politics.
The harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democracy. That is why we are taking forward several interventions in the Bill to tackle this issue, which we have already discussed in great detail, and are doing so through criminal law, electoral offences and disqualification, rather than through political finance rules, which are not designed to address conduct. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.
Lisa Smart
I listened closely to what the Minister said, and I understand the thrust of her view that existing rules would cover the conduct that we are seeking to avoid. Will the Minister think of the specific case of Elon Musk, the owner of X? He spoke at a rally via video link and incited violence. He has also talked, at separate times, about donating to a UK political party. UK companies are part of his group; there would be a way for him to channel funding through a UK company. Will the Minister let me know what I am missing that would stop Elon Musk doing that?
Samantha Dixon
I have said this before and I will say it again: the Bill is not designed to prevent specific individuals from participating in or undermining elections. It is about the general regulatory framework and criminal law that we intend to implement, uphold and shore up to prevent certain behaviours in the future. It is not about specific individuals, so I decline to respond the hon. Member’s comments, except to say simply that the legislation, in its entirety, aims to root out political violence, harassment and intimidation.
New clause 15 proposes to require candidates at UK parliamentary elections, in order to be validly nominated, to complete a declaration on whether they have received any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities. A registered political party would be responsible for ensuring that such a declaration had been completed before allowing a candidate to be nominated as a candidate for that party. The Government are strengthening the rules around political finance to protect against foreign interference and have introduced several measures, which we have discussed, that will apply to candidates. The reforms will make it significantly more difficult for malign actors to interfere in our elections.
As hon. Members know, and as I have said many times, the Rycroft review has recommended that the Government look further at enhancing rules for candidates to ensure that money received previously and then used in campaigns comes from permitted sources. The Government are carefully—and I underline that point—considering that recommendation, among all the others. The Government share the concern of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove but, in light of that ongoing work, I ask her not to move new clause 15.
New clause 16 seeks to require registered parties to produce an annual risk mitigation statement relating to donations originating from foreign nations, and to commission an annual independent investigation into donations that they receive from foreign-owned UK entities. Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system. We recognise the hon. Member’s concerns that the nature of foreign interference is evolving, with threats becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a package of measures that work together to close potential loopholes and address vulnerabilities to foreign interference.
Via secondary legislation we will require donors to declare any benefits linked to their donations and we will strengthen donation rules to ensure that companies must demonstrate a genuine and substantive UK connection. Those changes will help to ensure that political donations genuinely reflect UK-based interests and will prevent the use of shell companies to channel impermissible donations. In practice, where behaviour is not already criminal, the new “know your donor” regime already addresses much of the issue that new clause 16 seeks to tackle. However, the new clause’s approach of annual risk mitigation statements and retrospective investigations of foreign nation donations is less proactive than the risk-based duty that the Bill introduces.
As a reminder, rather than relying on parties to report annually about what they consider appropriate, the “know your donor” regime introduces risk-based due diligence on significant donations across the electoral regime. For the first time, recipients of donations will be required to adopt a risk-based framework for assessing the permissibility of donors, supported by Electoral Commission guidance, which will set out how donees can mitigate potential risks. That means that anyone receiving significant donations, not just parties, must carry out risk assessments, ensuring that the system as a whole is strengthened.
Paul Holmes
I understand why the Minister is concerned about some of the new clauses, and as I said before, she is right that the Government are trying to tighten up the regime. On her argument that the Electoral Commission does not currently have the responsibilities she outlined, however, does she not agree that there is still a problem with two-way information sharing?
The Minister is absolutely correct to say that the Electoral Commission has the power to access Companies House information and powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. However, if we look at past examples of registered Chinese Communist party spies giving money to political parties in this House, does she not think it would have been useful if the Labour party, in that case, had known about that via the security services and could have refused the donation? I am not sure whether the Government are filling the hole of two-way information sharing, and that concerns me.
Samantha Dixon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a breather. As he knows, the Rycroft review considered this matter and—I mean this sincerely; it is not simply a form of words for the Committee —the Government are carefully considering those recommendations and will respond in due course. To give him that assurance: this is part of that consideration.
Alongside the measures I mentioned, enhanced company permissibility tests ensure that only organisations with a genuine and substantive UK connection can donate, closing off key vulnerabilities in our electoral framework. The Government are also committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and anticipate that this will include an impact evaluation assessing whether the policies introduced have achieved their intended aims.
We have discussed the Rycroft review, and I sincerely mean it when I say that we will respond fully in due course to all the measures in it, including on improved co-ordination between the Electoral Commission, the Government, the security services and the police. For those reasons, while I fully understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington to strengthening our defences against foreign interference, the Government do not consider this amendment to be the right mechanism to achieve that end.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to all who have contributed. I plan to press to a vote all the new clauses that I have spoken to.
Paul Holmes
In the interests of ensuring that you call the right votes, Dame Siobhain, there is no doubt in my mind when the Minister says she is genuinely looking at trying to fix this problem—I believe her; she is a Minister of integrity and I know the Government absolutely want to achieve that aim—but this is happening now and, with no commitment to timescales, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked for in relation to the Rycroft review, I am concerned that it will still be a problem.
I know the Minister will try to implement this carefully, but the lack of information sharing at this precise moment means that money is still being given, despite the fact that organisations that the Electoral Commission is not currently asking could provide that desperately needed clarity and transparency. Given the reassurance that the Minister has given to the Opposition on new clauses 38 and 39, however, I will not press them to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 54 (permissible donors to registered parties) insert—
‘54A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A donation received by a registered party by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the party must not be accepted by the party unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 52(2)(a) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a registered party;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(3) In Schedule 7 (controls on donations to individuals and members associations), after paragraph 6 insert—
‘6ZA Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A controlled donation received by a regulated donee by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the donee must not be accepted by the donee unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(3)(b) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a regulated donee;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this paragraph, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(4) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 in Schedule 2A (controls on donations to candidates), after paragraph 6 insert—
‘6A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent by way of a transfer of cryptoassets must not be accepted unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(2) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a candidate or agent;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent (including information relating to any transactions between the original source of the funds and the transfer of those funds into the cryptoassets);
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of “cryptoasset” in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause introduces controls on donations made by way of transfers of cryptoassets. Donations or transfers would have to comply with requirements set out in regulations made by the Electoral Commission in order to be accepted and would be prohibited until the Commission has made such regulations.
New clause 20—Disclosure of past donations in cryptoassets—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Report on past donations involving cryptoassets
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, prepare a report under this section.
(2) The report must record the relevant details in relation to each donation received by the party during the relevant 5-year period which was—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant 5-year period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section, “the relevant details” in relation to a donation means—
(a) the name and address of the donor;
(b) the amount or value of the donation;
(c) the date on which the donation was received; and
(d) the date on which, and the way in which, any necessary steps were taken regarding the donation under section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general).
(5) The report must be delivered to the Commission within the period of 14 days beginning with the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; “Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
This new clause amends PPERA 2000 to require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing the source, value, and dates of any donations made via cryptoassets, or accepted via crypto wallets/exchanges, over the past five years.
Dr Chowns
I rise to move new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). I will also speak briefly to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, and new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. She is here and I am sure she will speak.
This incredibly important group of new clauses responds to a glaring absence in the Bill relating to crypto donations. As I will get on to, Rycroft has talked about this and the Government have committed to bringing forward related amendments. I am pleased about that, but it is very important that, in Committee, we take the opportunity to discuss in detail what shape those amendments might take and what the issues are around this topic.
There is consensus across wide parts of the political spectrum that cryptocurrency poses particular risks in relation to political donations. Transparency International has highlighted a number of factors: cryptocurrencies are fast and borderless, there are various exchanges offering anonymity and they are increasingly used for money laundering. There are clear risks with crypto, which makes it a high-risk vehicle for political donations through which foreign actors, who would otherwise be unable to, might be able to donate to political parties and candidates and try to influence British politics. Again, as Transparency International points out,
“it is reasonable to assume there is a strong likelihood that this alternative payment method is being used by hostile actors, such as Russia, to destabilise Western political systems.”
We need to take these warning very seriously.
Indeed, the Royal United Services Institute says:
“Cryptocurrency donations to UK political parties present an urgent and under-addressed challenge to the UK’s electoral integrity and, by extension, to its national security.”
It points out that
“the Bill does not mention cryptocurrencies”,
and says:
“This leaves a critical gap in our foreign interference defences as the pseudonymous, cross-border and decentralised features of crypto enable it to be used as a political money laundering accelerant”.
There are clearly many risks associated with crypto.
Philip Rycroft pointed this out himself and recommended:
“The government should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets, with a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective.”
There is some debate about whether we should have a blanket ban on cryptoassets or a moratorium with safeguards.
I am mainly concerned about the outcome, rather than the particular terminology that is used to deal with this. We must ensure that crypto is not used as a vehicle for the pollution of British politics. One of the key issues is the use of AI to split donations into lots of tiny fragments that go under the radar of any benchmarks or limits, and of the scrutiny of donations. That is a risk, but as RUSI points out, the more significant, under-recognised and under-dealt with risk is the indirect use of crypto.
It is very easy to translate crypto into a fiat currency at the point of donation, so although I am moving new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would
“prevent parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets”,
we actually need a stronger regulatory environment and to recognise that there may be even bigger risks from the indirect use of crypto further down the chain, which could still be used to hide the provenance of funding, even though it may not be in the form of crypto when it enters the coffers of a political party or candidate.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The hon. Member is articulating very real concerns about cryptocurrency and the way it can manipulate our democratic processes. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that, when the Rycroft review was published before the Easter recess, the Government responded pretty swiftly on this, and particularly on a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrency. Does she welcome the Government’s urgent response in the Chamber?
It was clear from Ministers that they intend to get this right. The immediate response to the Rycroft review was about making sure that we get something in place straight away. From listening to Ministers inside and outside the Chamber, I know there is an enthusiasm to make sure this is done right. Does the hon. Member welcome that initial response and, like me, does she look to see how we can tighten up our defences against cryptocurrency in the longer term, however they may be used to try to infiltrate our democratic processes?
Dr Chowns
I welcome the commitment that the Government have made. I participated in that statement in the Chamber before Easter. As the hon. Member will have noticed, I even welcomed and congratulated the Government on their positive actions under the Bill without prompting from the Government Benches. It is important to give credit where it is due. It is also important to have the opportunity, in this Committee, to debate some of these details.
If the Government are to bring forward legislation to institute a moratorium, it is important to think about what conditions will be set under which any such moratorium might be lifted in future. That is crucial, because it could otherwise be overturned very easily. I suggest that, at a minimum, the criteria for lifting any such moratorium should be that an adequate regulatory environment is in place for controlling the ultimate risk and that there is triple positive approval from Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority—the three most important oversight organisations on this issue. It will be very difficult and complex to find a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrency; I hope that we just get rid of it from our politics completely. But if the Government are going to introduce a moratorium, the conditions under which that moratorium might be lifted must be included in the primary legislation that puts it in place.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I agree with every word she says about there being a very fine balance between a moratorium and a ban—a ban could, actually, be retrograde—but if we have a moratorium we should at least have a regulatory framework that makes sure that cryptocurrency cannot be moved upstream. Does she share my concern that, despite the good intentions of the Minister and the Government, and despite consistent pushing for a timescale for the implementation of the Rycroft review, we have not had that? She is therefore right that the Committee is the perfect opportunity to get the ideas of all political parties, and to hopefully get a better idea of the Government response.
Dr Chowns
I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and sense of urgency about getting Rycroft implemented as soon as possible. In the spirit of giving credit where it is due, the Government did commission that review—which was good—the review was quite fast, there was an immediate statement, and the Bill is going through. I do not think that we are in a perfect place.
I would have liked the Bill to have longer in Committee to give the Government a chance to introduce amendments that we could properly scrutinise. It is deeply unfortunate that, for a Bill that is about the workings of our electoral system, we are not able to do that core scrutiny in Committee—the crucial line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, which is the elected Chamber. We are being asked, basically, to take it on trust. It is not that I distrust Government, but it is important to have this discussion now. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
I have made the point about the importance of including in primary legislation the criteria under which any moratorium might be lifted in the future, and that there must be really strong safeguards. I have also made the point that a ban on crypto donations will not itself stop the risk, because of the downstream issues. We have to think carefully about how whatever mechanism is introduced deals with that.
We have already seen that Ben Delo, who has given £4.5 million to Reform in recent months, has said, “Oh dear, since I am going to be hit by this retrospective moratorium I am going to move back to the UK to evade it.” That is clear evidence of gaming the system by a guy who, by the way, was convicted in the US of impropriety in relation to political financing. He was subsequently pardoned by Donald Trump. We have to be really careful of how bad actors might manipulate any legislative proposals that are introduced.
A ban on cryptocurrency will not, in itself, stop the risks. We also need a cap on all political donations—we will discuss a group of new clauses relating to that in a bit, so I will save my arguments on that topic until then—plus a donor register, as I spoke about in Tuesday’s sitting. A donor register with donor registration numbers would address the issue of traceability and address the risk that donations are split into many tiny donations to hide the fact that they are all from the same place. Having to have a donor registration number that is associated with a particular, identified, allowable donor would go a long way to addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lisa Smart
I am happy to be speaking in support of new clause 4, and in favour of new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 20, which is in my name, would require parties to declare cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, and I note my earlier comments about the sticky wicket on which the Minister is being asked to play.
The Government’s statement on the publication of the Rycroft review was a rare moment in which they nailed both the timing and politics of an issue, and it was absolutely right to ban crypto from that day to stop any further gaming of the system. However, I completely agree with the hon. Member that this Committee is the place to have a conversation about what that will look like. Future Government amendments will be tabled at a later, as of yet unspecified date. I believe that the Minister is working with officials on the issue, but this Committee is where we can talk about the Bill on a cross-party basis.
The Rycroft review recommended that a moratorium be placed on political donations made in cryptoassets. The Government responded to the review on the date of its publication, but, although other amendments to the Bill have been tabled, there has not yet been a clear indication of how quickly that recommendation will be integrated into it. The Liberal Democrats look forward to getting some further detail, dates and quick action, but we also want the measures introduced in this Bill to be effective in the long term.
Cryptoassets are extremely difficult to trace. The difficulty in tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets, the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets and the advent of AI-assisted technologies that can break cryptoassets into small amounts, below any threshold at which donations may have to be declared, create serious risks for political finance transparency. There is also a real risk of cryptoassets being used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the UK political system, and neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties currently have the capability and expertise to manage that risk adequately. New clause 20 would require parties to declare the cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. Given the clear issues with crypto donations, the public should surely expect transparency on them.
On new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examined the merits and risks of allowing crypto donations, noting that benefits include the potential for greater transparency in some cases, and for regulations to gradually institutionalise alternative forms of payments. However, the Committee concluded:
“Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate. We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.”
Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance, with the Committee report going on to say that
“donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.”
New clause 12 therefore calls for an immediate moratorium on crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance, which should be made using the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to review its adequacy before it is accepted. That guidance could include measures regarding the donor’s identity and location, the original source of funds and maximum limits on the amount of crypto that may be donated.
It is also worth mentioning that, as we have seen in the press in the last couple of weeks, a leader of a UK political party has been promoting the use of cryptoassets and has gained financially from doing so. We should all spend a moment to reflect on why somebody would want to do that, particularly when cryptoassets are not risk-free. Promoting their use, and the use of gold bars as an investment tool, should be beyond what is acceptable for an elected Member of this House. I encourage anybody, particularly people who purport to lead a political party in this country, to really think about the impact of their actions, particularly when it is for financial gain. On that basis, I commend new clauses 12 and 20 to the Committee.
Paul Holmes
I will touch very briefly on the new clauses that have been tabled. I thank RUSI for the report that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined. I had a meeting with RUSI yesterday, and the fact that it was able to even start to break the ice of my understanding of cryptocurrency and the regulatory framework that is needed was a miracle. It has done a lot of work on this issue, and I congratulate it on coming up with quite sensible proposals and information that goes into detail about the benefits of a ban versus a moratorium.
It is very easy in this House to ban things, but we do not want a ban that creates a worse problem by moving that cryptocurrency upstream. Therefore, as the official Opposition we welcome the idea that there should be a moratorium. We also welcome the fact that the Government implemented an immediate ban pending a review. If a moratorium goes ahead, we need to make sure that an adequate regulatory framework is implemented to prevent some of the exploitative measures that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove outlined in her excellent contribution.
As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined, we are discussing in this Bill Committee probably the most important aspect of the integrity of the electoral process. There are plenty of others in that competition, but the most important aspect of that is foreign interference and donations, including cryptocurrency donations. We are being asked to give the Government our trust—and I do trust the Minister—that these changes are going to happen very soon. The hon. Member is absolutely correct to say that this is the most intense part of the parliamentary process. At the moment, we are being asked to debate new clauses put forward by Opposition parties. We are relying on the Government to give these matters just as much importance, yet they have not given that timescale.
I am torn on new clause 4. I understand the intention of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but at the moment my feeling is that new clause 4 is really not worth agreeing to. That is because of the evidence given to me by RUSI, which shows that preventing parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets does not solve the issue of those cryptoassets getting through to candidates and parties, or interested parties, later down the line.
The briefing that was given to me by RUSI about the potential drawbacks of a ban mean that I am not satisfied that new clause 4 would do anything at this precise moment. I rose to speak because I want to sincerely give the official Opposition’s commitment to assist if the Minister wants to engage on a cross-party basis. That has my contention at other stages of the Bill Committee—we stand ready to assist on a cross-party basis to really speed up the passage of elements of the Bill, including on this matter. I would never speak on behalf of other parties, but I am sure that stands for them as well.
Lisa Smart
As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning other parties and as I represent one of those other parties, it is only appropriate that I stand up and agree with him wholeheartedly. Everybody in the Chamber and beyond wants us to get this issue right. It is not a party political point. As the hon. Gentleman is, I and we are ready to work cross-party to get it right. If that means us doing some extra work between the various stages of the Bill, I would be completely content to be part of that.
Paul Holmes
I thank both hon. Members. Who would have thought that I could get some agreement from the Liberal Democrats and the Green party? I entirely welcome it: they are absolutely correct. This is not a party political matter; it is a genuine attempt to fill the void that the Government have created through the lack of a timetable for ensuring that we tackle this issue.
The Minister is correct to say that this is a really complicated issue, so we must get it right in this legislation. Electoral reform legislation usually comes before the House only every decade and if we do not get it right, we will allow malign influences into the political process. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously. We stand ready, between stages of the Bill, to have a meeting on a cross-party basis, perhaps through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The Opposition think that a moratorium is better than a ban, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place. We stand ready to assist.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 4 seeks to make donations made to a registered political party, candidate or agent impermissible if the donation is made wholly or in part with cryptoassets.
New clause 12 purports to take a power so that the Secretary of State may make regulations, drafted by the Electoral Commission, mandating various requirements relating to the political donation of cryptoassets. It seeks to establish that political donations made via cryptoassets would be deemed impermissible unless those regulations were met. It intends to create an effective moratorium on cryptoasset donations until those regulations would be in force. On 25 March, the Secretary of State published the report of the independent review by Sir Philip Rycroft—sorry, I keep knighting him.
Samantha Dixon
It is only a matter of time.
As Members know, we have accepted the review’s recommendation for a moratorium on the use of cryptoassets as political donations in order to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference, and we have been clear that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on this important matter in due course. In doing so, we will work closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that our proposals are robust and provide sufficient protection for our democracy.
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked when the moratorium would end. We intend for it to end once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are confident that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference. I have noted her comment about the FCA. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her new clause.
New clause 20 would require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing donations received by the party made in cryptoassets for the last five years. We agree that cryptoassets present a significant risk, different from other forms of donation. In line with the recommendations from Rycroft, the Secretary of State has announced the moratorium, which we will bring forward in an amendment to the Bill. I recognise that that amendment would result in the Electoral Commission examining donations already made via cryptoassets before the moratorium was in place.
We are reducing the risk going forward, but I should highlight that there have already been some safeguards in place with regards to donations made with cryptoassets before the moratorium. Both existing law and guidance from the Electoral Commission are clear that that the rules and regulations for political donations made in fiat currency also apply to donations made via cryptoassets. It is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or facilitating an impermissible donation. It would be an offence to cash in cryptocurrency and then use the resulting funds to make a donation, if that were knowingly done to conceal or disguise a donation from an impermissible donor. As such, it is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations.
Guidance from the Electoral Commission also makes it clear that recipients must be alert to donors appearing to circumvent permissibility rules, such as by making multiple donations beneath reporting thresholds. I also highlight the fact that the Electoral Commission already has existing investigatory and enforcement powers when there are grounds to suspect illegal activity, including the power to request information or required documentation.
Samantha Dixon
He did. I invited him to come and talk to me about the Bill; other Members received their letters and came.
Putting that to one side—I am being slightly flippant—this has been a very fast-moving environment, and policy has been formulated very quickly in response to Rycroft. I undertake to work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Members of all parties as we go forward with the Bill—this is not the end of its passage.
I note the comment made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about having a longer Committee stage, but I am mindful that the implementation of other areas of policy needs to continue—so that we can, for example, introduce votes at 16 in time for the next general election. Although we want to go longer, we also want to go quicker. We will work collaboratively as we go forward.
Paul Holmes
I think the Minister is being slightly sneaky, dare I suggest: she did write to me about having meetings, but there were no proposals in the Bill on cryptocurrency and there still are not. Therefore, that issue was perhaps not within the remit of the legislation. When it came to other aspects of the Bill, I presumed that we would have gone through the usual channels and passages in Committee. The Minister is absolutely right that we did not meet, but that did not include the issue of cryptocurrency in this legislation.
Samantha Dixon
However, had the hon. Gentleman come along, he would have had the opportunity to raise anything he wanted to discuss, as other Members did— I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.
Given the assurances I have provided, particularly that the Government intend to table an amendment on the moratorium period for cryptocurrencies, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will consider withdrawing her new clause.
Dr Chowns
I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, and I recognise that the Government have stated their intention to bring other amendments forward. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government, not necessarily just in formal settings, on the specifics of the issues and concerns I raise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Overseas electors: postal ballots
“(1) RPA 1985 is amended as follows.
(2) After section (12) insert—
‘12A Overseas electors: postal ballots
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision regarding the casting of postal ballots by overseas electors.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must provide for overseas electors to be offered the ability—
(a) to request an electronic version of their ballot paper for elections to print using the elector’s own printing facilities; and
(b) in a relevant country, to return their completed ballot paper to a United Kingdom embassy, High Commission or consulate for onward delivery to the relevant returning officer by diplomatic mail to be counted.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “a relevant country” is one where the United Kingdom maintains an embassy, Hight Commission or consulate.
(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
5) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Overseas electors: information on voter registration by the UK Passport Office—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report containing proposals to require the UK Passport Office to provide information on voter registration to United Kingdom residents overseas when they—
(a) apply for a passport; or
(b) apply to renew their passport.”
New clause 8—Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
New clause 42—Overseas electors: reform to voting process—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must, by regulations, make provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at a United Kingdom Embassy, High Commission or consulate at United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
(2) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
New clause 43—Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad—
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to allow overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passport online.
Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—
“(ha) section (Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots)”
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
Zöe Franklin
New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), picks up on the 2024 voting reforms that expanded eligibility for around 1.4 million to 3.4 million people—yet of those individuals, only 191,000 overseas voters are registered. I suggest that that is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a failure of the system to make voting workable for those living abroad. What that means practically is that the UK is now near the bottom internationally for how effectively it enables our overseas citizens to vote.
One of the core problems is postal voting, as it does not work reliably for those living overseas. According to the Electoral Commission, only 52% of overseas postal ballots arrive in time to be counted. Following conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and other organisations—we took evidence on this during the Committee evidence sessions—it is clear that overseas voters are seeking practical changes that would enable them to reliably cast their votes securely and more easily and reliably. The proposed new clause sets out methods for doing so, including secure downloading and printing of ballots and returning ballots to embassies and consulates. It is worth noting that such a system is already used in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.
I turn to new clause 7. Another part of the problem for overseas voters is that they are simply not aware that they can register to vote or of how they can do so. One option, discussed in the Committee evidence sessions, is to provide an opportunity at the passport renewal and application stage, when they could be given this information. When a UK citizen applies for or renews a passport, they already provide proof of identity, their overseas address and their last UK address: everything needed for voter registration.
Voters should be simply prompted and given the option to register at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot is not suggesting that they should be automatically registered, but given that the Bill seeks to roll out automatic voter registration and my hon. Friend has posed the question to the Government, providing an automatic moment to tell people they can register to vote and how to do so would be within the scope of the Bill and an opportunity the Bill could take.
I move on to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). New clause 8 and the associated amendment 3, which is consequential on the new clause and also tabled by my hon. Friend, would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024–25 and its review of the general election. With over 3.5 million British citizens abroad eligible to vote, it is important for the Government to use this Bill as an opportunity to break down barriers to voting so that citizens can be fairly represented.
In the last general election, fewer citizens abroad were registered to vote than in 2019, in spite of an historic expansion of eligibility to vote following the scrapping of the 10-year rule. I have already outlined in my comments on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that ballots can end up arriving too late for overseas citizens to be able to cast their votes, and proxies can be problematic to arrange if they no longer have contacts here in the UK to cast votes for them.
It is estimated that only 25% of citizens abroad know their rights and that they can vote, and only 48% of postal votes were returned; of course, the number varies slightly depending on which organisation we reference. I have already outlined that there are other countries with systems in place that enable their citizens overseas to cast their vote in an easier, secure and reliable way.
So far it appears the Government have been unwilling to take the steps necessary to make things easier for overseas voters. The new clauses are designed to ensure that the Government take steps to investigate how to make overseas voting easier for our constituents. Can the Minister outline whether the Government will support any of the new clauses in the name of my colleagues? If not, can she outline how the Government intend to ensure that overseas voters are able to cast their ballot in a safe, secure and reliable way?
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, Dame Siobhain, but am I allowed to speak to new clauses 42 and 43?
Paul Holmes
Thank you very much for your nod of assent, Dame Siobhain, and to the Clerk.
This group of new clauses are integral to the Bill. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford, said they relate to one of the holes in this legislation. As I outlined earlier, electoral reform legislation generally comes to this House probably once every decade, and that is why we should treat it as important and use it to try to right some of the wrongs or deficiencies within our electoral system.
We seriously believe that the rights of overseas voters are important. Let us cast our minds back to what seems like an age ago, when we had the evidence sessions of this Bill Committee. Each of our respective political parties, including the governing party, has honourable volunteers trying to advocate the rights of voters living abroad. At the moment, there is no attempt from the Government to try to right some of the wrongs and include overseas voters in our democratic process as they should be.
New clause 43 is similar to the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Guildford in new clause 8. It would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to grant overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passports. New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections. We believe that those are proportionate and sensible measures to include some overseas voters.
I understand there may be an intervention that says, “What if people cannot get to consulates or embassies?” We believe new clause 42 would be the first step to ensure a full review of the overseas elector system. We understand that some people could be excluded because of geography, but we believe that it would be a step towards increasing the low engagement rate that we have seen in past elections.
On new clause 43, there is a democratic deficit with overseas voters. We think it should be made easier to register to vote as an overseas elector. Therefore, when people renew their passports, we believe that the new gov.uk one-stop-shop website that the Government set up—I used it the other day—would be a perfect online tool for that. That would help the participation rate of overseas electors, which, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, is notoriously low and something we all want to improve.
The Elections Act introduced a series of measures to support British citizens living overseas. That included votes for life, by removing the previous 15-year cap on being registered. However, the Electoral Commission’s evaluation of the 2024 general election found a series of practical obstacles in the way of overseas voters—we heard from them at the evidence session—especially for those who live a long way away and may be unable to send their postal votes back in time.
Only 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted, and the return rate in Australia was a mere 6%, as evidenced in the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election. That is nothing less than tangible disenfranchisement, and that needs to be corrected.
In new clause 8, the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to do that by establishing at least a feasibility study on how we do that. This is very similar to discussions with regard to cryptocurrency; by using those organisations that gave evidence, every party can feed into the review and the feasibility study. That is perfectly admirable, but I argue that that is a longer-term thing. Our new clauses 42 and 43 would bring in practicable steps now to engage that participatory process. As I say, we perfectly accept that it would not solve every issue, but it would include those participation rates.
Samantha Dixon
It is not true that the Government do not have an eagerness to resolve issues for overseas voters. They are legitimate voters who should be able to exercise their right to vote without unnecessary barriers, and we recognise the difficulties that they face in trying to participate. Many choose to vote by post, and improvements are being made in the Bill to the postal voting system, which should be beneficial to overseas voters.
The purpose of new clause 6 is to allow for overseas electors to print their own ballot paper. They would then be able to deliver their completed ballot to the relevant consulate, embassy or high commission, to then be delivered to the relevant returning officers via diplomatic mail. That process could allow overseas ballot papers to be posted earlier and reduce the chance that they arrive too late to be counted.
I have already put forward a range of measures in the Bill to improve the resilience and responsiveness of the postal voting system, including changes to deadlines to allow swifter printing and delivery of postal vote packs. The Government welcome suggestions on further improvements that we could make to our postal voting system, but unfortunately we cannot support this new clause. All ballot papers must be uniformly printed and contain security markings to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and prevent fraud. It would not be possible to replicate that consistently if ballot papers were printed on home printers.
New clause 7 relates to using engagement with the UK Passport Office as a means of encouraging UK citizens living overseas to register to vote. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months of the passing of the Bill. The report would cover proposals requiring the UK Passport Office to provide UK citizens living overseas with information on voter registration for UK elections when they apply for a passport or renew their passport.
The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. We intend to explore and test a range of new, automated approaches that make better use of data and make the process easier and quicker for citizens. Separately to the Bill, we are exploring making better use of data that eligible citizens are already providing for other services, and helping to encourage people to register, vote or update their entries on the register. Our focus is on delivering on automated registration approaches, including those set out in the Bill, which allow us to improve voter registration for a greater range of electors.
The purpose of new clause 8 and amendment 3 is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing a range of options to support postal voting for overseas electors. We always welcome feedback and new ideas about how we can improve any aspect of our electoral system, and I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Guildford in this topic. As we have said, the Government recognise the challenges for those who live in remote areas overseas. However, I am afraid I do not believe that the costs of drafting and publishing this report could be justified.
Many of the proposals are frequently suggested and have been thoroughly considered already. Though it is possible that they could support the timely delivery of postal votes, they may come with considerable risks. For example, the use of online or telephone voting, or the digital transmission of ballot papers, would create unacceptable risks to the security and secrecy of those ballots. I note that the Bill already contains a number of measures specifically aimed at tackling those issues and improving the resilience and reliability of the postal voting system.
In particular, on the suggestion set out in subsection 2(e) of the new clause—that we should review deadlines and practices relating to the dispatching of postal ballots—the Government have already conducted a review on precisely that matter. The Bill will make a number of changes to improve the system, such as bringing forward the postal vote application deadline and formalising a postal vote determination date. I hope that Members will welcome and support those changes.
I now turn to new clauses 42 and 43 tabled by the Opposition. The purpose of new clause 42 is to require the Secretary of State to make a provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at UK embassies, high commissions or consulates for parliamentary elections. The Government have considered the suggestion and feel it would be a significant logistical undertaking that would not yield sufficient benefits to overseas electors.
For example, embassies could need to run polling stations covering all 650 constituencies, and every returning officer would need to oversee the activity in every embassy. Each embassy would need to be equipped with all the relevant ballot papers, registers and other materials needed—and could need up to 650 variations of these. Any benefits of embassy voting would be limited to electors living close to diplomatic premises, and it is therefore difficult to justify the additional costs that would arise from the suggestion.
We have no plans to introduce such a system of voting. Instead, we are focused on improving the current systems for overseas electors—such as postal and proxy voting—so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone. There are a number of measures on postal and proxy voting in the Bill, and I hope Members will be supportive of them.
New clause 43 would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online. The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. There are already existing powers that will allow us to explore and test a range of more automated approaches that involve integrating registering to vote with government services. They will make the process of voter registration easier and quicker for citizens. Our focus is on more automated registration methods that will benefit a greater range of electors.
Zöe Franklin
I thank the Minister for her comments, but I sadly remain unconvinced that we are addressing the significant problems that overseas voters are encountering when they seek to be involved with our democracy. They may live overseas, but they are still British citizens and deserve to be able to cast their vote. I will not press new clauses 6 and 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, to a Division. However, I intend to press new clause 8 to a Division, if that is feasible, Dame Siobhain.
Zöe Franklin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”.—(Zöe Franklin.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 16th April 2026
(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 April 2026 - (16 Apr 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 23, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—
“(ha) Section (Report on electoral online harms)”.
Dr Chowns
I will briefly speak to the new clause, because it is important, and has clearly garnered support from a large number of Government MPs—indeed, the second signatory is the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah).
The new clause is quite reasonable; it simply would require the Electoral Commission to publish a report setting out its assessment of the risk of electoral online harms. As we have already discussed in Committee, there is clear evidence of electoral online harms, so it would be useful to ask the Electoral Commission to produce such a report to set the risks out clearly and the measures it intends to take to address them.
I will not press the new clause to a vote. I am open as to whether this necessarily needs to be in statute or simply in Government guidance, but it is an important element of improving the safeguards against online harms in our electoral system. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her comments. We have seen this over the last couple of elections in ’19 and ’24, and we are going to see it again in local and national elections: our regulatory framework is not keeping pace. As far as I am aware, there is no electoral framework—I would love to hear from the Minister on this—for anyone to systematically map the risks posed by deepfakes and associated online issues. Voters deserve to make free, informed choices, not tainted by some of the things that are seen online. I hope that the Government will take this forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Government do not believe that the new clause is the right or effective way to address these concerns, although we acknowledge the seriousness of the issue that our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) is raising.
The new clause would risk blurring regulatory boundaries between two rightly independent regulators. The Electoral Commission and Ofcom have distinct statutory roles, with Ofcom responsible for regulation and enforcement of online safety duties on services. Requiring the Electoral Commission to make proposals for amending the Online Safety Act 2023 would cut across that, and risk duplication in an area where clarity is essential.
Secondly, the Electoral Commission already has the power under section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to produce and publish reports on matters relating to elections where it considers that appropriate. We therefore do not consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate a further statutory report.
I would also note the risk of duplication with the recent Speaker’s Conference report, which examined these issues and included evidence from the Electoral Commission. The Government welcomed the conference’s findings, and our response was published on 5 March. Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom is the independent regulator responsible for overseeing the risk-based framework, including publishing codes of practice and requiring the largest services to provide transparency reports about their systems and processes for addressing online harms. That framework provides an appropriate basis for regulatory oversight and platform accountability.
The Online Safety Act also places clear duties on services that host user-generated content to tackle illegal content online, including illegal abuse, threats and incitement of violence. Ofcom is now implementing and enforcing that framework, and the Government will work closely with Ofcom, the Electoral Commission and law enforcement through existing arrangements. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 24
Repository of digital political advertising
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 61 insert—
‘Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising
61A. Establishing a repository of digital political advertising
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;
(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;
(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and
(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.
(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
(c) OFCOM.
(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.’” —(Paul Holmes.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Chowns
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Government to establish and publish a transparent protocol for responding to election information incidents and place that protocol on a statutory footing. That is important, because there is currently no clear, publicly accountable mechanism in the UK for informing voters about serious information incidents during election periods, such as co-ordinated disinformation campaigns or foreign interference.
Although there may be internal processes, under the radar, in Government, those are not transparent, they lack clear triggers for action and they are not subject to democratic oversight. Their absence creates uncertainty about how and when the public would be notified if there were such attacks or threats to the integrity of an election. That potentially undermines trust, and leaves voters without information and potentially exposed to unchallenged misinformation at critical moments during an election. We can all recognise that that is a growing threat.
The new clause would address that gap. It would establish a clear, publicly accessible protocol that would set out how, why and when election information incidents would be identified, assessed and communicated to the general public. The rise of disinformation has shown that co-ordinated online campaigns, bot campaigns and so forth can spread very rapidly during election periods, and can influence public perception before corrective action is taken. I will not name particular electoral processes, but we can all call examples to mind. It is a problem that we lack a transparent framework for dealing with public notification when such incidents occur.
Other democracies have taken steps in this regard; most notably, Canada has already introduced a formal mechanism to respond to these risks. That highlights the gap in the UK. We should look at international best practice on this issue. We should be trying to stay ahead of—or at least catch up with—the threats that our democracy faces, as fast as possible.
The new clause is clearly directly related to the Bill, so I would welcome the Minister’s response. To clarify, I do not intend to press it to a vote—I should have mentioned that it was tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central—but I move it because it raises an important issue that is crucial to the safety of our elections.
Samantha Dixon
These are important issues, and I thank the hon. Member for raising them.
Earlier today, I described the work of the Joint Elections Security and Preparedness Unit, which exists as an enduring function to protect our elections and our democracy; that includes monitoring for mis and disinformation. The JESP election cell brings together Whitehall Departments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as key stakeholders to agree monitoring thresholds and response options where necessary. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is a core member of JESP’s election cell, as is the Electoral Commission.
Dr Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Cap on political donations
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54B (Declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied) insert—
‘54C Power to set cap on political donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation from a person if the value of donations from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds the maximum amount specified by regulations made under subsection (3).
(2) Where a registered party receives a donation which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the donation limit for the purposes of subsection (1) within three months of the day on which this act is passed.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Before laying a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the level of the cap on political donations.
(6) The review must consider and make recommendations on the level of the cap in light of—
(a) the prevailing economic conditions;
(b) the effect of the cap on democratic participation and political competition; and
(c) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(7) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person or panel with relevant experience to conduct the review.
(8) The person or panel appointed under subsection (7) must—
(a) consult the Electoral Commission and any other persons the person or panel considers relevant; and
(b) prepare and publish a report of its findings.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (9)(b) before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.
(10) No later than three years after a report under subsection (10) has been laid the Secretary of State must commission a new review under subsection (5) for the purposes of determining whether the cap under subsection (1) should be amended.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on permissible political donations from a person, following an independent review to be conduct every three years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 54—Proposals for a Royal Commission on political donations and campaign expenditure—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider—
(a) the merits of a cap on political donations, and the level at which such a cap should be set, and
(b) the effectiveness of existing limits on campaign expenditure, including the appropriateness of the time period during which those limits apply.
(2) Proposals published under this section must include proposals for the Royal Commission’s—
(a) terms of reference,
(b) membership, and
(c) funding.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a Royal Commission to consider a cap on political donations and the effectiveness of existing campaign expenditure limits.
New clause 58—Review of how limits on campaign expenditure could apply on annual basis—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties.
(2) The review must consider how annual campaign expenditure limits could—
(a) promote transparency and fairness in elections;
(b) limit the risk of foreign interference in elections; and
(c) be implemented in a proportionate manner without undue impact on political parties, candidates and third parties.
(3) In conducting the review, the Electoral Commission must consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission.
(4) The Electoral Commission must publish a report of its findings no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report, lay before both Houses of Parliament, a response to the report.
(6) The response to the report must contain proposals informed by the Electoral Commission’s report.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties, and for the Government to respond to the report and bring forward proposals based on the Electoral Commission’s findings.
New clause 65—National limits on campaign expenditure by political parties—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 (parliamentary general elections)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘£54,010’ substitute ‘£37,600’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for ‘£1,458,440’ substitute ‘£1,015,100’;
(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), for ‘£216,060’ substitute ‘£150,390’;
(d) in sub-paragraph (3)(c), for ‘£108,030’ substitute ‘£75,200’;
(e) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘£54,010’ substitute ‘£37,600’.
(3) In paragraph 2(1) (d) of Schedule 8 (exclusions), after ‘the party’ insert ‘other than those who are employed wholly or mainly for the purpose of an election campaign.’”
This new clause lowers the national campaign spending limits for political parties and includes campaign staff costs within their scope.
Zöe Franklin
The new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), goes to the heart of this basic question: who does our democracy serve—voters or those with the deepest pockets? It would introduce a cap on political donations from any one individual or entity each year, with that cap set following independent review and approved by Parliament. It would ensure that the level is kept under regular review so that it remains appropriate over time. At present, there is no upper limit on political donations in the UK, which is a striking gap in our system that allows vast sums to be given by a single donor, creating the risk of disproportionate influence by an individual.
Already, too many people across the UK look at our politics and see a system that appears to be tilted towards those with wealth and access. They question whether decisions are made in the public interest, or in the interests of those who can afford to make the largest contributions. That is unsustainable, and it undermines our democracy. My hon. Friend wishes to be clear that the new clause is not about stopping people supporting political parties; it is about drawing a reasonable line to ensure that no individual or organisation can dominate political funding simply because of the scale of their resources.
There is also a clear issue with integrity and security. While there are rules on permissible donors, there remain loopholes that allow money to be routed through UK-registered companies and complex structures, which creates a real risk of foreign or opaque influence on our politics. A cap alone would not resolve that problem, but it would significantly limit its scale. The new clause seeks to take a careful, balanced approach to the issue. It does not impose an arbitrary figure, but instead requires an independent, evidence-based review to recommend the level of the cap, considering economic considerations, democratic participation and political competition. It would place that decision firmly within a transparent and accountable process.
Ultimately, elections should be decided by voters persuaded by the strength of arguments, the quality of ideas and the credibility of leadership—I do not think that any member of the Committee would disagree with that. They should not be about the scale of financial backing. If we allow money to operate without meaningful limits, we undermine the fundamental democratic principle that every voice should carry equal weight. I do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it.
With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will also speak to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove. The Committee has established that, unfortunately, public trust in political funding—and sometimes in democracy itself—is at a very low point. With donations in the millions from a handful of wealthy individuals, spending wars between parties and loopholes that undermine the spirit of the rules, there is a public perception that politics can be bought and that elections can be won through the donations of the few. I think we would all agree that that is not a place we want to be.
New clause 54 calls for a royal commission to look at the evidence properly and make recommendations, which would allow for a level of independence and cross-party process. The current system allows single donors to give millions to a party, which raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served. There are limited financial provisions on long campaigns; significant money is spent well before the official period begins and the limits do not catch that.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater transparency in political spending; the real-time disclosure of donations, a cap on political donations and annual expenditure limits sits squarely within that agenda.
Dr Chowns
I will speak to new clauses 30 and 54, tabled by the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Hazel Grove respectively, which both deal with the important topic of a cap on donations. I will then speak to new clauses 58 in my name and new clause 65 in the name of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which both deal with limits on campaign expenditure, as the two topics are closely related.
First, as the hon. Member for Guildford just set out, there is a very strong case for having a cap on political donations, which the Government have recognised to some extent in promising to take forward the Rycroft recommendations on instituting a cap on donations from British citizens living abroad. However, on the broader question of donations from any British voter, the issue of the total amount of donations, and the number of very large donations, has significantly increased over time. The public widely recognise the extent to which political parties—some, in particular—are reliant on funds contributed by a small handful of very wealthy donors, and it is a rightly a cause for concern for a large majority of them. As the public understand, that carries the risk that individuals with very deep pockets can potentially have a disproportionate influence on our politics.
Back in 2011, the Committee on Standards in Public Life produced a report addressing precisely this risk, the problem of increased reliance on significant donations, and recommended a donations cap. That was 15 years ago. The problem has only become more and more significant since then, as we have seen just within the last year with several donations in the many millions of pounds to one political party. This is clearly a problem and a risk to our politics—and a risk that has been recognised worldwide.
As I understand it, about half of countries globally and well over two thirds of European countries impose some sort of limit on donations. The UK was one of I think 22 signatories to a UN resolution in December 2025 that identified the risk of corruption in politics from large donations and called for countries to consider instituting a cap on donations. It would only be consistent with our signing that UN resolution for us to take action on this ourselves.
Philip Rycroft, if I may quote directly from page 29 of his report, identified this problem too. He talked about his worries that the lack of year-round spending limits on campaign expenditure plus the lack of limits on donations could lead to an
“arms race among political parties and actors to out-raise and out-spend their competitors.”
Although he felt that this issue fell beyond his remit, he pointed out that it was
“something that could be usefully debated during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill”,
so I am very glad that a number of colleagues have tabled amendments to allow us to discuss it and to hear from the Government.
This proposal is widely supported by a large number of individuals and organisations that submitted evidence to this Committee—the Electoral Reform Society, Transparency International, Spotlight on Corruption, Open Britain and a whole range of others—and by a number of academics who specialise in this area: Sam Power, who gave evidence to us, Alan Renwick and a number of others. Transparency International points out:
“Other comparable democracies have sought to curb the corrosive influence of big money in politics by setting donation caps…Canada caps donations to political parties at CA$1,750 annually; France caps donations to political parties at €7,500 annually and €4,500 for presidential campaigns; Italy’s cap is €100,000…and Australia has introduced AU$50,000 caps per donor per year, due to apply from July 2026.”
This proposal has been recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as I have said, and by the Hayden Phillips review, and it is supported by a majority of voters. YouGov polling published in December 2025 showed that 67% of UK voters say that there should be a cap of £50,000 or less, or indeed no private donations at all—some people feel the system should be dealt with like that.
I will briefly pre-empt a point that I suspect the Minister will raise in her response, the fact that some other countries have greater state funding of politics. A balance has to be struck. My case is not that there should be no ability for voters to contribute to politics; arguably, that is an important part of the democratic process. The problem is that in a democracy, in which by definition one person has one vote, money can buy huge amounts of influence that outweigh and hugely influence many of those votes. If a party has received many millions of pounds just in the past six months, it is not surprising that it will have a capacity to spend that in the non-regulated period in a way that is highly likely to influence voting.
There is therefore a strong case for introducing some sort of annual donation cap now. Transparency International advocates for that being £50,000 a year. The CSPL, I believe, advocated for £10,000 a year, although that was 16 years ago; if we multiply that by inflation, it is about £15,000 a year now. Others have talked about £100,000 a year, which would bring the cap in line with the system that the Government have already committed to putting in place for donations from British voters overseas.
There is clearly a problem with the distortion of our political system caused by the influence of big money, big donations in politics, and we have a crucial opportunity, in the passage of this Bill, to take action to address it. On many of the other issues that we have talked about—company donations, the influence of foreign money, crypto donations—I have repeatedly drawn a connection with the need for a cap on all political donations, because those things cannot be completely divorced. We will not be able to address the issues that concern us in relation to the distorting effect of money on our politics if we do not implement a cap on political donations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 30 seeks to place a cap on the amount a person can donate to registered political parties in a calendar year. The Government aim to strike the right balance in relation to political donations to protect against foreign interference and improve transparency, while also ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigning.
This new clause goes a step too far in restricting legitimate donations and could significantly limit parties’ ability to raise sufficient funds to communicate their views to the electorate—an essential part of a healthy democracy and effective election process.
Samantha Dixon
I would prefer to press on; the hon. Lady will be able to respond later.
To better protect against those who seek to covertly undermine UK elections, we are instead strengthening rules and closing loopholes at all stages of the political donations process. I have described the measures in some detail earlier today: “know your donor”, the three steps for foreign companies, and the consideration we are giving to the Rycroft review.
A cap is not being placed across all donations because currently the majority of funding for political parties in the UK comes from private, corporate or other organisational sources. State funding accounts for around 10% of the total income of UK political parties. There is no public or political appetite to increase the level of state funding. I urge hon. Members of this Committee to reject this new clause.
New clause 54 proposes that the Secretary of State shares plans for establishing a royal commission to consider the effectiveness and merits of political expenditure controls and, in particular, a cap on political donations. A public inquiry is an extremely costly and lengthy process. Instead, we have already sought to ensure that our democracy is strengthened by considering recommendations from authorities and expert bodies in this area, including the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency.
Those risks and recommended solutions were taken forward and set out in our strategy for modern and secure elections, published on 17 July last year. Those commitments are now set out in full in this Bill. To ensure no stone was left unturned, the Secretary of State commissioned the independent Rycroft review to see where we could strengthen our laws and what could be recommended to protect against covert funding and foreign interference. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will withdraw new clause 54.
The purpose of new clause 58 is to require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of the feasibility of a cap on annual expenditure by political parties, candidates and third parties, and then for the Government to issue a response containing proposals informed by that review. The Government agree that transparency and fairness are vital principles to be upheld in elections. Further, it is of the utmost importance to limit the risk of foreign interference.
We are committed to ensuring that we have robust systems to protect the UK from foreign interference, and this Bill reinforces electoral legislation against foreign interference. The commitment of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to fairness and transparency in elections has been clear throughout the parliamentary process, and I share that commitment. The Government note the recommendations of the Rycroft review and will respond to those measures in due course.
New clause 65 would substantially cut national spending limits for political parties and would, for the first time, bring most campaign staff costs within scope. National spending limits were intended to strike a careful balance, allowing parties to communicate effectively with voters across the country while preventing money from dominating elections. In practice, parties generally campaign within the cap, which operates as a ceiling rather than a target. Those limits were set by Parliament in 2000 and have been uprated over time to maintain their real-world value.
Periodic uprating helps avoid eroding parties’ ability to communicate effectively with the electorate, so is consistent with the original policy intent that Parliament approved. The proposal to include campaign staff costs would represent a significant change to the regulatory framework, introducing additional complexity in how parties define roles and apportion costs. There is not currently clear evidence of a problem with this arrangement.
The Government note the issues raised about the level of the spending limits, including those highlighted by the independent Rycroft review. As Members know, we are considering those very carefully and will respond in due course. On that basis—and to allow that work to be completed first—I invite the hon. Member to seek to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chowns
I have three quick points. First, the Minister implied that any limit on donations is unacceptable to her. That seems a very extreme position for the Government to take. Is that really the Government’s position in responding to new clause 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon? The Minister seems to be taking that position, yet that new clause does not specify a particular level but that a cap should be set after a review, which is itself regularly reviewed. That seems a very reasonable approach. Does the Minister not recognise at all even the theoretical possibility that large donations can skew our politics? I would find that an extraordinary position for the Government to take.
Secondly, this seems to be completely inconsistent with the fact that last year the UK and at least 59 other countries co-sponsored a resolution passed at the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption that calls on states parties to consider limitations on donations
“with a view to combating corruption”.
The Government have already recognised that large donations into the political system carry a risk of corruption.
I do not expect the Minister to put a number on the table today, but to be consistent, would the Minister please take this away for consideration alongside the other issues that have come out of the Rycroft review? It is clear through this Bill Committee process that we need amendments to come forward that are not just driven by Rycroft, but also by some of the issues that Rycroft himself has highlighted as relevant yet outwith the specific terms of reference of his report—certainly including caps on political donations, expansion of the regulated period and reform of political advertising.
Thirdly, there is the point about how politics in the UK is largely funded through private company and trade union donations—I tried to pre-empt this, but the Minister did come back with it as well. I have not at any point argued for more state funding of politics—that could be a separate debate, but I am not arguing that. By discussing the arguments in favour of a cap on donations, together with the arguments for stronger limits on expenditure, I am arguing for a politics in which money skews politics less overall.
We can surely recognise that if one person can contribute—for the sake of argument—£9 million to an organisation or political actor then that will inevitably have a hugely skewing impact on our politics. Do the Government really not recognise that? Will the Government really not take any steps to limit political donations and that skewing and pollution of our politics?
Zöe Franklin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 34—Commencement of Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay an order under section 216 (commencement) of the Equality Act 2010 to commence section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of that Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 within three months, which would require political parties to publish information on the protected characteristics of candidates in parliamentary elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and to the Senedd.
New clause 35—Electoral Commission: Publication of information about diversity in range of candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 13A (reimbursement of costs by Scottish Ministers etc.) insert—
‘13ZAA Collection and publication of information about diversity in range of candidates
(1) The Commission shall collect information published under section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of the Equality Act 2010.
(2) The Commission shall publish the information collected under subsection (1) in an accessible form at such intervals as the Commissioners consider appropriate.’”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to collect and publish in an accessible form diversity information required to be provided by political parties under section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.
Zöe Franklin
New clause 31 would require the Secretary of State to use regulations to ensure that the Electoral Commission established a fund to help disabled candidates meet additional disability-related campaign costs in England. Historically in England, the access to elected office fund and the EnAble fund provided funding for practical support and reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for disabled candidates standing for election. That could include help with communication, transport or personal assistance, not general campaign costs.
The interim £250,000 EnAble fund was launched in 2018. It involved a two-stage approval process, with an independent panel of experts on disability as well as the political groups of the Local Government Association. In total, 41 candidates were awarded funding and 45% of those were elected. In the 2022 Scottish local elections, 46 people got support from a similar fund available in Scotland; of those, 22 were elected.
Based on those numbers, I would suggest that the types of funds that provide support make a tangible difference. However, the English fund was discontinued in 2020 and, although I understand the Government have indicated that they wish to do something about that, it has not yet been reinstated and an alternative has not been put forward. That leaves a distinct inequality between the different nations of Britain—Wales and Scotland both have funded schemes; England does not.
Representation in politics is crucial, whether here in Parliament or in our council chambers across the country. The House of Commons Library estimates that 25% of the UK population is disabled, with 24% of working adults stating that they are disabled. A truly representative parliamentary House would have 156 MPs indicating that they have a disability, yet only 12 declare themselves as having a disability—less than 2% of Parliament. According to the Local Government Association’s 2022 census, approximately 15% of local authority councillors in England declared a disability or long-term health condition. Essentially, we are consistently not returning a set of councillors or MPs that is truly representative of the people we seek to serve.
In my view, that is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Establishing a new fund in England to provide that support is absolutely crucial. That change is supported by Elect Her, Centenary Action, the Jo Cox Foundation, Unlock Democracy, the Fawcett Society, the Disability Policy Centre and others. This Bill is the opportunity to right this wrong. I would welcome hearing whether the Minister agrees with the new clause. I hope that she will but if she does not, will she outline how the Government plan to support candidates with disabilities and to address this glaring disparity between the nations? We really must do better when it comes to representation of people with disabilities in our politics.
The other new clauses are also important; they continue the theme of ensuring that our democracy is truly representative of the people we serve. New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to bring section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 into force within three months of Royal Assent.
New clause 35 would place a duty in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is the main law governing political parties, campaign finance, donations and so on, requiring the Electoral Commission to publish the information in an accessible form. It would also give Ministers the power to require registered political parties to publish anonymised information about the diversity of the people coming forward as candidates—for example, information about protected characteristics among applicants, selected candidates and elected candidates. This duty applies only so far as it is possible to publish characteristics while, of course, retaining the privacy of the people it is referencing.
For a long time, we have as a nation talked about ensuring that that information is made available. In March 2026, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) stated:
“The Government is committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections…officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision under section 106.”
She said that there would be an update “in due course”. That was then repeated in the House of Lords. That statement took place a while ago, yet we have not seen any movement as yet.
Again, I personally feel that this Bill gives the opportunity to enact that section of the Equality Act. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister whether she supports the amendment and, if she does not, when the Government will bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act.
Dr Chowns
I will speak very briefly in support of the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which highlight really important issues. It seems extraordinary, really, that we have such inequality between England, Wales and Scotland in relation to support for disabled candidates. Clearly, with such huge levels of under-representation of disabled people in our politics, it is imperative that support is put in place to try to rectify that. I fully support the call for the reinstatement of the access to elected office fund.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I appreciate that the main focus of these amendments has been around disability. However, I was proud of the work that my party did in Government to try to improve the diversity of candidates, particularly in local elections.
Has the hon. Member given any consideration to the broader concept of diversity in terms of candidates? We know that disability can present some specific challenges, but one of the issues for political parties is about engaging those much wider communities, from which sometimes very few people feel willing to put themselves forward as candidates. Does she have a view about that that she would like to share with the Committee?
Dr Chowns
I absolutely do—indeed, that is what the next two amendments are specifically about. That clearly should be the next step; the provision was put in place in the Equality Act, so it is just about commencing something already there under section 106 that would apply to reporting on diversity with a range of protected characteristics, not just in relation to disability.
I completely agree that our politics should be representative of our population as a whole; we should all be challenging ourselves constantly, as individuals and as parties, to ensure that we are doing everything possible to address under-representation of certain groups. The lack of representation of women is particularly brought into focus by the fact that it is now nearly 100 years since the franchise was fully extended, yet women are still seriously under-represented in this House—and even more under-represented in local politics nationally. But there are many other dimensions of under-representation; while the first amendment relates specifically to support for disabled candidates, the next two amendments relate to that much wider spectrum. That is crucially important.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 31 would require the Electoral Commission to establish a fund to provide financial assistance to disabled candidates standing for election in England. It is the Government’s ambition to see more disabled people in public office, and we know that some disabled people still face additional financial barriers when contesting elected office. To address that, we are currently developing a new fund to support disabled election candidates with the disability-related extra costs they can experience, to enable participation on an equal basis.
We put the lived experience of disabled people and lessons learned from previous funds at the heart of our work to develop that new fund. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, including MPs and disabled local councillors. We have heard how ensuring ongoing support is important to providing the reassurance people need to plan for the long term, as it can take a number of attempts to get elected. The Government are able to provide that type of support without this amendment, as they have done in the past, with the access to elected office fund from 2012 to 2015 and the EnAble fund from 2018 to 2020.
As part of our work to develop the new fund, we are considering how design elements might better support longevity, retaining the flexibility needed to ensure that the fund provided is fit for purpose. Given the ongoing work that the Government are doing in this area to establish a fund, I gently ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.
I now turn to new clause 34. The Government are committed to improving representation in politics. We encourage increased diversity in Government and political candidates, and have taken action to address that. Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 is an uncommenced provision that would require registered political parties to publish anonymised data about the diversity of their candidate selections, in accordance with regulations. The Government are committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act. However, careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the supporting regulations and whether any phasing might be needed in implementation. Officials will consult with stakeholders, including political parties, in due course.
David Simmonds
One of the issues that this proposal creates is that if we are seeking to assess the accessibility of politics for candidates from a range of backgrounds, we need to know not only about those who make it through and are nominated as candidates, but about the broader range of the public from whom those candidates are drawn. It is fairly standard, in terms of equalities impact, to understand from that data who is not making it through that process.
Has the Minister given any consideration to how that concern might be addressed, beyond simply gathering the data? That may not tell us who was simply not able to make it through the process and get to the point of being nominated as a candidate in the elections covered by section 106.
Samantha Dixon
The hon. Gentleman highlights exactly why further consultation is needed. This is a complex issue, and it needs to be discussed with all the major and minor political parties to explore how candidates are encouraged to come forward and the ways in which we can support political parties to become more diverse. I hope he accepts that response.
I turn to new clause 35. The Government really are committed to better representation, and we have taken a variety of actions to address that. As I have mentioned, section 106 is uncommenced, and we are committed to commencing it with careful consideration and at the appropriate time. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clauses, as that process is already in progress.
Zöe Franklin
I hear what the Minister is saying, and I am really pleased that the Government are undertaking that process, but what concerns me is that we go through sets of elections again and again without consistency across the nations. Some in our nations are supported to stand so that have a more representative democracy, while others—here in England—are not.
I am willing to withdraw my new clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister committed to sharing a timeline. More importantly, will she commit to making information more available publicly—certainly to organisations working in this space and MPs—about what is happening about a fund to support candidates with disabilities? The same applies to my new clauses about section 106 of the Equalities Act.
One of the reasons why the new clauses had to be tabled is that, although the Government have said things on the public record, they have not shared what is happening behind the scenes. This is a matter of public interest. I will not press the new clauses to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister came back on those queries.
Samantha Dixon
I will write to the hon. Lady and provide as much information as I can.
Zöe Franklin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 33
Impact of the Act on trust in elections
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act’s provisions on trust in elections.
(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “trust in elections” includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Scottish Ministers;
(c) the Welsh Ministers;
(d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Zöe Franklin.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Zöe Franklin
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As has come up repeatedly in the Committee, trust in elections is in a very difficult place at the moment. As MPs, we really need to consider how we can address the lack of confidence that the public have in our political system and, frankly, in the voting system that is used and whether the results feel representative. While we continue to face a flood of foreign money and powerful actors working to undermine our social fabric and interfere in public life, we must make sure that we are improving the public’s confidence in the face of those threats.
The requirement to consult the devolved Governments is essential, as this law would apply across all four nations, and trust deficits are not uniform. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a voice in assessing the impact in devolved elections. The Government are already taking very welcome steps in the Bill to modernise elections, and we have the opportunity to make further reforms.
One of the most powerful causes of disillusionment within politics is a sense that people’s votes just do not count—that they turn up on polling day and their voice simply disappears into a system that does not reflect it. We believe that any serious review of representativeness has to grapple with that, and that any Bill looking to reform our elections should consider how to change that perception and the voting system to better reflect what or who people are actually voting for.
The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government, but we believe they are grasping it only in part. We need to recognise that the threat is real and urgent. Mis and disinformation and the concentration of power in the hands of too few are undermining public trust. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove seeks to address that. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Paul Holmes
I rise to speak against new clause 33, which we contend is overly restrictive. While the hon. Member frames the new clause as a shield for democracy, in reality it is a recipe for bureaucratic paralysis and a dangerous encroachment on the natural administration of our elections. I refer to the reporting mandate mechanism in new clause 33, which demands that the Secretary of State publishes a report on “trust in elections” within just 12 months. That is a purely subjective academic exercise masquerading as policy.
Trust is not a metric that we can legislate into existence; it is a subjective measure. By forcing the Government to constantly review public confidence, we are effectively inviting the Secretary of State or Ministers to politicise the very foundations of our voting system. That may be the intention of the hon. Lady, but I contend that it is just another mechanism for parties who disagree with our voting system to carp on about it every year. I say to the Liberal Democrats and to other parties that might want new clause 33 to go ahead that we have tested public opinion on new voting mechanisms. As I have said on other Bills, it should be for the Government of the day to put forward changes to the voting system and electoral law in this country.
New clause 33 mandates consultation with Ministers across all devolved nations and the Electoral Commission before a report can even be published. While I respect our devolved partners, we have to accept that it is the policy of Governments in at least two jurisdictions to have different voting systems. In fact, we have different voting systems in those devolved Administrations. It seems to me that the hon. Lady is trying to propose a veto by committee structure. If we try to measure trust in politics, First Ministers and Governments will each put forward different views on whether trust has been measured. How do we measure trust? We can poll, and look at local and national election outcomes.
Samantha Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that voting is an act of trust?
Paul Holmes
The Minister is absolutely right. I am a democrat. I believe that every hon. Member on the Committee has the backing of their constituents, albeit not by a margin that the Liberal Democrats, Greens, or other parties, might favour because they want to change the voting system. Each and every member of the Committee won more votes than each of their competitors. That is an act of trust: our constituents elected us under the system that was provided to them. That is the greatest measure of trust that can be portrayed in a result: securing a number of votes to win that election under the guidelines.
I think we are opening something of a Pandora’s box and, if I may say so, entering cloud cuckoo land if we get to a stage where this Parliament is mandating to measure public trust. There are organisations that do that. We have polling companies: in my view too many of them, and too many opinion polls—and that view is not just because the Conservative party are not in front in those polls at the moment. I find it difficult to support a requirement on the statute book for a report on the impact of the Act on trust in elections.
David Simmonds
Does my hon. Friend note, as I do, that the international gold standard for the conduct of elections is set by the Venice Commission: a group of academics and people with political experience from countries across the democratic world who meet to consider measures including voter identification, the conduct of polls, the transparency of electoral material—all those different matters. When I asked the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government had considered the input and latest reports of the Venice Commission, it was clear that the Secretary of State had not even heard of the Venice Commission. That is an example of something that would, to a degree, undermine trust and confidence in elections. As my hon. Friend is setting out, the outcome of any poll depends very much on who asks the question, how they ask it and of whom they ask it. Given that the new clause simply cannot set that out in statute, it does not add value to the Bill.
Paul Holmes
I agree with my hon. Friend. I honestly believe that the new clause does not add any value. It does the reverse. Indeed, the report that would be published within 12 months of the Bill passing could reduce trust in politics. Trust is subjective. We all have different opinions. Let us say that the Bill passes with this new clause and, 12 months after the next local elections or general election, there is a report on trust in elections. There are so many different opinions on the criteria outlined in the new clause that the Government would be reporting on, that there will be many people who disagree with the Secretary of State’s report, thereby undermining trust in the democratic process, whichever side of the coin they are on—on proportional representation, on first past the post, on the Electoral Commission, on the way in which parties were funded and on the way in which they campaigned. A general election itself is the ultimate arbiter of trust in politics.
This is one of the stranger new clauses that we have seen. I do not say that personally to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Guildford, but we should be rolling back legislation. All the way through our consideration of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats and I have called on the Electoral Commission to do more, but we have also called for the Electoral Commission to have the right resourcing to operate the mechanisms for which both we and the Government, in different respects, have been calling. The new clause will add more bureaucracy and more reporting, and it will undermine trust in the electoral system, which is already—I absolutely accept—in a very delicate state.
However, the Minister is absolutely correct. The elections, as undertaken, and the results of the elections, as determined by the democratic will of the people of this country, are the result of trust. There are many organisations that can measure trust; I do not think that it is up to the Government to measure it. It is up to Governments to lose elections if they are not trusted, and it is up to Governments, or the Opposition, to win them if they are trusted. That is the way that things should stay.
Samantha Dixon
This Bill is about building trust and confidence in our electoral system. Regarding many of the reforms in the Bill, within a year of Royal Assent—the timescale within which the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause, has suggested the report should come—they either will not have come into force or might not have had sufficient time to bed in and achieve their aims. Therefore, any assessment of impact at that stage could be premature, could risk producing misleading conclusions, and—as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley so eloquently put it—could reduce trust. For these reasons, we do not believe that there would be sufficient benefit in drafting and publishing such a report.
However, I would like to reassure Members that the Government are committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and we anticipate that that will show us whether the policies that are being introduced have achieved their aims, including—where relevant—relating to trust.
We earn trust and I will reiterate my point that voting is an act of trust. None the less, the Government are working hard to generate more confidence in our already trusted electoral system with this Bill.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 25, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—
“section (Statutory Guidance on suspected breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act);”
This amendment is consequential on NC36.
Paul Holmes
New clause 36 would require the Electoral Commission to prepare and Parliament to approve statutory guidance to returning officers on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, and amendment 25 is consequential on the new clause, as I am sure Committee members will know.
As I have said before, given that legislation to change elections comes around so rarely, I believe that this Bill is a huge opportunity to tighten up the systems we have. We should engage people to look at what could be the most significant Bill on the machinery of elections in a generation.
The Government have admitted that: they are reducing the age of enfranchisement, changing how people can register and updating the rules on political finance. Given that we have a patchwork quilt of interpretation at polling stations, it is absolutely right that the Government look to issue statutory guidance on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act to returning officers. That is particularly relevant, as independent volunteers at polling stations reported concerns over family voting in the recent byelection in Gorton and Denton, on which there was a police investigation.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. A consistent theme that has emerged from his points, and from the evidence and debate in this Committee is that we can have all the rules we like, but enforcement is a major challenge. In particular, it highlights inconsistency. Because there is an element of vagueness in the law, it is sometimes left to the individual clerk of a polling station, with or without good advice from a returning officer or electoral officer, to try to determine the appropriate course of action. Hence, people breaching the law would be kicked out in some places, but not in others. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we get the detail correct in the Bill in order to ensure greater consistency, and therefore trust and confidence, in the practice of elections across the country?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the moment, on polling days, the law is interpreted differently at different polling stations—I am using polling stations as an example because the most interaction we have with voters is when they cast their ballot, and they should be pleased to do so. Going back to the example of my constituency, different counts and polling stations have different interpretations of the distance at which it is acceptable to display a poster. I have been in situations where down one road, they are allowed right up to the door, and even in the station in some cases, and in other areas they are not allowed in the car park. That is all based on interpretation. The new clause seeks to ensure that we have uniform electoral guidance. That would be produced by the Electoral Commission, which, as the Minister outlined, is an independent organisation that is being asked to take on more responsibilities to assess, approve and give out statutory guidance to returning officers.
Most people drive to and park at polling stations on their journey to vote, and candidates and tellers— I believe in telling, because it gives people interaction with the political parties before they cast their vote—often wait outside. Can any Member say that, in the last election they participated in, there was a uniform code as to what they saw at each polling station? I would say no. Election staff do not have that central guidance to say what should and should not happen. Often, when candidates report inconsistencies, because there are inconsistencies it is much harder to prove that a breach has happened.
In the discussions we have had this afternoon, each and every political party has wanted to ensure that our democratic process is tightened up, whether that is from foreign interference, cryptocurrency donations or donations from this country, and whether we want new people to be able to vote, or want people to give ID to vote—all of those things are contained in the Bill.
David Simmonds
To bring my hon. Friend back to where he started, what is so striking about what he is saying is that the moment when the voter goes to the polling station is the key interaction that most people have with our democracy.
The debates that we as politicians are interested in, about the sources of electoral finance and the eligibility of different people to come and vote, while important, are not as salient as what is going on in the mind of the voter at the point they cast their ballot. Their ability to do that with complete faith in the integrity of that process is critical. Does he agree that it is even more saliant to make the point that this review and update are necessary, because for the voter that represents the front door or the window on politics, and that then influences all the other issues that have been brought up by Members?
Paul Holmes
I agree with my hon. Friend. To ironically, yet seriously, relate this to the previous new clause we discussed, I would argue that having a uniform code of guidance where voters are given assurance that everything is run in the same way would rebuild trust in our democracy, the Government and the process.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difference between us sad political operatives, who look at electoral law and whether everything is being run okay, and the average voter on the street—a term that I hate—is that people out there either have not thought about the fact that there are local elections or do not think about the machinery of how a ballot is run. When they approach a polling station and have difficulty, the trust that they have in the integrity of the system is damaged. Having the reassurance that the Government, regardless of political colour, are looking to give an independent body powers of review, perhaps after every general election, would add to trust and the feeling that there is competence in the voting system.
As we go through the journey of the voter, I know for a fact that there is the odd conspiracy theory about pencil versus pen—some places people can vote by pen, some places by pencil, and people say that their vote could be rubbed out if they vote by pencil. I happen not to subscribe to that theory, as our election staff are people of integrity. But even that is not clarified under central returning officer guidance; if it was, it would allow people to have confidence.
People often look at how others vote in polling stations. I hate to break the news to you, Sir Desmond, but they do. When we stand at a polling station, and a person is voting just there—for the benefit of Hansard, I am indicating that there is another desk to the right of me—we can see how they are voting. That breaches the trust that we need. I say to the Minister, who I know is going to reject this new clause because so far the Government have not conceded on much, that if we are all democrats then we should not be afraid of assessing whether our elections work.
We have a groundbreaking piece of legislation—I am sure when we get to Report stage, the Minister will now say in the Chamber, “the shadow Minister said this is groundbreaking legislation”. It has its bad points and very good points, but I accept that it is groundbreaking—but it could be even more groundbreaking. It could be the key piece of legislation that builds the integrity of our election system, which as the hon. Member for Guildford outlined, is extremely delicate at the moment.
David Simmonds
This is one of the most important parts of the debate we will have on this Bill. Most of us, as politicians, will have experienced a voter telling us on the doorstep that they would be willing to vote for our party but that they lack confidence in the secrecy of the ballot, because they know that the ballot paper issued has a serial number on it that could in theory be tracked down later to establish how they voted.
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we look at electoral behaviour, the turnout in, for example, local elections, has been consistent for 100 years, and that debates around trust have not been as material to people’s willingness to vote as trust in politics in general, because confidence in the ballot, and the sense of what is at stake in those elections, really matters? That is really a question of politics, rather than, as earlier amendments suggested, a question of trust. Does he agree that the significance of this is about ensuring the integrity of the process by which democracy happens, as opposed to a wider debate that reflects our political views about that process?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is not about whether one political party—or one party in government—is more trustworthy than the other; we leave that to the voters. This is about trusting in the integrity of the voters. He is absolutely right that the greatest influence and first right of every citizen in this country should be their ability to participate in the democratic process, pick their Government and pick the elected representatives who stand up for them, but there needs to be integrity.
My hon. Friend is right to outline that this should be seen not in a party political way, but in a process way. The new clause would contribute to that aim by giving powers to the independent Electoral Commission, which, as the Minister reminded us in the previous sitting of this Committee, is governed by Parliament, not the Government. This is a step that the Minister could take, seeing that they are very keen to give the Electoral Commission increased power.
This new clause is crucial and non-partisan, and it would allow us to have a tangible effect on the trust in and integrity of our system. Nobody is bigger or better than the system that we have, but that system can be improved, and we should not be shying away from allowing ourselves to improve it, no matter who is in government, to make sure that every time that a voter walks into a polling station, they know that their vote will be cast in the most secret and best way possible. I hope the Minister will look kindly upon the new clause, although I am sure she will not. I look forward to her remarks in response.
Dr Chowns
Ballot secrecy is extremely important. The shadow Minister has talked about family voting. I am deeply disappointed and concerned by the implicitly discriminatory accusations made by some parties in relation to family voting in recent weeks. I wish we saw as much passion about the far greater threat to our democracy posed by the skewing effect of huge donations.
Conservative members of the Committee made no contribution in the discussion on caps on donations or limits on expenditure earlier this afternoon, but have devoted considerable airtime to this particular topic. I ask all of us to consider: what is the greatest threat to the integrity of our political system?
David Simmonds
There is a crucial distinction that I am interested in with the hon. Member’s reflection on—
The Chair
Order. I am sure that it would the hon. Gentleman’s greatest pleasure to address the Chair, particularly when I am in it.
David Simmonds
My apologies, Sir Desmond. I was seeking the hon. Member’s views on what happens at the point of casting a vote, which is where all of us exercise our equal democratic freedom. We have a vote each, and we cast it in the same way in a process that needs to have integrity. There is no guarantee that any amount of expenditure will influence a voter in a particular way if they feel that that is wrong, and each of us as voters exercises that judgment equally and freely under the law. The amendments we have been so keen to spend some time on are about the integrity of and confidence in that process, under which every single voter is equal in the power they exercise in a democracy.
Dr Chowns
I think that I have made my point. Let us consider what the greatest threat to the integrity of our democracy is. I am concerned about the ways that concerns such as those articulated in these amendments have been weaponised by some political actors, so I will abstain if they are pressed to a vote.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 36 and amendment 25 would place a new legal duty on the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for returning officers on how to enforce the offences introduced by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. I stress at the outset how seriously the Government take all forms of electoral fraud or coercion, including family voting. It is illegal and unacceptable, and polling staff should feel confident to challenge and report any incidents.
However, I have serious concerns about these amendments. It is essential to point out that the commission can already issue guidance, and it already provides extensive guidance for returning officers. Putting the requirement into legislation would set a new precedent, allowing Parliament to direct how the commission produces its guidance in the future. The Commission’s independence, as we discussed earlier, is central to public confidence in how elections are run. Because the amendments would require Ministers and Parliament to approve or even change the guidance, there is a real risk that people would see that as political interference and involvement in something that should remain an operational matter for the commission.
The extra approval steps could also delay clear guidance for returning officers. If Parliament rejected the draft guidance, the commission would have to start again, creating uncertainty for those responsible for enforcing ballot secrecy. For those reasons—concerns about independence, ministerial involvement, added complexity and the precedent they set—the Government cannot support the amendments.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made some comments that, I think, questioned my integrity in making my speech.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady says it is my judgment. It is interesting that I am being accused of weaponising an issue because of one aspect where I think there is an imbalance, or a different interpretation of ways of overseeing voting at polling stations. First, that is a subjective term—
Paul Holmes
The hon. Lady has made her point, but she said that Members were weaponising issues. Seeing that I was the only Member speaking to amendments tabled by the official Opposition and in my name, I think that we can take her meaning as read.
It is interesting that, in looking at possible infringements of an equal right to vote, the hon. Lady focused on family voting. I focused on many other things, including whether we should ask for an independent review of whether the secrecy of the ballot is being maintained by an independent organisation. I mentioned family voting once. I mentioned the activities of political parties at polling stations. I mentioned whether the desks should be looked at differently.
Paul Holmes
Forgive me, Sir Desmond. I do not think that has necessarily been unique to me on this Committee, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I am being challenged over my intentions in tabling the amendment. It was well intentioned, but it has been said that it is about just one thing and that it is weaponising an issue, which it is not.
David Simmonds
I am keen to avoid being accused of being repetitious in any circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key strength he is advocating for is the integrity of the ballot as the guardian against all these issues? If we have a secret ballot that we can trust, all the issues of corruption, undue influence, family voting or whatever they may be are managed appropriately. If we fail to ensure the integrity of the ballot, things become irresponsible.
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I of course endorse. Some remarks have intimated that we have not commented on other aspects of the Bill. All I will say is that I welcomed the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on cryptocurrency, and I said to the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson that I would look to support them on some aspects of capping electoral finances. I think we need to be very careful when we speak.
I will push the new clause to a vote and we will vote in favour of it, because anybody on the Committee who is scared of an independent review of whether our system works should not be hiding away from the people who vote for them.
Question put, That the clause be read a second time.
Paul Holmes
I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
This new clause is vital. I would say that, because we tabled it, but it aims to repair some of the imbalance in the tactics that we have seen in recent elections, and to give every voter a level playing field to participate in voting in an equal way.
The new clause relates to the language of campaign materials. It would provide that:
“During the relevant period campaign material must not be promoted or published in a foreign language.”
By that, I mean the short regulated campaign period. If a person were found guilty of an offence because they caused
“campaign material to be promoted or published that falls within subsection (1)”—
in other words, in a foreign language—they would be liable on summary conviction
“in England and Wales, to a fine”
or
“in Scotland or Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”
I want to be clear why we have tabled the new clause. We are all politicians who campaign in our constituencies, but we all know that politics is becoming more divisive in the messages that certain parties are putting out there. An election leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election was written in Urdu. It said: “Give the Muslims a voice. Punish Labour for their views on Gaza. Vote Green.” Notwithstanding that that is a divisive statement to make, the Green party actively and purposely made it to prey on the vulnerabilities of a community that are not as involved in British society as they should be, and get them to vote Green on one issue: foreign policy and the Labour Government’s decisions on Gaza. Every Government’s first duty to this country is to keep their citizens safe. Regardless of what we think about Gaza, or any one issue, that is the Government’s No. 1 duty. On foreign policy, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have undertaken those responsibilities. They do that every day. That is what the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are supposed to do.
When campaign materials are published in a foreign language to exploit communities that should be much more involved in British society than they are, that is exploitation for political gain. That skewed the result of the by-election in Gorton and Denton. Let me be clear that I am not contesting the result of that election. My party was never going to win it, so if anybody wanted to intervene on me and say, “It’s because you got a measly 6%,” that would be entirely true. But let us face it: not everybody in that constituency could see what the Green party was saying to those communities about Gaza. The constituency is very diverse; it has a big white working-class community and a big ethnic minority community. I say it again: that was exploitation of one community on one issue, and the Green party was guilty of doing that.
David Simmonds
My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the Green party’s shocking behaviour in the Gorton and Denton by-election, but does he recall the evidence that we heard on our first day in Committee from Tower Hamlets? That gave us all cause to reflect that this is not simply about a shocking recent issue involving the Green party; it has been a long-standing concern in our politics. If we want to ensure that everybody has equality of access to our democracy, we need to make sure that we get this right. Using the established languages of our nation is a key part of that.
Paul Holmes
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is one example, but we know there have been issues with electoral integrity in Tower Hamlets. Previous Governments stepped in in Tower Hamlets because there were breaches in relation to some of the election materials that were going out.
My contention is that every voter, no matter where they come from, should be able to have the same access to campaign materials. It is not unreasonable that digital and physical election materials should be on an equal footing in the short campaign—people can do otherwise at any other time—when emotions can be high, polls can be tight and parties are campaigning very hard.
The Government are moving towards trying to encourage translation anyway. The Secretary of State released a social cohesion strategy that is supposed to make every citizen in this country feel or identify as British, and feel safe and at one in this country. The only way we can do that is by increasing funding for translation services and encouraging people, and sometimes forcing people, to learn the languages of this country. Those are English, Scottish, Welsh or the other registered languages in the British Isles. That is not unreasonable. The Government clearly do not think that it is unreasonable, because in the social cohesion strategy they actively promote it. All I am trying to do is make it official that people should be reading their election materials in one of the official British languages.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
My great grandmother was not a native English speaker; her first language was Scottish Gaelic. In North Lanarkshire, according to the 2022 census, 483 people speak Gaelic in the home, and over 2,000 speak Urdu in the home. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the new clause would make things equal for all, but would it not make things more equal for one, rather than the other?
Paul Holmes
No, it would not. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady; we get on, and I believe we are both in this for the same reasons. My explanatory note is very clear about what the new clause would protect, and where it would not have an impact. It states:
“It would not ban campaigning in native languages of the British Islands such as in English, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster Scots, Irish, et al. Nor would it prevent campaigning via the likes of BSL or Braille.”
So no, because that is officially known as a minority language within the British Isles. We have been very careful to ensure that people in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and those who read Braille or rely on sign language, will not be excluded by the new clause. Communities that are not learning English should be able to read the English through translation services, which are encouraged by the social cohesion strategy.
We also have to think about the other side: many people living in multi-ethnic communities receive leaflets in a foreign language, and they cannot read what is being said by a party. That is not a level playing field in the voting system, and I think it is wrong. We have seen examples where that has been used in an exploitative way in recent months, and there is no doubt that we will see it used in an exploitative way in future. That happened in Tower Hamlets, it happened in Gorton, and it will happen again.
If the Minister will not support the new clause, will the Government look at how to streamline the voting system in this country, so that we have, at least, guidance on languages? She may say that it already exists, but we need to toughen the regulations to prescribe, or describe, how parties should treat British languages versus foreign languages. I look forward to her Minister’s response on new clause 37.
Dr Chowns
I am going to rise above the party political aspects of the shadow Minister’s comments, but I want to engage with his extraordinary claim that communicating with people in their mother tongue is, in some way, exploitation. He expressed concern about the inclusion of diverse communities in our country. He talked about social cohesion, but what he is proposing is essentially a nativist policy. As was highlighted by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Gaelic speakers are accepted but Urdu speakers are not. I fundamentally disagree.
Of course, as a country we should provide support to assist people to learn English, but we should not force them, as the shadow Minister argued. If they are not yet fluent, it seems perfectly reasonable—in fact, clearly helpful for inclusion and participation—to provide election materials in the language in which they can be best understood. Indeed, that is what returning officers do. Election officers provide information in multiple languages, so why should parties and candidates not also be free to do so?
Let me quote from the guidance for returning officers on the Electoral Commission’s website:
“Some voters may need assistance in another language because of their limited English (or English or Welsh) language skills. You should consider what support you are able to provide to those voters in your area, such as providing translations of the polling station notices.”
In Gorton and Denton, the polling station provided information in multiple other languages. The effect of the new clause would be exclusionary and discriminatory, and I strongly oppose it.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 37 would ban the use of foreign languages in campaign material during the regulated period—it would make it a criminal offence. A primary purpose of the Bill is to encourage more people across society to engage and participate in our democracy. The new clause would not serve that purpose. It is not for the Government to prescribe the languages that campaigners are permitted to use to engage voters who come from a wide range of diverse backgrounds across the constituencies we represent. It is certainly not for the Government to criminalise the use of certain languages.
Various electoral and non-electoral offences protect against malicious forms of campaign material, which is, in essence, what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was talking about. For example, it is an offence to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting material that is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. It is also an offence to improperly influence someone to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. That would include, for example, a leaflet that threatened to make use of force or place undue spiritual pressure on a person in order to induce them to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. Those offences apply regardless of the language used in the campaign material.
The Government have no plans to regulate the use of foreign languages in campaign material. We are seeking to minimise barriers to participation while safeguarding the integrity and security of elections. The measures in the Bill are intended to restore faith in our politics and ensure that the UK continues to be a thriving and diverse democracy. The new clause is entirely incompatible with those intentions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Paul Holmes
I wholly accept the Minister’s comments; I did not expect that she would be looking into this. I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, too. She used the example of returning officers. They are filling things in and conducting a process; they are not using foreign languages to exploit a section of our society against a policy or a party in this country with which they happen to disagree. That is the clear and distinct difference, and that is the example that I used in moving the new clause. Her example is about the process; my example is about using foreign language to exploit a political message in an advantageous way. That is why I tabled the new clause, and I wish to press it to a vote.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech, but the hon. Lady is entitled to speak again if she wishes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 61—Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning (‘the Campaign Code’).
(2) The Campaign Code must set out principles and guidance relating to political campaigning and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(3) In this section ‘political campaigning’ means any conduct, communications or other activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended, directly or indirectly, to influence public support for, or opposition to—
(a) a registered political party,
(b) a candidate or prospective candidate at a general election, by-election, local election or mayoral election, or
(c) an outcome in a referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Campaign Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.
(5) The Electoral Commission may revise the Campaign Code from time to time, and subsections (1) to (4) apply to a revised Campaign Code as they apply to the original.
(6) Electoral advertising as defined in this Part is regulated under the Electoral Advertising Code of Practice and subject to enforcement by the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(7) This Part applies in relation to elections and referendums for which provision may be made by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
This new clause would establish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning. It is connected to NC62 to NC64. The reference in this new clause to “this Part” is a reference to a new Part which would be formed of NC62 to NC64.
New clause 62—Electoral Advertising Code of Practice—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice (‘the Advertising Code’).
(2) The Advertising Code must include principles and guidance relating to electoral advertising and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) ensuring the accuracy of factual claims,
(b) the need for relevant and reliable evidence to substantiate factual claims,
(c) the need to clearly identify the political party affiliated with an advert,
(d) transparency in the use of artificial intelligence, and
(e) issuing prompt public corrections to address mistakes.
(3) In this section ‘electoral advertising’ means any factual claims in marketing communications, whenever published or distributed, whose principal function is to influence voters in a local, regional, national or international election or referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Advertising Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) the Electoral Advertising Code Committee,
(b) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(c) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to produce an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice. It is connected to NC61, NC63 and NC64.
New clause 63—Electoral Advertising Code Committee—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee (‘the Committee’).
(2) The functions of the Committee are—
(a) to advise the Electoral Commission on the preparation and revision of the Advertising Code,
(b) to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the Advertising Code, and
(c) to oversee the operation of and monitor the effectiveness of the Advertising Code.
(3) In exercising functions under this Part, the Committee must have regard to the importance of freedom of political expression and open democratic debate, and will not determine matters of political opinion unless they fall within the scope of factual claims in electoral advertising.
(4) The Committee is to consist of—
(a) a Chair,
(b) a member nominated by the Electoral Commission,
(c) a member nominated by the Advertising Standards Authority or its successor body,
(d) a member nominated by the Office of Communications, and
(e) a member nominated by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.
(5) Nothing in this Part limits the powers of the bodies identified in subsection (4) under any other enactment.
(6) The Chair is to be appointed by the Electoral Commission following a fair and open competition conducted in accordance with the Public Appointments Code, with a majority of independent members on the assessment panel and a senior independent panel member.
(7) The appointment of the Chair requires the consent of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which must not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(8) In making the appointment, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the need to secure the independence of the Committee.
(9) A person appointed as Chair holds office—
(a) for a single non-renewable term of five years from the date of appointment, and
(b) in accordance with terms and conditions (including as to remuneration and pension) specified by the Electoral Commission.
(10) The Chair may resign from office by giving written notice to the Electoral Commission.
(11) The Electoral Commission must pay to the Committee the sums determined by the Chair as appropriate for, or in connection with, the carrying out of the Committee’s functions.
(12) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, carry out a consultation on a levy on registered political parties’ election advertising spend for the purpose of funding the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(13) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) representatives of registered political parties, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee. It is connected to NC61, NC62 and NC64.
New clause 64—Status of the Campaign Code and enforcement of the Advertising Code—
“(1) Persons engaged in political campaigning must have regard to the Campaign Code.
(2) A registered political party must prepare, publish and keep under review a code of conduct relating to its political campaigning.
(3) A code under subsection (2) must be consistent with the Campaign Code and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(4) The following persons, when engaged in electoral advertising, must comply with the Advertising Code—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) members of the House of Commons,
(c) members of any local authority in any part of the United Kingdom,
(d) members of the Greater London Assembly,
(e) candidates or prospective candidates at a United Kingdom general election, by-election, local authority election, Greater London Authority election or mayoral election,
(f) recognised third parties within the meaning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(g) election agents within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(5) The Committee may, by written notice, require a person to provide information or documents reasonably required for the purposes of investigating a suspected breach of the Advertising Code.
(6) A person must comply with a requirement under subsection (5) unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
(7) If, on an application by the Committee, a court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (5), the court may make an order requiring the person to provide the Committee with—
(a) information referred to in the notice, and
(b) other information which the court is satisfied the Committee requires.
(8) Where the Committee considers that electoral advertising is inconsistent with the Advertising Code, it may take the following steps which it considers reasonable to secure compliance—
(a) issuing a notice requiring the person responsible to amend, withdraw or substantiate the advertising within a specified period,
(b) publishing a formal finding of non-compliance on its website [and in the repository of political adverts],
(c) requiring the publication of a correction, clarification or updated version of the advertising with similar prominence where practicable,
(d) notifying relevant online services or publishers and requesting prompt suspension or removal of advertising during the regulated period, and
(e) referring repeated or serious breaches to the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions in accordance with its powers under Schedule 19C to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(9) In deciding whether to impose a civil sanction under subsection (8)(e), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the findings and recommendations of the Committee, and
(b) any enforcement action taken in relation to the same conduct under any other enactment.
(10) Where the Electoral Commission imposes a civil sanction following a referral from the Committee, it must publish a notice setting out—
(a) the nature of the breach,
(b) the sanction imposed, and
(c) the reasons for the sanction.
(11) A person on whom a civil sanction is imposed under subsection (8)(e) may appeal in accordance with the appeal provisions under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(12) Failure to comply with the Campaign Code or the Advertising Code does not of itself give rise to criminal liability.”
This new clause is connected to NC61 to NC63.
Dr Chowns
The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), proposes creating a new offence of misleading the public by candidates in a parliamentary election campaign. We are witnessing a proliferation of disinformation with a concurrent rise in distrust among the public. A recent survey by Ipsos MORI found that just 11% of the UK public trust politicians to tell the truth. That is clearly problematic and, unlike in advertising, finance or medicine, there is no legally enforceable standard of requiring truthfulness from those who hold or seek public office.
Ministers are not allowed to lie, but, under the current situation, candidates can. This lack of accountability does, unfortunately, create an incentive to deceive. As the old saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. This legal vacuum has, unfortunately, enabled far-right figures to weaponise disinformation. It has enabled foreign powers to covertly manipulate elections and policy, and manipulation of voters through false factual claims has changed the landscape of the nation. There are already examples of that, including Brexit and campaign tactics in previous elections.
New clause 59 aims to protect voters from political deception by holding parliamentary candidates accountable for acts intentionally designed to mislead the public or manipulate voting in their favour. A similar measure is already provided for in the Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That creates a new offence of misleading the public, which will cover public officials. The parallel measure in new clause 59 will ensure that candidates are included in a similar provision and cannot use deliberate deception to win public office.
As it happens, the Welsh Government have recently introduced equivalent legislation to create an offence of deliberate deception by candidates. Westminster would not be acting alone, and the new clause would provide consistency across Britain.
This would not be a law to punish genuine mistakes, misspeaking and so forth, or to restrict legitimate political rhetoric. It would not cover manifestos, as a manifesto is a statement of intent. It would not create a new area of law, but merely extend it to plug the gaping loophole of political deception by applying existing legal principles.
The new clause includes safeguards to ensure fairness, such as a high legal threshold for wrongdoing and a defence for those acting with reasonable excuse. Its phrasing ensures that the threshold for wrongdoing is high. It applies only to conduct that is “seriously improper,” so it targets deliberate misinformation campaigns, major false claims that could influence voters and manipulative or dishonest campaign tactics that are falsely used to steer voters towards a particular decision.
There is overwhelming public support for this measure. A petition on this issue has more than 200,000 signatures, and polling by Opinium shows that 72% of voters support it. Further research by Survation found that a majority of voters in every single party is in favour of it. This measure would go some way to help repair trust in our politics, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
I will briefly speak to new clauses 61 to 64, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). New clause 61 would introduce a code of conduct for political campaigning and put that on a statutory footing. There is already widespread agreement that we need a code of conduct for political campaigning—that was a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference last year. The Government have committed to establishing a code of conduct for campaigns following that recommendation, and the Electoral Commission has absolutely welcomed this.
I draw colleagues’ attention to one of the evidence sessions at the Speaker’s Conference last year, in which Labour’s executive director of governance and legal highlighted the question of whether the code of conduct should be statutory. He said:
“A code might be helpful in setting a public benchmark of acceptable behaviour…ultimately, you would probably want it to be enforceable in some way, and then the question would be, is it appropriate to put that on a statutory footing? Is there a possibility of agreeing something?”
I ask the Minister to consider that we have an excellent opportunity to put it on a statutory footing in this Bill to ensure that that code of conduct, which is so widely recognised as being absolutely necessary as per the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference, has the force of primary legislation behind it.
New clause 62 is about an electoral advertising code of practice. We have already discussed issues relating to electoral advertising, and I have shared with the Committee my huge concerns about the regulation of online political advertising in particular and the urgent need for a real-time political adverts library. This new clause is more general. It is frankly unclear why ads for commercial products are held to greater account than ads that move votes and affect election outcomes. Fundamentally, that seems weird, unequal and deeply problematic.
The organisation Reform Political Advertising has been campaigning very effectively, long and hard, in this area. In the 2024 London mayoral election, for example, it trailed a factual accuracy code, which seven London mayoral candidates, including Sadiq Khan and the Green and Liberal Democrat candidates, signed up to, and others supported.
International precedent also exists. Regulation of factual claims in electoral advertising has been in place in New Zealand for several decades, with cross-party support.
David Simmonds
For the benefit of the Committee, will the hon. Lady briefly set out who—it could be a body or an individual—would be the appropriate judge of factual accuracy? I am sure all political parties have been on the receiving end of the famous Lib Dem bar chart, which says, in tiny letters underneath, “Survey of 10 people we asked in the pub last night.” It could be argued that it was factually accurate, based on that very dubious source. How will we ensure that, where there is some dispute about the facts, there is a sufficient degree of independence in arbitrating that question?
Dr Chowns
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very next new clause on the selection list, which engages with precisely that question.
In addition to New Zealand, there are similar rules about the regulation of political advertising in Australia. On the question of who will adjudicate, there is currently no independent body with the power to adjudicate on the truthfulness or accuracy of non-broadcast political advertising. That is an issue. Provision has been made in the new clauses for a separation: the code of practice would be established by the Electoral Commission and the oversight of the decision making—the adjudication—would be done by a different body.
The 2020 report by the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, “Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust”, called for a regulatory committee on political advertising that would involve relevant experts from the Advertising Standards Authority, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the UK Statistics Authority, who would co-operate through a regulatory committee on political advertising. Political parties would then work with those regulators to develop a code of practice, along with appropriate sanctions, that restricts fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election or referendum. The Lords Committee recommends that that regulatory committee should adjudicate breaches of the code, and that is effectively what new clause 63 would put in place.
“What then would happen about sanctions?” I hear hon. Members ask. Well, that takes us on to new clause 64, which again creates a separation. It would establish an enforcement framework and enable the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions for breaches of the advertising code, basically according to a ladder of increasing seriousness.
I warmly recommend the new clauses to the Government and the Committee. Despite the rapidity of my speech, given the shortness of time, the way that advertising can distort our politics is a crucial issue. I very much hope that the Government will warmly consider the issues, alongside all the other ones that they will hopefully come back to us on at a later stage.
Samantha Dixon
New clause 59 would create a new offence of misleading the public in a parliamentary election campaign, which could be committed by candidates in election campaigns. Unfortunately, that approach risks turning the courts into political fact checkers. It risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary and would create significant freedom of expression concerns. In line with the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference, we will work with the Conference, the Electoral Commission and political parties to develop a campaigning code of conduct that is fit for purpose and reflects the need of candidates across the political spectrum.
I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which makes it an illegal practice to make or publish a false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate the effect of which impacts the election result.
I will speak to new clauses 61, 62, 63 and 64 together. These new clauses would amount to a significant expansion of the regulatory framework governing political campaigning and electoral advertising. They would introduce a statutory code of conduct for political campaigning, a statutory electoral advertising code and a new electoral advertising code committee to oversee, adjudicate and enforce compliance with the advertising code, funded through a levy on political parties.
We welcomed the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference to develop a code of conduct for campaigning. We are working with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties on an approach that is fit for purpose, and that works across the broad range of candidates and campaigners.
That work is already under way. Ahead of the May 2026 elections, the Electoral Commission has published a first set of advisory principles for campaigning respectfully and safely. The published principles already address key issues that these new clauses try to address. The Electoral Commission has also made it clear that these principles are the start of that work, rather than the end of it, and, after the May elections it will assess how the principles operated in practice, and use that assessment to inform development of a fuller code of conduct.
A non-statutory approach offers the best opportunity for the code to be developed collaboratively, with strong cross-party engagement and sufficient flexibility to ensure that it remains meaningful, and can be refined in the light of experience and developments in campaigning practice over time. It would be better to allow that work to continue and to be evaluated in practice, rather than to prescribe the content and process for an evolving set of codes in the Bill.
New clauses 62, 63 and 64 would place regulators in the position of adjudicating factual claims made in the course of political campaigning, an area that is inherently contested and closely connected to political opinion. Although safeguards are included, there remains a real risk of regulatory creep, drawing independent regulators into disputes around policy or political arguments, which can be rebutted by rival campaigners and scrutinised by the press as part of the normal course of political debate.
Any reforms in this space must be considered carefully and developed in consultation, in order to ensure that changes to the regulation of political advertising are proportionate, protect freedom of expression and maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of regulatory bodies.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 59.
David Simmonds
On a point of order, Sir Desmond, may I seek your guidance? I know that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said earlier that, for reasons of time, she did not wish to go into sufficient detail. Can you just confirm to the Committee that we have two further full days of consideration, which are already in everybody’s diaries? I know that the Government Whip declined my suggestion of an adjournment earlier; however, Members should not feel constrained in fully setting out the concerns that they have or the issues that they wish to raise about the Bill, given that—as I understand it and as I have just said—we still have a further two days of consideration available to us.
The Chair
I can only confirm that there are four more sittings over two days—Tuesday and Thursday of next week.
New Clause 66
Electoral Commission: Power to institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland
“In Schedule 1 to PPERA 2000, leave out sub-paragraph (2)(b).” —(Dr Chowns.)
This new clause would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission from instituting criminal proceedings in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Chowns
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission’s instituting criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—a capacity that the Electoral Commission previously had, which was removed by the Elections Act 2022. We currently have a bizarre situation where any individual or organisation other than the Electoral Commission can make a private prosecution against breaches of political finance law but the Electoral Commission cannot. That gives rise to a criminal enforcement gap, which is not helped by a lack of investigatory and prosecutorial lead capacity, especially for UK-wide offences. Other similar regulators in the UK can bring criminal proceedings in areas under their auspices, so there is a real question: why not the Electoral Commission?
I note that Philip Rycroft dealt with that question in his report and recommended an alternative approach. I have tabled the new clause as a probing amendment to ask the Government to provide more clarification. If we are not going to give these powers to the Electoral Commission, who should take the lead? The status quo is clearly not working. There is an alarming lack of prosecution in this space, going back quite a number of years. The net effect is essentially that people can escape from prosecution. If it is not going to be the Electoral Commission, we need much more investment in the capacities and powers of the police. I understand that we have a situation where the police might not feel that investigations are necessarily in their interest, because the fines that can be charged are not proportionate to the huge amount of police time that might be required to investigate the issues.
I would like to hear from the Government how they will address the clear gap in the capacity of the system overall to initiate criminal proceedings on breaches of electoral law. An obvious solution would be to put it through the Electoral Commission. I recognise that Philip Rycroft has a somewhat different view. Will the Government please explain their view?
Samantha Dixon
New clause 66 would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission bringing criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that was introduced in the Elections Act 2022. To be clear, the Electoral Commission has never brought criminal prosecutions, even prior to the changes introduced by the Act. It has a wide range of investigatory powers and is able to impose a variety of civil sanctions for certain offences. The Bill already extends and strengthens those powers to promote more robust and proportionate enforcement.
Where criminal investigation and prosecution is required or thought appropriate for certain offences, the Commission refers those cases to the police and the relevant prosecuting authority, who are experts in this domain. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that electoral law is enforced effectively, and that there is there is public confidence in the system of regulation governing political finance. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review.
As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire pointed out, the review looked specifically at criminal enforcement arrangements and concluded it entirely appropriate that criminal investigations are handled by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. The review noted that it would be unnecessary and potentially counterproductive for the Electoral Commission to have a prosecutorial role; it would require significant investment in specialist expertise that might be deployed only sporadically.
Furthermore, although the Electoral Commission must enforce electoral law without fear or favour, it must also engage constructively with campaigners to help them to comply with the rules. Rycroft noted that it would be difficult for the Electoral Commission to maintain that constructive regulatory role with political parties if it were also pursuing criminal prosecutions.
Given the review’s findings on this issue, we do not think that any changes are needed to the Electoral Commission’s role. We will respond fully to the Rycroft review in due course and consider whether any other legislative changes are necessary in line with its findings. I request that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire withdraw the new clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 76 to 81 stand part.
Government amendment 21.
Samantha Dixon
I turn to the final clauses in the Bill, which make general provisions and are standard practice for a Bill. Given the hour, I do not intend to go through each of the remaining clauses individually and will move them formally. As I have stated, they are standard practice and necessary provisions. We have also already debated and accepted new clause 14, which Government amendment 21 relates to. I therefore urge Members to accept all of these general provisions, as well as the consequential Government amendment 21.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 76 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 80
Commencement
Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 does not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament that reviews why the age at which it would become legal to vote in parliamentary general elections should differ from the following—
(a) the age of majority in the Family Law Act 1969;
(b) any minimum ages specified in law which the Secretary of State considers appropriate to review.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This amendment would prevent Part 1 of the Act coming into force until the Secretary of State had undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in this Act.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Representation of the People Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
(3 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 2 September 2026 - large print - (2 Sep 2026)
Representation of the People Bill
Wednesday 2nd September 2026
(3 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 2 September 2026 - large print - (2 Sep 2026)
19:04 - The House divided: - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 346 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 410 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 427 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 411 / Noes: 102 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Section 56(3) or (4) (failure to return donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year” Section 55A(8) (cap on donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55B On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55D(3) (declaration as to compliance with the donations cap) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year””” “Section 56(3) or (4) (failure to return donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment : fine or 1 year” Section 55A(8) (cap on donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment : fine or 1 year Section 55B On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55D(3) (declaration as to compliance with the donations cap) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”
Government new clause 76—Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000.
Government new clause 77—Procedure for regulations under PPERA 2000.
Government new clause 78—Sharing of information between Electoral Commission and others.
Government new clause 113—Termination of entitlement to be registered as overseas elector.
Government new clause 114—Powers to prescribe form and contents of campaign expenditure returns etc.
Government new clause 115—Meaning of “donation”.
Government new clause 116—Cap on donations etc by overseas contributors.
Government new clause 117—Power to extend certain restrictions to other types of donation and loan etc.
New clause 2—Commencement of Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay an order under section 216 (commencement) of the Equality Act 2010 to commence section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of that Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 within three months, which would require political parties to publish information on the protected characteristics of candidates in parliamentary elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and to the Senedd.
New clause 3—Electoral Commission: Publication of information about diversity in range of candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 13A (reimbursement of costs by Scottish Ministers etc.) insert—
‘13ZAA Collection and publication of information about diversity in range of candidates
(1) The Commission shall collect information published under section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of the Equality Act 2010.
(2) The Commission shall publish the information collected under subsection (1) in an accessible form at such intervals as the Commissioners consider appropriate.’”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to collect and publish in an accessible form diversity information required to be provided by political parties under section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.
New clause 4—Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds under this Act.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include consideration of proposals to—
(a) promote awareness among relevant persons of the extension of the franchise; and
(b) make any necessary changes required to strengthen civic education in schools and educational settings available to relevant persons.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant persons are children and young people who—
(a) are enfranchised as a result of section (1) of this Act; or
(b) are entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector before reaching voting age as a result of section (3) of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education.
New clause 5—Electoral Commission: pre-investigation decision notices—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In Schedule 19B, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (5), at end insert ‘or;
(b) relevant to determining whether to start an investigation.’”
This new clause would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation.
New clause 6—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.—
“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—
‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates
(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—
(a) a relative; or
(b) a member of staff;
of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”
This new clause would, with Amendment 1, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.
New clause 7—Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.
(2) The guidance must include information about—
(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;
(b) physical and online security measures; and
(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.
(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.
(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘election periods’ means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of ‘election expense’ of the RPA 1983).”
This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.
New clause 9—Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual is, or has been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to
a foreign administration.’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In subsection (2A)—
“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”
This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.
New clause 10—Permissible donors not to include persons who have promoted political violence—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3ZB) insert—
‘(3ZC) A person is not to be treated as a permissible donor in relation to a donation if the person has been convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence.
(3ZD) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the offences which fall within subsection (3ZC).’”
New clause 11—Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of any foreign nation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation means anyone who has at any time been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to a foreign administration.’
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
‘(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities in order to be validly nominated. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure their candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on behalf of the party.
New clause 12—Annual statements on foreign donation risks and independent investigations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Annual statement on mitigation of foreign donation risks
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, prepare a statement setting out the steps taken by the party to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation.
(2) The statement must be delivered to the Commission alongside the party's statement of accounts for that year.
66B Annual independent investigation of donations by foreign-owned UK entities
(1) A registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, arrange for an independent investigation to be conducted into any donations received by the party from a foreign-owned UK entity.
(2) A report of the independent investigation must be submitted to the Commission by the treasurer of the party within six months of the end of the calendar year to which it relates.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the appointment and qualifications of an independent investigator for the purposes of this section;
(b) the definition of a “foreign-owned UK entity”; and
(c) the required contents of the investigation report.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’”
This new clause requires registered political parties to produce an annual statement detailing how they have mitigated risks relating to donations from foreign nations. It also requires parties to commission an annual independent investigation into donations they receive from foreign-owned UK entities, with the findings submitted to the Electoral Commission.
New clause 13—Information to be included with electronic material: generative artificial intelligence—
“(1) Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3)(b) insert—
“(c) where the electronic material consists of or includes image, audio or video content that has been generated or materially altered by means of generative artificial intelligence, a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.”
(2A) In this section, ‘generative artificial intelligence’ means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined prompts or objectives, generate new image, audio or video content.”
This new clause amends the digital imprint rules in the Elections Act 2022 to require that any political campaigning material which contains images, audio, or video generated or materially altered by AI must include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.
New clause 14—Repeal of voter identification requirements—
“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).
(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”
This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 2.
New clause 15—Disclosure of past donations in cryptoassets—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Report on past donations involving cryptoassets
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, prepare a report under this section.
(2) The report must record the relevant details in relation to each donation received by the party during the relevant 5-year period which was—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant 5-year period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section, “the relevant details” in relation to a donation means—
(a) the name and address of the donor;
(b) the amount or value of the donation;
(c) the date on which the donation was received; and
(d) the date on which, and the way in which, any necessary steps were taken regarding the donation under section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general).
(5) The report must be delivered to the Commission within the period of 14 days beginning with the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
This new clause amends PPERA 2000 to require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing the source, value, and dates of any donations made via cryptoassets, or accepted via crypto wallets/exchanges, over the past five years.
New clause 16—Impact of the Act on trust in elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act's provisions on trust in elections.
(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "trust in elections" includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) Scottish Ministers;
(c) Welsh Ministers;
(d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
New clause 18—Payments from foreign state broadcasters to politicians and candidates—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments from foreign state broadcasters
(1) A regulated donee must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from a prescribed foreign state broadcaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a foreign state broadcaster for the purposes of this paragraph where the Secretary of State considers the broadcaster is acting on behalf of, or producing propaganda for, a foreign power.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for appearing on, hosting, or contributing to broadcasts or programmes.’
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of past earnings from foreign state broadcasters
(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received any past or current earnings, payments or benefits from a foreign state broadcaster prescribed under paragraph 6A of Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.’”
This new clause prohibits politicians (regulated donors) from receiving any payment from prescribed foreign state broadcasters. It also amends the parliamentary election rules to require candidates (including incumbent MPs) to formally declare any past earnings from these entities in order to be validly nominated to stand for election.
New clause 19—Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
New clause 20—Extension of right to vote etc. to certain foreign nationals—
“(1) The RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c), after ‘Ireland,’ insert ‘a qualifying EU citizen, or a qualifying foreign national’.
(3) In section 2 (local government electors)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c) leave out “(in Wales)”
(b) in subsection (1)(c)(i), after ‘rights’ insert ‘or a qualifying foreign citizen;’.”
This new clause would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to include qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and to extend the local government franchise in England to foreign citizens with a right to enter or remain in the UK.
New clause 21—Cap on political donations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied) insert—
‘54C Power to set cap on political donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation from a person if the value of donations from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds the maximum amount specified by regulations made under subsection (3).
(2) Where a registered party receives a donation which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the donation limit for the purposes of subsection (1) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Before laying a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the level of the cap on political donations.
(6) The review must consider and make recommendations on the level of the cap in light of—
(a) the prevailing economic conditions;
(b) the effect of the cap on democratic participation and political competition; and
(c) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(7) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person or panel with relevant experience to conduct the review.
(8) The person or panel appointed under subsection (7) must—
(a) consult the Electoral Commission and any other persons the person or panel considers relevant; and
(b) prepare and publish a report of its findings.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (8)(b) before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.
(10) No later than three years after a report under subsection (9) has been laid the Secretary of State must commission a new review under subsection (5) for the purposes of determining whether the cap under subsection (1) should be amended.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on permissible political donations from a person, following an independent review to be conducted every three years.
New clause 22—Permissible donors not to include oil and gas companies—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘, subject to the exemption in subsection (2A).’
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A company is not a permissible donor if it is an oil and gas company.’
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) For the purposes of this section, “an oil and gas company” means any company which derives over 50% of its annual revenue from the extraction, acquisition, transportation, processing, supply or disposal of petroleum or natural gas, or a combination of the two.’”
This new clause provides that an oil and gas company would not be a permissible donor for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
New clause 23—Prohibition on remuneration for social media activity—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments for social media activity
6C (1) A regulated donee must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from any person or organisation in connection with activity on a social media platform.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for publishing, promoting or interacting with content on a social media platform,
(b) a social media platform means an electronic medium or service through which users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations.’
(3) Schedule 2A to RPA 1983 (control of donations to candidates) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments for social media activity
6A (1) A candidate or their election agent must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from any person or organisation in connection with activity on a social media platform.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for publishing, promoting or interacting with content on a social media platform,
(b) a social media platform means an electronic medium or service through which users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations.’”
This new clause prohibits members of registered parties, members associations, holders of relevant elective offices and electoral candidates from receiving any payment, remuneration, or financial benefit in exchange for posting, promoting, or interacting with content on social media.
New clause 24—Declaration of income or gifts from the Russian Federation—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from the Russian Federation
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of the Russian Federation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of the Russian Federation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of the Russian Federation means anyone who has at any time been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to the government of the Russian Federation.”
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
“(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare past or current income or gifts from the government of the Russian Federation or from any person or organisation connected to that government. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure that their candidates have made this declaration.
New clause 25—Permissible donors not to include property development and construction undertakings—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of PPERA 2000 and any other enactment, a person is not a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant if they meet the conditions in subsections (2).
(2) The conditions in this subsection are that the person is a property development or construction undertaking as defined under subsections (3) and (4).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is a “property development or construction undertaking” if they are a body corporate, partnership, limited liability partnership, or unincorporated association, of such an undertaking which carries out, whether wholly or substantially, activities consisting of—
(a) the acquisition, disposal, or development of land for commercial or residential purposes,
(b) property speculation,
(c) the construction, renovation, or substantial alteration of buildings or infrastructure, or
(d) the provision of construction services as a principal contractor,
and whose principal business activities fall within such Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Further to subsection (3), a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ includes—
(a) any person who is acting on behalf of a property development or construction undertaking,
(b) any person who is funded either directly or indirectly by a property development or construction undertaking, and
(c) any subsidiaries or holding companies of a property development or construction undertaking.
(5) The Electoral Commission may issue guidance for the purposes of determining whether an undertaking is a property development or construction undertaking.”
This new clause would mean that a property developer or construction undertaking would not be a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant.
New clause 26—Restrictions on permitted donors: public contracts—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) has significant control of a company which has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) has significant control of a company which is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(2B) A company which would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(b) is not a permissible donor if that company—
(a) has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section—
“public contract” has the meaning given by section 3 (public contracts) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“significant control” has the meaning given by section 790C (key terms) of the Companies Act 2006;
“parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) of the Companies Act 2006.’”
This amendment would prevent individuals and companies connected to public contracts within the previous ten years from being treated as permissible donors under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
New clause 27—Report on interference in UK elections originating from the United States of America—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the extent of electoral interference originating from the United States of America and its impact on the integrity of elections in the United Kingdom.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must review the extent of the following activities and their impact on voters—
(a) United States-based social media companies amplifying electoral campaign material via algorithms; and
(b) donations made to registered political parties, think-tanks, lobbying firms and other regulated donees in the United Kingdom originating from—
(i) the United States Government,
(ii) United States-based companies, and
(iii) business leaders with United States citizenship.
(3) The report must also set out information about the nature of any campaigns receiving donations from those set out in subsection (2), including—
(a) the stated aims attached to any donations made; and
(b) any agreements between donees and organisations in receipt of such donations.
(4) The report published under subsection (1) must include any recommendations considered necessary to protect the integrity of United Kingdom elections.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘the integrity of United Kingdom elections’ means the extent to which elections are considered to be free and fair, and have public confidence in their outcomes.”
This new clause requires the Government to publish a report on electoral interference originating from the USA and its impact on the integrity of elections in the United Kingdom, focusing on the extent of algorithmic amplification of campaign material by US-based social media companies and of donations from US-based companies and business leaders.
New clause 28—Prohibition of controlled expenditure and expenses by non-permissible donors—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In Section 89A (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure) leave out subsection (2).
(3) In Section 89B (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure: Senedd Cymru elections) leave out subsection (2).
(4) In Section 89B (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure: Scottish Parliament elections) leave out subsection (2).
(5) In Section 75 of RPA 1983 (prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent) leave out—
(a) subsection 1ZZB(a);
(b) subsection 1ZA.
(6) In Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) after subsection (3)(b) insert—
‘(c) a statement declaring the original source of the funding used to pay for the promotion or publication of the material.’”
This new clause prevents controlled expenditure and expenses by non-permissible donors, including foreign-funded advertising, by reducing the existing £700 spending limit for such donors to nil. It also requires that campaign material includes a statement declaring the origin of its funding.
New clause 29—Prohibition of political advertising by non-permissible donors—
“(1) A person or organisation that is not a permissible donor must not incur any expenditure on political advertising, whether or not related to a relevant election.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘political advertising’ means any materials or activities with a view to promoting a political party, candidate or campaign;
‘relevant election’ has the same meaning as in Part II of PPERA.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by regulations amend, repeal or revoke any enactment, including this Act and other electoral legislation, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would prevent non-permissible donors from funding political advertising, whether or not related to a relevant election, and provide the Secretary of State with regulation making powers to enable this prohibition to be enforced.
New clause 30—Review of how limits on campaign expenditure could apply on annual basis—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties.
(2) The review must consider how annual campaign expenditure limits could—
(a) promote transparency and fairness in elections;
(b) limit the risk of foreign interference in elections; and
(c) be implemented in a proportionate manner without undue impact on political parties, candidates and third parties.
(3) In conducting the review, the Electoral Commission must consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission.
(4) The Electoral Commission must publish a report of its findings no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report, lay before both Houses of Parliament, a response to the report.
(6) The response to the report must contain proposals informed by the Electoral Commission’s report.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties, and for the Government to respond to the report and bring forward proposals based on the Electoral Commission’s findings.
New clause 32—Parliamentary elections: Requirement to obtain an enhanced disclosure and barring service check—
“(1) Schedule 1 of RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 6 (nomination of candidates) insert—
‘(6AA)(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person has—
(a) undertaken an enhanced DBS check; and
(b) obtained an enhanced DBS certificate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of one or more organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be requested.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule—
“enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997;
“enhanced DBS certificate” means a certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service following an enhanced DBS check.’”
This new clause would require candidates in a parliamentary election to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain the resulting certificate before they can be validly nominated as a candidate.
New clause 33—Local government elections (England and Wales): Requirement to obtain an enhanced disclosure and barring service check—
“(1) The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 are amended as follows.
(2) After rule 4 (nomination of candidates) insert—
‘(4A)(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person has—
(a) undertaken an enhanced DBS check; and
(b) obtained an enhanced DBS certificate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of an organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be requested.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule—
“enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997;
“enhanced DBS certificate” means a certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service following an enhanced DBS check.’”
This new clause would require candidates in a local government election in England and Wales to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain the resulting certificate before they can be validly nominated as a candidate.
New clause 34—Prohibition on accepting donations in cryptoassets to political parties and candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors), at end insert—
‘(7) Any donation received by a registered party or regulated donee which is—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) made from the proceeds generated by crypto-assets such as digital tokens and memecoins; or
(c) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(8) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, the Electoral Commission must publish guidance in relation to the matters in subsection (7).
(9) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’
(3) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) In Schedule 2A, Section 6 (prohibition on accepting donations from impermissible donors), after subparagraph (3), insert—
‘(3A) Any relevant donation received by a candidate or their election agent which is—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets,
(b) made from the proceeds generated by crypto-assets such as digital tokens and memecoins, or
(c) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider,
shall be regarded as a donation received by a candidate or their election agent who is not a permissible donor.
(3B) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, the Commission must publish guidance in relation to the matters in subsection (3A).
(3C) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
The purpose of this new clause is to prevent parties, regulated donees (including third party campaigners) and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets or from the proceeds of cryptoassets, to reduce the risks of anonymous and impermissible donations.
New clause 35—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at parliamentary elections—
“(1) Section 1 (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “Ireland” insert “or a foreign national who for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971 has—
(i) the right of abode in the United Kingdom;
(ii) settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme;
(iii) indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom; or
(iv) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.””
This new clause expands the right to vote in General Elections to residents of the UK who have the right to abode in the UK or leave to enter or remain for an indefinite period.
New clause 36—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at local government elections in England—
“(1) Section 2 (entitlement to vote in local elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c) leave out “(in Wales)”.
(3) In subsection (1)(c)(i), after “rights” insert “or a qualifying foreign citizen;”.”
This new clause expands the right to vote in local government elections in England to extend to foreign citizens with a right to enter or remain in the UK.
New clause 37—Access to Elected Office Fund (England)—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 90D insert—
“90E Access to Elected Office Fund (England)
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, require the Electoral Commission to establish and maintain a fund to be known as the Access to Elected Office Fund (England) (“the Fund”).
(2) The purpose of the Fund is to provide financial assistance to disabled candidates standing for election in England, including providing assistance to meet any additional campaign costs incurred by the candidate as a result of their disability, and the Electoral Commission or a person designated under subsection (4)(a) must administer the Fund consistently with that purpose.
(3) The Secretary of State may from time to time make payments into the Fund of such amounts as they may determine.
(4) Regulations under this section may—
(a) designate a different person, other than the Electoral Commission, to establish and maintain the Fund;
(b) specify criteria for eligibility for financial assistance;
(c) set out the types of expenditure for which financial assistance may be provided;
(d) specify the value of financial assistance available to an individual candidate; and
(e) establish rules and procedures that the Electoral Commission or a person designated under subsection (4)(a) must comply with when administering the Fund.
(5) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) disabled people;
(b) political parties;
(c) relevant charities and civil society organisations; and
(d) the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “disability” has the meaning given under section (6) (disability) of the Equality Act 2010.
(7) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.””
New clause 38—Enfranchisement of foreign nationals at local elections in Northern Ireland—
“(1) Section 2 (local elections electors) of the RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), at end insert—
“(iii) in relation to a local government election in Northern Ireland, a relevant citizen of the Union or a qualifying foreign citizen;””
This new clause would give all residents in Northern Ireland with leave to enter or stay in the UK the right to vote in local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
New clause 39—Prohibition on campaigning or obstructing electors outside polling places—
“(1) A person who interferes or obstructs or impedes a person going to or coming from a polling station commits an offence.
(2) During the period commencing 30 minutes before the time appointed for the taking of a poll at an election, and ending 30 minutes after the close of the said poll, a person shall not, in or in the curtilage of a polling station or in any place within 50 metres of such station, for the purpose of promoting the interest of a political party or furthering the candidature of a candidate or candidates or soliciting votes for a candidate or candidates or for any contrary purpose, do any or all of the following—
(a) loiter or congregate with other persons;
(b) attempt to induce, by any means whatsoever, an elector to vote for a candidate or candidates or vote in a particular way or refrain from voting;
(c) display or distribute any notice, sign or poster (other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer) or card, circular or other document relating to the election; or
(d) use or cause to be used any loud-speaker or other public address mechanism to broadcast matter relating to the election.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a polling station shall be deemed to include all parts of the building and any land within the curtilage of the building in which the polling station is situated and the distance referred to in subsection (2) shall be measured from any entrance to the polling station or to the curtilage thereof.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence.
(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.”
This new clause would prevent people from campaigning, interfering, obstructing or impeding electors going to or coming from a polling station.
New clause 40—Voting eligibility of convicted persons in detention—
“In section 3 of RPA 1983, (disfranchisement of offenders in prison etc.)—
(a) for subsection (1), substitute—
“(1) A convicted person, during the time that they are detained in a penal institution in pursuance of a sentence imposed for a term exceeding four years or unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.”;
(b) omit subsection (1A); and
(c) in subsection 1B, for “1A” substitute “1”.”
The new clause seeks to extend the franchise at UK Parliamentary and local government elections to include those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years and who would ordinarily be eligible.
New clause 41—Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament guidance on certain digital communication offences, including offences involving digital manipulation and artificially generated content in relation to candidates and elected officials.
(2) Any guidance issued under subsection (1) must include guidance on the following—
(a) the operation of section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(b) the operation of section 114A (undue influence) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(c) the interaction between the operations of sections 106 and 114A of the RPA 1983 and the duty of providers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including in relation to priority offences during election periods.
(3) Within 12 months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament either—
(a) a statement that no updates to the guidance are required, or
(b) an updated version of the guidance.
(4) Before issuing—
(a) any guidance under subsection (1) or subsection (3)(b), or
(b) a statement under subsection (3)(a),
the Secretary of State must consult OFCOM and such other persons as they think necessary.
(5) For the purposes of this section “priority offences” means an offence listed in Schedule 7 (Priority offences) of the Online Safety Act 2023.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications as they relate to candidates and elected officials.
New clause 42—Report on electoral online harms—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Electoral Commission must publish a report on the prevention of electoral online harms.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “electoral online harms” includes—
(a) abuse and harassment of or threats directed towards elected representatives, candidates, party campaigners and election officials, or
(b) incitement or violence against any such individuals, but does not include mockery or insult, save where it forms part of a campaign of harassment.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) must contain—
(a) an assessment of the risks of electoral online harms, and
(b) proposals to put in place systems to mitigate those risks including through amendment of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(4) Before publishing its report under subsection (1) the Electoral Commission must consult—
(a) OFCOM, and
(b) the National Police Chiefs Council.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to publish a report containing an assessment of the risks of online electoral harms, and proposals to put in place systems to mitigate those risks.
New clause 43—Repository of digital political advertising—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 61 insert—
“Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising
61A Establishing a repository of digital political advertising
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;
(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;
(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and
(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.
(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
(c) OFCOM.
(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.
New clause 44—Electoral Commission: powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) After Schedule 12, insert—
“SCHEDULE 13: Electoral Commission powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to allow the Electoral Commission to issue a notice requiring certain information from a regulated user-to-user service or search service, at any time during any regulated election period.
(2) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must specify that a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph must comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must specify the information which may be requested by the Electoral Commission, and include the following where they relate to elections—
(a) information relating to paid-for political advertising;
(b) algorithmic systems;
(c) coordinated inauthentic behaviour; and
(d) automated or bot accounts (whether domestic or foreign).
(4) Any regulations made under paragraph (2) must also provide for any safeguards considered necessary by the Secretary of State as regards data protection or commercial confidentiality.
(5) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this Schedule, “user-to-user service” has the meaning given by section 3 (“user-to-user service” and “search service”) of the Online Safety Act 2023.””
New clause 45—Critical election incident protocol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a Critical Election Incident Protocol (“the Protocol”) for the purpose of responding to incidents that present a significant risk to the integrity, security or public confidence of elections.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Critical Election Incident” means any event, threat or activity that poses a substantial risk to—
(a) the integrity, security or administration of an election;
(b) the ability of the public to freely participate in the electoral process;
(c) or public confidence in the fairness or legitimacy of an election.
(3) Before publishing the Protocol, the Secretary of State must consult the following on its contents—
(a) relevant civil society organisations,
(b) relevant experts, and
(c) relevant regulators.
(4) Any Protocol published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the establishment of an oversight body comprised of such senior ministers and officials as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) the establishment of an advisory body of civil society and experts with relevant expertise as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(c) criteria by which Critical Election Incidents are identified and the Protocol is triggered;
(d) categories of severity of Critical Election Incidents based on their severity; and
(e) details of differentiated responses to Critical Election Incidents for each of the categories identified under subsection (d) which would be necessary and proportionate.
(5) Any Protocol published under subsection (1) must be compatible with the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations including but not limited to the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Protocol—
(a) one year after the publication of the Protocol under subsection (1) and annually thereafter; and
(b) within three months of any occasion on which the Protocol has been used.
(7) Any report published under subsection (6) must include—
(a) a description of activities undertaken under the Protocol, subject to any necessary limitations relating to national security or ongoing investigations;
(b) information about consultation with the established oversight and advisory bodies;
(c) an assessment of the impact of the Protocol on human rights and democratic participation.
(8) Any report produced under subsection (6) must be sent to the Housing and Local Government Committee of the House of Commons.
(9) In this section, references to Housing and Local Government Committee shall—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (b)) to be references to the Committee by its new name;
(b) if the functions of that Committee at the passing of this Act with respect to matters relating to Protocol become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, be taken to be references to the committee by whom the functions for the time being exercisable.”
New clause 46—Government review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the adequacy of the current regulated periods for elections and referendums.
(2) The review must consider the following—
(a) the impact of campaign activity outside the relevant regulated period on elections;
(b) whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient to tackle the prevalence of—
(i) manipulated content,
(ii) misinformation,
(iii) disinformation,
and their potential influence on elections.
(3) The review may make any recommendations it feels necessary for legislative or regulatory reform as a result of its findings.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “campaign activity” includes—
(a) digital campaigning;
(b) targeted advertising; and
(c) automated content distribution.
(5) For the purposes of this section “regulated period” means any period regulated under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament, together with their response to any recommendations for legislative or regulatory reform.”
This new clause requires the government to establish a review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections which would consider whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient in relation to the prevalence of manipulated content, misinformation and disinformation.
New clause 47—Information to be included with electronic material: data provenance—
“After Section 41 (requirement to include information with electronic material) of the Elections Act 2022 insert—
“Requirement to include information with electronic material created through generative artificial intelligence
(1) This section applies to electronic material which—
(a) meets the conditions in section 42 (paid for electronic material), or
(b) meets the conditions in section 44 (other electronic material), and has been generated wholly through generative artificial intelligence.
(2) Electronic material to which this section applies must not be published unless it includes the following information—
(a) a statement that content was wholly generated by a generative artificial intelligence system;
(b) the name of the system used to generate the content.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) additional requirements for information to be required under subsection (2);
(b) the form in which the information required under subsection (2) is to be provided.
(4) The form prescribed by regulations under subsection (3)(b) must be a form which can be detected and processed by regulated user-to-user services for the purpose of providing the required information to users of such services.
(5) Any regulations made under subsection (3) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “generative artificial intelligence” means a computer system or software that—
(a) is capable of producing text, images, audio, video, or other content autonomously, wholly or substantially, based on prompts or instructions provided by a user;
(b) uses machine learning or other algorithmic techniques to generate content that mimics human-created material; and
(c) may produce content that is not pre-existing but is synthesized based on patterns learned from existing data.””
This new clause requires campaign material which has been generated by generative artificial intelligence to include a statement to that effect along with the name of the system used. It creates a power for the Government to make regulations about the information to be included.
New clause 48—Blind and partially sighted voters: equipment and secret voting—
“(1) Rule 29 (equipment of polling stations) of Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3)(a), at end insert—
“independently and in secret”.
(3) For paragraph (3A) substitute—
“(3A) The returning officer shall also provide each polling station with such equipment as is necessary to ensure that relevant persons are able to vote independently and in secret, including—
(a) tactile equipment that enables the voter to navigate the ballot paper and accurately mark their chosen candidate without assistance; and
(b) audio equipment that enables the voter to access and review the content of the ballot paper in the language in which it is printed without assistance.”
(4) After paragraph (3A) insert—
“(3AA) For the purposes of paragraph (3A)(b), a person is able to vote independently and in secret only if they are not required to rely on the assistance of the presiding officer, companion, or any other person to navigate, review and mark the ballot paper.””
This new clause would require certain equipment to be provided to people who find it difficult or impossible to vote because they are blind, partially sighted, or because of another disability in order for them to be able to vote independently and in secret.
New clause 49—Electoral Advertising Code of Practice—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice (“the Advertising Code”).
(2) The Advertising Code must include principles and guidance relating to electoral advertising and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) ensuring the accuracy of factual claims,
(b) the need for relevant and reliable evidence to substantiate factual claims,
(c) the need to clearly identify the political party affiliated with an advert,
(d) transparency in the use of artificial intelligence, and
(e) issuing prompt public corrections to address mistakes.
(3) In this section “electoral advertising” means any factual claims in marketing communications, whenever published or distributed, whose principal function is to influence voters in a local, regional, national or international election or referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Advertising Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) the Electoral Advertising Code Committee,
(b) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(c) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to produce an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice. It is connected to NC50, NC51 and NC52.
New clause 50—Electoral Advertising Code Committee—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee (“the Committee”).
(2) The functions of the Committee are—
(a) to advise the Electoral Commission on the preparation and revision of the Advertising Code,
(b) to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the Advertising Code, and
(c) to oversee the operation of and monitor the effectiveness of the Advertising Code.
(3) In exercising functions under this Part, the Committee must have regard to the importance of freedom of political expression and open democratic debate, and will not determine matters of political opinion unless they fall within the scope of factual claims in electoral advertising.
(4) The Committee is to consist of—
(a) a Chair,
(b) a member nominated by the Electoral Commission,
(c) a member nominated by the Advertising Standards Authority or its successor body,
(d) a member nominated by the Office of Communications, and
(e) a member nominated by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.
(5) Nothing in this Part limits the powers of the bodies identified in subsection (4) under any other enactment.
(6) The Chair is to be appointed by the Electoral Commission following a fair and open competition conducted in accordance with the Public Appointments Code, with a majority of independent members on the assessment panel and a senior independent panel member.
(7) The appointment of the Chair requires the consent of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which must not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(8) In making the appointment, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the need to secure the independence of the Committee.
(9) A person appointed as Chair holds office—
(a) for a single non-renewable term of five years from the date of appointment, and
(b) in accordance with terms and conditions (including as to remuneration and pension) specified by the Electoral Commission.
(10) The Chair may resign from office by giving written notice to the Electoral Commission.
(11) The Electoral Commission must pay to the Committee the sums determined by the Chair as appropriate for, or in connection with, the carrying out of the Committee’s functions.
(12) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, carry out a consultation on a levy on registered political parties’ election advertising spend for the purpose of funding the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(13) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) representatives of registered political parties, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee. It is connected to NC49, NC51 and NC52.
New clause 51—Status of the Campaign Code and enforcement of the Advertising Code—
“(1) Persons engaged in political campaigning must have regard to the Campaign Code.
(2) A registered political party must prepare, publish and keep under review a code of conduct relating to its political campaigning.
(3) A code under subsection (2) must be consistent with the Campaign Code and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(4) The following persons, when engaged in electoral advertising, must comply with the Advertising Code—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) members of the House of Commons,
(c) members of any local authority in any part of the United Kingdom,
(d) members of the Greater London Assembly,
(e) candidates or prospective candidates at a United Kingdom general election, by-election, local authority election, Greater London Authority election or mayoral election,
(f) recognised third parties within the meaning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(g) election agents within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(5) The Committee may, by written notice, require a person to provide information or documents reasonably required for the purposes of investigating a suspected breach of the Advertising Code.
(6) A person must comply with a requirement under subsection (5) unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
(7) If, on an application by the Committee, a court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (5), the court may make an order requiring the person to provide the Committee with—
(a) information referred to in the notice, and
(b) other information which the court is satisfied the Committee requires.
(8) Where the Committee considers that electoral advertising is inconsistent with the Advertising Code, it may take the following steps which it considers reasonable to secure compliance—
(a) issuing a notice requiring the person responsible to amend, withdraw or substantiate the advertising within a specified period,
(b) publishing a formal finding of non-compliance on its website [and in the repository of political adverts],
(c) requiring the publication of a correction, clarification or updated version of the advertising with similar prominence where practicable,
(d) notifying relevant online services or publishers and requesting prompt suspension or removal of advertising during the regulated period, and
(e) referring repeated or serious breaches to the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions in accordance with its powers under Schedule 19C to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(9) In deciding whether to impose a civil sanction under subsection (8)(e), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the findings and recommendations of the Committee, and
(b) any enforcement action taken in relation to the same conduct under any other enactment.
(10) Where the Electoral Commission imposes a civil sanction following a referral from the Committee, it must publish a notice setting out—
(a) the nature of the breach,
(b) the sanction imposed, and
(c) the reasons for the sanction.
(11) A person on whom a civil sanction is imposed under subsection (8)(e) may appeal in accordance with the appeal provisions under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(12) Failure to comply with the Campaign Code or the Advertising Code does not of itself give rise to criminal liability.”
This new clause is connected to NC49, NC50 and NC52.
New clause 52—Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning (“the Campaign Code”).
(2) The Campaign Code must set out principles and guidance relating to political campaigning and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(3) In this section “political campaigning” means any conduct, communications or other activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended, directly or indirectly, to influence public support for, or opposition to—
(a) a registered political party,
(b) a candidate or prospective candidate at a general election, by-election, local election or mayoral election, or
(c) an outcome in a referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Campaign Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.
(5) The Electoral Commission may revise the Campaign Code from time to time, and subsections (1) to (4) apply to a revised Campaign Code as they apply to the original.
(6) Electoral advertising as defined in this Part is regulated under the Electoral Advertising Code of Practice and subject to enforcement by the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(7) This Part applies in relation to elections and referendums for which provision may be made by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
This new clause would establish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning. It is connected to NC49 to NC51. The reference in this new clause to “this Part” is a reference to a new Part which would be formed of NC49 to NC51.
New clause 53—Third party campaigning: meaning of “controlled expenditure”—
“(1) Section 85 of PPERA 2000 (controlled expenditure by third parties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) substitute “can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure” with “is incurred with a view to promoting or procuring”.
(3) Omit subsection (4A).”
This new clause would amend the definition of “controlled expenditure” so that expenditure will only be “controlled expenditure” if the intention of a relevant third party is to promote or procure electoral success for registered parties or candidates.
New clause 54—Declaration of gifts and benefits—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of certain gifts and benefits prior to nomination
(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating—
(a) whether they have received in the 12 months preceding the declaration, or are currently in receipt of, gifts or benefits from a single source which are individually or cumulatively of a value exceeding £5000 (“a qualifying gift or benefit”);
(b) the value of any qualifying gift or benefit; and
(c) the source of any qualifying gift or benefit.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a gift or benefit means—
(a) any gift to the person of money or other property;
(b) any sponsorship provided in relation to the person;
(c) any money lent to the person otherwise than on commercial terms;
(d) any money spent in paying any expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the person; or
(e) the provision otherwise than on commercial terms of any property, services or facilities for the use or benefit of the person;
whether or not made in connection with the person’s nomination.
(4) A gift or benefit is not required to be declared under sub-paragraph (1) if it is provided by an immediate family member of the person and the conditions in sub-paragraph (5) are met.
(5) The conditions are that—
(a) the gift or benefit is not being transferred, either directly or indirectly, from any third person; and
(b) the gift or benefit is not made or used in connection with the person’s nomination or any other political activity.
(6) For the purposes of this rule “immediate family member” means a spouse, civil partner, partner, parent, child, sibling, grandparent or grandchild.
(7) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
“(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.”’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare gifts or benefits worth over £5000, except from immediate family, during the 12 months before nomination to be validly nominated, It also places a duty on parties to ensure candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on their behalf.
New clause 56—Plan for implementation of registration without an application—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a plan for the implementation of Part 2.
(2) The Secretary of State must comply with subsection (1) within the period of two months beginning with the day on which this section of this Act comes into force.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan before Parliament.
(4) The plan must set out—
(a) the steps that the Secretary of State plans to take to facilitate the registration of persons registered under section 12A of RPA 1983, including the dates by which each step will be completed;
(b) when the Secretary of State expects any pilot regulations made under section 20 to be laid before each House of Parliament;
(c) a projection of the number of additional persons registered by 15 August 2029 as a consequence of the implementation (in part or in full) of Part 2.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for implementation of registration without an application.
New clause 57—Compulsory voting and civic education—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for introducing—
(a) a compulsory duty to vote at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, and
(b) a programme of civic education in connection with that duty.
(2) Proposals published under this section relating to compulsory voting must include—
(a) provision for electors to be able to mark an abstention, either through returning a spoilt or blank ballot;
(b) provision for the failure to vote to be punishable through a penalty fine, at a rate to be set by the Secretary of State;
(c) provision for certain exemptions to be made for those who are unable to participate in an election, including—
(i) those with a physical or mental illness, or disability,
(ii) those who are unavoidably absent from the UK, and
(iii) those with a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from participating in the election.
(3) Proposals published under this section relating to a programme of civic education must include civic education in schools and the production of learning materials for adults on topics including—
(a) the different electoral systems operation in the UK, and
(b) the roles and responsibilities of elected office holders in the UK.”
This new clause requires the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general elections and local elections in England and proposals for a programme of civic education in schools and the production of learning materials for adults on topics including electoral systems and the roles of elected office holders.
New clause 58—Offences for purposes of Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022: domestic abuse—
“(1) Schedule 9 (offences for the purpose of part 5) of the Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 52A (Online Safety Act 2023) insert—
“Behaviour amounting to domestic abuse
52B Any offence where the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act).””
This new clause would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to the list of Schedule 9 offences for which provisions relating to hostility would apply.
New clause 59—Disqualification orders for court orders relating to abuse or harassment—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out below.
(2) After Section 30 (disqualification orders) insert—
“30A Disqualification orders in connection with court orders relating to abuse or harassment
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“the perpetrator”) has a qualifying order made against them,
(b) the perpetrator was aged 18 or over when the order was made, and
(c) the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that behaviour done to a person for whose protection the qualifying order is made is aggravated by hostility to a person falling within any of sections 32 to 34.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a qualifying order is—
(a) a domestic violence protection order;
(b) a non-molestation order; or
(c) a restraining order.
(3) The court must, when making a qualifying order, also make an order (a “disqualification order”) that the offender is disqualified, for the period in which the qualifying order is in force—
(a) for being nominated for election to a relevant elective office, and
(b) for being elected to or holding a relevant elective office.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply where the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the qualifying order or to the perpetrator which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to make the order; and in such a case the court must state the reasons for not making the order.
(5) For the purposes of this section an offence is aggravated by hostility related to persons falling within any of sections 32 to 34 if—
(a) at the time the order was made, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the person for whose protection the order was made, hostility based on the person being (or being presumed to be) a person falling within any of sections 32 to 34, or
(b) the abusive behaviour was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons falling within any of those sections in their capacity as such.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) it is immaterial whether or not the perpetrator’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that subsection.
(7) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a disqualification order the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and the defence.
(8) It is immaterial whether evidence led in pursuance of subsection (6) would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the protection order was made.
(9) In this section—
“domestic violence protection order” has the meaning set out in section 27 (meaning of “domestic abuse protection order”) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
“non-molestation order” has the meaning set out in section 42 (non-molestation orders) of the Family Law Act 1996;
“restraining order” has the meaning set out in chapter 3 (protection from harassment) of the Sentencing Act 2020;
“presumed” means presumed by the offender.
(10) In section 37 (interpretation of part), in subsection (1) after “section 30” insert “or 30A”.”
This new clause would require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders imposed to prevent abuse or harassment in cases where the hostility relates to a person protected under the Elections Act 2022.
New clause 61—Restriction on registration of parties with assets greater than £250,000—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 28 (registration of parties) after subsection (3D) insert—
“(3DA) A party may not make an application under this section at any time when the total value of the party’s assets is greater than £250,000”
(3) In Schedule 4 (applications under part II) after paragraph 5 insert—
“5A An application must be accompanied by a declaration containing the details of all bank accounts used by the central party and, where relevant, its accounting units for managing all income and expenditure of the party.
5B The Secretary of State may by regulations set out the information required in a declaration under paragraph 5A following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission.
5C Regulations under paragraph 5B are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause prevents a new political party from applying to be registered with the Electoral Commission if it has assets of more than £250,000 at the time of registration, and to provide the Commission with details of the bank accounts used.
New clause 62—Statutory guidance on suspected breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Electoral Commission must prepare draft guidance for Returning Officers on enforcing the provisions of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
(2) Once the Commission has prepared draft guidance under this section, it must submit it to the Secretary of State.
(3) Within 28 days of receipt the draft ballot secrecy guidance, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the draft guidance, either—
(a) in its original form, or
(b) in a form which incorporates any modifications that the Secretary of State considers necessary.
(4) If the draft guidance incorporates any such modifications, the Secretary of State must at the same time lay before each House a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for making them.
(5) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft guidance, the Secretary of State must take no further steps in relation to the draft guidance.
(6) Subsection (5) does not prevent new draft guidance from being laid before Parliament.
(7) If no resolution of the kind mentioned in subsection (5) is made within the 40-day period—
(a) the Secretary of State must issue the guidance in the form of the draft laid before Parliament,
(b) the Commission must arrange for the guidance to be published in such manner as it considers appropriate, and
(c) the guidance comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
(8) The Commission—
(a) may from time to time prepare draft revised guidance under this section, and
(b) must prepare draft revised guidance under this section if directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
(9) References in this section (other than in subsection (1)) to guidance or draft guidance include revised guidance or draft revised guidance.
(10) In this section “the 40-day period”, in relation to draft guidance, means—
(a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the day on which it is laid before the other House, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and
(b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before each House, no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(11) Returning Officers must have regard to guidance issued under this section in exercising their functions.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to prepare, and Parliament to approve, statutory guidance to Returning Officers on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
New clause 63—Overseas electors: reform to voting process—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must, by regulations, make provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at a United Kingdom Embassy, High Commission or consulate at United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
(2) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
New clause 64—Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad—
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to allow overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passport online.
New clause 65—Independent review of registration and participation by overseas electors in UK Parliamentary elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review into how to increase the registration and participation by overseas electors in UK Parliamentary elections.
(2) The matters which the review must consider shall include, but shall not be limited to—
(a) the experience of overseas voters at 2024 general election;
(b) the impact of the Elections Act 2022 on overseas voters;
(c) the number of voters participating from overseas in recent elections in the United Kingdom.
(3) The independent review must report within six months of the passing of this Act and be laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into increasing the registration and participation by overseas electors in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 66—Sponsorship—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 51 (sponsorship) after subsection 3 (b) insert—
“(c) the making of any payment in respect of advertisements or marketing at a conference organised by or on behalf of a registered party where the payment is made at the commercial rate payable for such advertisements or marketing;”
(3) In section 52 (payments, services etc. not to be regarded as donations), for subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) Nothing in section 50 or 51 shall have the result that a payment made in respect of the—
(a) hire of a stand,
(b) hire or sponsorship of a lounge, dedicated space, room, marquee, roundtable event, meal or reception,
at or associated with a party conference organised by or on behalf of a registered party is to constitute a donation to the party for the purposes of this Part if or to the extent that the payment does not exceed such of the maximum commercial rates which the Commission determine to be reasonable for such types of activity at a conference.””
This new clause amends the definition of sponsorship for the purposes of PPERA 2000 so that it does not include advertising, marketing, hire of a stand or a space associated with a party conference, where payment is made at commercial rates.
New clause 67—Language of campaign materials—
“(1) During the relevant period campaign material must not be promoted or published in a foreign language.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person causes campaign material to be promoted or published that falls within subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“campaign material” means imprinted election campaign material published by political parties and candidates, whether in hard copy or digital format;
“foreign language” means a native language of any foreign country outside the British Islands, other than English;
“relevant period” the period after the date on which the candidate becomes a candidate at an election.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove—
(a) that the person took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that the campaign material was not promoted or published contrary to subsection (1), and
(b) that the contravention arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control.”
This new clause would ban election materials published in a foreign language by political parties and candidates during the short campaign. It would not ban campaigning in native languages of the British Islands such as in English, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster Scots, Irish, et al. Nor would it prevent campaigning via the likes of BSL or Braille.
New clause 68—Deadlines for proxy vote applications sent by post—
‘(1) In regulation 56 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means.”
(2) In regulation 56 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for a particular parliamentary election is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means”
(3) In regulation 57 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for a particular parliamentary election is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means”.’
This new clause would require registration officers to accept postal applications for proxy votes in local and general elections in England and Wales, and in general elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland received after the deadline, where there is proof that the application was sent on time for the deadline.
New clause 69—Cap on donations—
‘(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) insert—
“55A Cap on donations
(1) A permissible donor must not, subject to subsections (3) and (4), directly or indirectly give a donation to a relevant regulated entity that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that permissible donor in the same calendar year, exceeds £1,000,000 “the donations cap”.
(2) “Donations” for the purpose of sections 55A to 55F, has the meaning given in section 50 (donations for the purposes of part iv) but does not apply to—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;
(c) subscriptions paid by industrial and provident societies to a registered party;
(d) donations between registered parties;
(e) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(f) bequests.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection 2(b) are that—
(a) the amounts paid by the union’s members into the union’s political fund as their contribution to the union’s affiliation fee, and the money paid by that union to the registered party as its affiliation fee are the same;
(b) the following information must be provided by the union on all of its membership application forms:
(i) an explanation of what the political fund is and the union’s affiliation to a political party;
(ii) an explanation of how much individual members contribute to the political fund and towards the union’s affiliation fee;
(iii) an explanation of the trade union member’s right at any time to stop contributing to the political fund and the union’s affiliation fee and clear information about how they can do this; and
(iv) an explanation of the fact that if a member stops contributing, their membership subscription will be reduced accordingly; and
(c) the union informs its members annually of the amount they are contributing to the union’s affiliation fee and of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, including how they may do so.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known their donation exceeded the donations cap commits an offence.
55B Prohibition on accepting donations in excess of the cap
(1) A relevant regulated entity must not accept a donation that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that donor, exceeds the donations cap under section 55A.
(2) A relevant person or unincorporated association that contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known that accepting a donation would exceed the donations cap under section 55A commits an offence.
55C Receipts for donations
(1) A relevant regulated entity must, within the period of 30 days beginning with the relevant date, provide the donor with a receipt which states—
(a) the name of the relevant regulated entity, and any unique identifier given to it by the Electoral Commission;
(b) the amount of the donation received;
(c) the amount of the donation accepted or returned; and
(d) the date on which the donation was accepted or returned.
55D Declaration as to compliance with the donations cap
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a relevant regulated entity by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the relevant regulated entity—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating, to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the donation does not exceed the donations cap under section 55A (cap on donations).
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P; and
(c) where relevant, that they have complied with the requirements of section 55F (verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships).
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may by regulations prescribe a form of declaration which may be used for the purposes of this section, and other declarations donors are required to give to a relevant regulated entity by virtue of this Act.
55E Attribution of donations connected with companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) For the purposes of section 55A (cap on donations)—
(a) a donation made by a company or limited liability partnership is to be treated as made by each relevant person connected with that company or limited liability partnership, and
(b) a donation made by a relevant person is to be treated as made by each company or limited liability partnership with which that person is connected.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a company are—
(a) members of the company,
(b) directors of the company,
(c) shareholders of the company, and
(d) persons with significant control over the company within the meaning of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a limited liability partnership are—
(a) members of the limited liability partnership, and
(b) persons with significant control over the limited liability partnership.
(4) This section applies in addition to, and not in place of, any donation made by the relevant person in their own capacity.
(5) This section does not apply to companies with voting shares admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or an EU regulated market within the meaning of section 1173 (minor definitions: general) of the Companies Act 2006.
55F Verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) A company or limited liability partnership must not make a donation until they have verified with their directors, members, shareholders and people with significant control that doing so would not exceed the donations cap.
(2) In section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), leave out from “ascertain)” to the end of the subsection and insert—
(a) the identity of the donor;
(b) whether they are a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation;
(c) whether the donation exceeds the donations cap.
(3) In section 56(2), after "by virtue of section 54(1)" insert—
“or section 55B”
(4) After section 56(2) insert—
56 “(2A) Where subsection (2) applies and only part of a donation exceeds the donation cap, the party may retain the amount that does not exceed the donations cap.”
(5) In section 61(1) (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations), after "other than a permissible donor" insert—
“, or which facilitates or is likely to facilitate a breach of section 55A (cap on donations)”
(6) In section 160 (general interpretation)—
(a) after "“organisation” includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;" insert—
“political fund” means a political fund maintained by a trade union under Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;”
(b) after “registered party” means a party registered under Part II of this Act;” insert—
“relevant regulated entity” means—
(a) a registered party within the meaning of Part II of this Act;
(b) a recognised third party within the meaning of Part VI of this Act;
(c) a regulated donee within the meaning of Schedule 7 of this Act;
(d) a candidate standing for a relevant election within the meaning of section 22(5) of this Act;
(e) an unincorporated association making political contributions within the meaning of Schedule 19A.
“relevant person” for the purposes of subsection 55B(2) means—
(a) in the case of a political party, the Treasurer;
(b) in the case of a recognised third party, the responsible person;
(c) in the case of a regulated donee, that person; and
(d) in the case of a candidate, that person.
() In paragraph 6 of schedule 6 (Donations from impermissible donors), after “section 54(1)(a)” insert—
“or section 55B.”
(8) In Schedule 20, in Table after
Insert—
The purpose of this new clause is to introduce a cap on the amount any individual or organisation can give to a political party, candidate, third party campaigner or regulated donee within a calendar year, together with related offences, through amendment to PPERA 2000.
New clause 70—Limits on campaign expenditure—
“In paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (limits on campaign expenditure)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for "£54,010" substitute "£37,600";
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for "£1,458,440" substitute "£1,015,100";
(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), for "£216,060" substitute "£150,390";
(d) in sub-paragraph (3)(c), for "£108,030" substitute “£75,000";
(e) in sub-paragraph (4), for "£54,010" substitute “£37,600”.”
This new clause lowers the national campaign spending limits for political parties, in line with recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL).
New clause 71—Cap on donations exceeding £100,000—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 56 (acceptance of return of donations: general) insert—
“56A Cap on donations exceeding £100,000
(1) A registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant must not accept a donation or gift from a person if the value of donations and gifts from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds £100,000.
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to donations between registered parties or where the source of funds for the donation are—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(c) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (4);
(d) subscriptions paid by registered societies under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to a registered party; or
(e) bequests.
(4) The conditions for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) that the total amount contributed by members of a union to its political fund for the purpose of paying that union’s affiliation fee to a registered party is no less than the total affiliation fee paid by that union to the registered party; and
(b) that the trade union has within the previous twelve months provided those members who contribute to the political fund of that union with details of—
(i) the purpose of the political fund;
(ii) any relationship between the union and any political party in receipt of contributions paid from the political fund; and
(iii) the manner in which a member who contributes to the political fund may exercise a right to stop any contribution to the political fund.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the administration of the conditions in subsection (4).
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause would introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on donations for registered parties, recognised third parties, regulated donees, permitted participants or candidates and their agents, with exemptions for certain organisational donations and bequests.
New clause 80—Cap on donations—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) insert—
“55A Cap on donations
(1) A permissible donor must not, subject to subsections (3) and (4), directly or indirectly give a donation to a relevant regulated entity that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that permissible donor in the same calendar year, exceeds £250,000 “the donations cap”.
(2) “Donations” for the purpose of sections 55A to 55F, has the meaning given in section 50 (donations for the purposes of part iv) but does not apply to—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;
(c) subscriptions paid by industrial and provident societies to a registered party;
(d) donations between registered parties;
(e) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(f) bequests.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection 2(b) are that—
(a) the amounts paid by the union’s members into the union’s political fund as their contribution to the union’s affiliation fee, and the money paid by that union to the registered party as its affiliation fee are the same;
(b) the following information must be provided by the union on all of its membership application forms—
(i) an explanation of what the political fund is and the union’s affiliation to a political party;
(ii) an explanation of how much individual members contribute to the political fund and towards the union’s affiliation fee;
(iii) an explanation of the trade union member’s right at any time to stop contributing to the political fund and the union’s affiliation fee and clear information about how they can do this; and
(iv) an explanation of the fact that if a member stops contributing, their membership subscription will be reduced accordingly; and
(c) the union informs its members annually of the amount they are contributing to the union’s affiliation fee and of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, including how they may do so.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known their donation exceeded the donations cap commits an offence.
55B Prohibition on accepting donations in excess of the cap
(1) A relevant regulated entity must not accept a donation that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that donor, exceeds the donations cap under section 55A.
(2) A relevant person or unincorporated association that contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known that the accepting a donation would exceed the donations cap under section 55A commits an offence.
55C Receipts for donations
(1) A relevant regulated entity must, within the period of 30 days beginning with the relevant date, provide the donor with a receipt which states—
(a) the name of the relevant regulated entity, and any unique identifier given to it by the Electoral Commission;
(b) the amount of the donation received;
(c) the amount of the donation accepted or returned; and
(d) the date on which the donation was accepted or returned.
(2) The relevant date for the purposes of subsection (1) is—
(a) where the donation is accepted, the date of acceptance; or
(b) where the donation is returned, the date of return.
(3) When requested by a relevant regulated entity for the purpose of complying with section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), a donor must provide copies of all receipts received by them within that calendar year.
(4) Donors and relevant regulated entities must retain copies of receipts issued or received under this section for a period of 5 years.
(5) When requested by a relevant regulated entity for the purpose of complying with section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), the Electoral Commission must provide a unique identifier to the relevant regulated entity.
55D Declaration as to compliance with the donations cap
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a relevant regulated entity by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the relevant regulated entity—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating, to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the donation does not exceed the donations cap under section 55A (cap on donations).
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P; and
(c) where relevant, that they have complied with the requirements of section 55F (verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships).
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may by regulations prescribe a form of declaration which may be used for the purposes of this section, and other declarations donors are required to give to a relevant regulated entity by virtue of this Act.
55E Attribution of donations connected with companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) For the purposes of section 55A (cap on donations)—
(a) a donation made by a company or limited liability partnership is to be treated as made by each relevant person connected with that company or limited liability partnership, and
(b) a donation made by a relevant person is to be treated as made by each company or limited liability partnership with which that person is connected.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a company are—
(a) members of the company,
(b) directors of the company,
(c) shareholders of the company, and
(d) persons with significant control over the company within the meaning of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a limited liability partnership are—
(a) members of the limited liability partnership, and
(b) persons with significant control over the limited liability partnership.
(4) This section applies in addition to, and not in place of, any donation made by the relevant person in their own capacity.
(5) This section does not apply to companies with voting shares admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or an EU regulated market within the meaning of section 1173 (minor definitions: general) of the Companies Act 2006.
55F Verification by directors, members and persons of signification control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) A company or limited liability partnership must not make a donation until they have verified with their directors, members, shareholders and people with significant control that doing so would not exceed the donations cap.
(2) In section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), leave out from “ascertain)” to the end of the subsection and insert—
(a) the identity of the donor;
(b) whether they are a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation;
(c) whether the donation exceeds the donations cap.”
(3) In section 56(2), after "by virtue of section 54(1)" insert—
“or section 55B”
(4) After section 56(2) insert—
56 “(2A) Where subsection (2) applies and only part of a donation exceeds the donation cap, the party may retain the amount that does not exceed the donations cap.”
(5) In section 61(1) (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations), after "other than a permissible donor" insert—
“, or which facilitates or is likely to facilitate a breach of section 55A (cap on donations)”
(6) In section 160 (general interpretation)—
(a) after "“organisation” includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;” insert—
““political fund” means a political fund maintained by a trade union under Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;”
(b) after "registered party" means a party registered under Part II of this Act;" insert—
““relevant regulated entity” means—
(a) a registered party within the meaning of Part II of this Act;
(b) a recognised third party within the meaning of Part VI of this Act;
(c) a regulated donee within the meaning of Schedule 7 of this Act;
(d) a candidate standing for a relevant election within the meaning of section 22(5) of this Act;
(e) an unincorporated association making political contributions within the meaning of Schedule 19A.
“relevant person” for the purposes of subsection 55B(2) means—
(a) in the case of a political party, the Treasurer;
(b) in the case of a recognised third party, the responsible person;
(c) in the case of a regulated donee, that person; and
(d) in the case of a candidate, that person.”
(7) In paragraph 6 of schedule 6 (Donations from impermissible donors), after "section 54(1)(a)" insert—
“" or section 55B".”
(8) In Schedule 20, in Table after
insert—
The purpose of this new clause is to introduce a cap on the amount any individual or organisation can give to a political party, candidate, third party campaigner or regulated donee within a calendar year, together with related offences, through amendment to PPERA 2000.
New clause 81—Removal of requirement to publish candidates’ addresses
“(1) Schedule 1 of RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In rule 6 (nomination of candidates) omit paragraphs (5) and (6).
(3) In rule 14 (publication of statement of persons nominated)—
“(a) In paragraph (2) for “addresses” substitute “a statement of—
“(a) where the candidate’s home address is in the United Kingdom, the constituency or the relevant area within which that address is situated;
(b) where the candidate’s home address is outside the United Kingdom, the country within which that address is situated;”
(b) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(2ZA) In paragraph (2)(a), “relevant area” means—
“(a) in relation to a home address in England—
(i) if the address is within a district for which there is a district council, that district;
(ii) if the address is within a county in which there are no districts with councils, that county;
(iii) if the address is within a London borough, that London borough;
(iv) if the address is within the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples), the City of London;
(v) if the address is within the Isles of Scilly, the Isles of Scilly;
(b) in relation to a home address in Wales—
(i) if the address is within a county, that county;
(ii) if the address is within a county borough, that county borough;
(c) in relation to a home address in Scotland, the local government area in which the address is situated;
(d) in relation to a home address in Northern Ireland, the local government district in which the address is situated.””
(c) Omit paragraph (3A)”
(4) In rule 14A (correction of minor errors) omit subparagraph (2)(c).”
This new clause would remove the requirement for candidates’ addresses to be published, replacing it with a statement of the constituency, relevant area or country outside the UK in which they are resident.
New clause 82—Liability for false statements as to candidates and undue influence on regulated user-to-user services—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) is amended as set out in subsections (3) to (5).
(3) In subsection (1) after “makes” insert “hosts on a regulated user-to-user service”.
(4) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged under subsection (1) in connection with the hosting on a regulated user-to-user service if the person is alerted by a person to the presence of any activity on the regulated user-to-user service, or becomes aware of it in any other way, and removes such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.”
(5) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) For the purposes of this section a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).”
(6) Section 114A (undue influence) is amended as set out in subsection (7) to (8).
(7) In subsection (5) after (c) insert—
“(d) on a regulated user-to-user service operated by or on behalf of P”
(8) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) It is a defence for a person charged under subsection (1) in connection with an activity under subsection 5(d) if the person is alerted by a person to the presence of any such activity on the regulated user-to-user service, or becomes aware of it in any other way, and removes such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5) a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).””
This new clause would enable operators of regulated user-to-user services, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023, to be held liable for false statements relating to election candidates and activity amounting to undue influence in elections, if not swiftly removed from the service.
New clause 83—Proposals for regulation of social media during specified elections—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the regulation of content relating to specified elections on regulated user-to-user services during election periods.
(2) The specified elections for the purposes of subsection (1) are—
(a) UK parliamentary elections, and
(b) local government elections in England and Wales.
(3) The election periods for the purpose of subsection (1) are—
(a) in the case of a parliamentary election, the period between the issuance of a writ and the closure of polling, as set out in paragraph 1 (timetable) of schedule 1 of RPA 1983; or
(b) in the case of a local election, the period between the publication of the notice of election and the closure of polling, as set out in schedules 2 (rules for conduct of an election of councillors of a principal area where poll is not taken together with poll at another election) and schedule 3 (rules for conduct of an election of councillors of a principal area where the poll is taken together with the poll at a relevant election or referendum) of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006.
(4) Proposals under subsection (1) must include measures to require regulated user-to-user services to—
(a) have regard to fairness and public confidence in specified elections in relation to the publication and promotion of content on the service; and
(b) remove content that is deliberately false or misleading relating to specified elections as quickly as is reasonably possible.
(5) In preparing proposals under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) The operation of the Online Safety Act 2023 with regard to regulated user-to-user services; and
(b) The operation of section 6 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code as established by section 319 (OFCOM’s standards code) of the Communications Act 2003 (“the Broadcasting Code”).
(6) In preparing proposals under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) Ofcom,
(c) representatives of broadcasters subject to the Broadcasting Code,
(d) representatives of operators of regulated user-to-user services;
(e) representatives of registered political parties; and
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay the proposals before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) For the purposes of this section a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).”
This new clause would require the Government to bring forward proposals for the regulation of election-related content of regulated user-to-user services, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023, during parliamentary elections and local Government elections.
New clause 84—Party descriptions in the form of instructions to voters—
“After subparagraph (2)(g) of section 28A of PPERA 2000 (descriptions) insert—
“(h) could be interpreted as an instruction to an elector on how to cast their vote.””
This new clause would prevent a candidate from registering a party description that could be interpreted as an instruction to an elector in how to cast their vote.
New clause 85—Permissible donors not to include overseas voters—
“At the end of subsection 54(2)(a) of PPERA (permissible donors) insert — “and who is not qualified to vote as an overseas elector under section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985”
This new clause would prevent donations being received from overseas voters.
New clause 86—Impermissible donations where donor’s income is not subject to UK tax liability—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 54 (permissible donors), subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (aa) (both as inserted by section 9(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and as substituted by section 10(1) of that Act);
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(ab) the person by whom the donation is to be made is using the Foreign Income and Gains regime to claim tax relief on—
(i) income and gains arising from outside the UK; or
(ii) UK income or gains deemed to be foreign under the qualifying asset holding company rules.””
This new clause would mean that donations could not be accepted by parties if a donor was using the Foreign Income and Gains regime to claim tax relief on foreign income.
New clause 87—Randomised listing of names on ballot papers—
“(1) Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 2, at end insert—
“14 The order of candidate surnames on ballot papers where more than one candidate is to be elected must be listed using a randomised system rather than names being listed alphabetically.””
This new clause would require the order of names on ballot papers for UK Parliamentary elections to be determined and listed using a randomised system.
New clause 88—Proposals for a Royal Commission on political donations and campaign expenditure—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider—
(a) the merits of a cap on political donations, and the level at which such a cap should be set, and
(b) the effectiveness of existing limits on campaign expenditure, including the appropriateness of the time period during which those limits apply.
(2) Any proposals made under this section must specify that the Royal Commission should publish its recommendations for a cap on political donations within twelve months of being established.
(3) Proposals published under this section must include proposals for the Royal Commission’s—
(a) terms of reference,
(b) membership, and
(c) funding.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to put forward proposals to establish a Royal Commission to consider and make recommendations for a cap on political donations, as well as the effectiveness of existing campaign expenditure limits.
New clause 89—Compulsory voting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of section 17 (registration without an application) of this Act coming into force, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for introducing compulsory duty to vote at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England for individuals who are registered to vote.
(2) Proposals published under this section relating to compulsory voting must include—
(a) provision for electors to be able to mark an abstention, either through returning a spoilt or blank ballot;
(b) provision for the failure to vote to be punishable through a penalty fine of £10.
(c) provision for certain exemptions to be made for those who are prevented from participating in an election as a , including—
(i) those with a physical or mental incapacity, illness, or disability,
(ii) those who are absent from the UK, and
(iii) those with a sincerely held conscientious or religious belief
(d) provision for pilots of compulsory voting in connection with any pilots undertaken under Section 20 of this Act (power to pilot changes to the voter registration process).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for compulsory voting, including piloting compulsory voting in connection with any pilots of changes to voter registration process.
New clause 91—Declaration of notification requirements for registered sex offenders—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
“(8A) Declaration of notification requirements for registered sex offenders
(1) A person convicted and sentenced for a sexual offence or sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 must declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime as part of the nomination process, otherwise that person is not validly nominated.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.””
This new clause would require sexual offenders who are subject to the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare this requirement as part of the candidate nomination process.
New clause 92—Permissible donors not to include overseas electors registered for periods exceeding five years—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) is currently registered as an overseas elector; and
(b) that registration as an overseas elector has been for a continuous period exceeding five years.
(2B) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985””
This new clause would prevent overseas electors who have been registered as such for more than five years from being a permissible donor.
New clause 93—Impermissible donations and donors—
“(1) After section 54 of PPERA 2000, insert—
“54A Impermissible donations: criminal property and proceeds of crime
(1) A donation received by a registered party or regulated donee, must not be accepted by that recipient if—
(a) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the party or regulated donee knows or ought reasonably to have known that the donation constitutes “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act, or
(b) the donation derives from money or other benefit where there is a reasonable suspicion that it comes from the proceeds of crime.
(2) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the candidate or his election agent knows, or ought reasonably to have known that the donation constitutes “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act.”
(3) After subsection Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA 2000 insert—
“(2A) A person who would otherwise fall under section 54(2) is not a permissible donor if their donation derives directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and which was provided with a view to the making of the donation.”
(4) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) the donation derives directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom, and not registered in an electoral register, and which was provided with a view to the making of the donation.”
(5) After section 54A of PPERA 2000 (declaration as to source of donation) insert—
“54AA Declaration as to source of a donation or loan: criminal property and proceeds of crime
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a registered party by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the party—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating that the donation or loan, to the best of the individual’s knowledge and belief, meets the criteria set out in subsection (2).
(2) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that the donation does not constitute “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that the donation does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation.
(3) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P.
(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence subject to the same sanction as an offence under section 54A (declaration as to the source of a donation).”
(6) After subsection 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations) of PPERA 2000, insert—
“(1A) The duty in subsection (1) shall include a duty to take all reasonable steps to verify that—
(a) the donation does not derive directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation or loan; and
(b) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the donation does not constitute “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act.
(1B) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Electoral Commission, make regulations exercisable by statutory instrument providing what the duty in subsection (1), to take all reasonable steps, requires.
(1C) Any regulations made under subsection (1B) may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may make different provision for different cases.
(1D) Regulations to which subsection (1B) applies are not to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”””
This new clause prevents donations to parties and candidates where the donation derives from the proceeds of crime or is provided by a person who is not resident in the UK and is not registered on the electoral register, and creates related declarations and verification requirements.
New clause 94—Government proposals to require declarations as to the source of a donation: money derived from cryptocurrency—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals to require—
(a) any person who causes a donation, loan, or other regulated transaction to be received by a political party to make a declaration that they have not converted cryptocurrency into fiat currency for the purposes of avoiding the restrictions of section 55A (cryptoassets) of PPERA 2000; and
(b) for any donation not accompanied by such a declaration to be returned to the donor.”
This new clause is intended to require the Government to bring forward proposals to require people who donate to registered parties to declare that they have not converted money from cryptocurrency to fiat currency to avoid the restrictions.
New clause 95—Acceptance of regulated transactions—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 71G (valuation of regulated transactions) insert—
“71GAA Conditions for being a party to a regulated transaction
(1) A registered political party or other regulated donee must not be party to a regulated transaction if—
(a) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the party or regulated donee knows or ought reasonably to have known that the financing of the regulated transaction is through the use of “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act, or
(b) the financing of the regulated transaction derives from money or other benefit where there is a reasonable suspicion that it comes from the proceeds of crime.
(c) that the financing of the regulated transaction does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to providing finance for the transaction.”
(3) After section 71HZA (declaration that residence etc condition is satisfied) insert—
“71HZB Declaration regarding the source of finance for regulated transactions
(1) A registered party or regulated donee must not be party to a regulated transaction unless they have received a written declaration from the other party to the transaction where that party is an individual stating that to the best of the individual’s knowledge and belief, that the transaction meets the criteria set out in subsection (2).
(2) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that the financing of the regulated transaction does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit that constitutes "criminal property" within the meaning of section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that the donation does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation.
(3) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made.
(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence subject to the same sanction as an offence under section 54A (declaration as to the source of a donation).””
This new clause prevents loans being provided to registered parties and regulated donees where the financing of the transaction derives from the proceeds of crime or is provided by a person who is not resident in the UK and is not registered on the electoral register, and creates related declarations.
New clause 96—Permissible electors to include overseas electors with previous tax residence etc—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a), at the end insert “(but this is subject to subsection (2ZA))”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) An individual registered in an electoral register who at the date of a donation qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency is only a permissible donor for the purposes of this Part if—
(a) the individual was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes,
(b) the individual has a Unique Taxpayer Reference, and
(c) the individual holds, and has held for at least the past 12 months, sufficient funds that may be charged to tax in the United Kingdom that are at least equivalent to the value of the donation.
(2ZB) For the purposes of subsection (2ZA)—
(a) whether a person qualifies as an overseas elector is to be determined in accordance with section 1A of the Representation of the People Act 1985;
(b) whether a person was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes is to be determined in accordance with Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013.””
This new clause limits permissible donors who are overseas electors to those who have previously been resident in the UK for tax purposes, have a Unique Taxpayer Reference and holds funds that may be taxed in the UK which have a value of at least the amount to be donated.
New clause 97—Power of Electoral Commission to require disclosure from financial institutions—
“In Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (investigatory powers of Commission), after paragraph 1 insert—
“Power to require disclosure from financial institutions
1A(1) The Commission may give a disclosure notice to a financial institution requiring the institution—
(a) to produce, for inspection by the Commission or a person authorised by the Commission, any documents which—
(i) relate to the income and expenditure of an organisation or individual to which paragraph 1 applies, and
(ii) are reasonably required by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out their functions; or
(b) to provide the Commission, or a person authorised by the Commission, with any information or explanation which relates to that income and expenditure and is reasonably required by the Commission for those purposes.
(2) A financial institution to whom a disclosure notice is given shall comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) In this paragraph, “financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).””
This new clause gives the Electoral Commission the power to require information from a financial institution relating to the income and expenditure of political parties and associated individuals.
New clause 98—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—
“(1) By 1 July 2027, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 43(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to bring into force section 9(2) of that Act (declaration as to source of donation).
(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to exercise the power to commence section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 which inserts section 54A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires declarations to be provided as to the source of donations.
New clause 99—Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 39 (false statements: offence), in subsection (1), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(3) In section 44 (supplementary provisions about auditors), in subsection (4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(4) In section 54A (declaration as to source of donation), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(5) In section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied), in subsection (3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(6) In section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(7) In section 71T (declaration by treasurer in transaction report), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(8) In section 73 (notional campaign expenditure), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(9) In section 83 (declaration by treasurer as to return relating to campaign expenditure), in subsection (3)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(10) In section 86 (notional controlled expenditure), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(11) In section 94F (authorised expenditure in excess of targeted expenditure limit), in subsection (6), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(12) In section 95C (related offences), in subsection (2), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(13) In section 99 (declaration by responsible person as to return as to controlled expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(14) In section 99A (declaration by responsible person as to statement of accounts), in subsection (3)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(15) In section 112 (notional referendum expenses), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(16) In section 123 (declaration of responsible person as to return relating to referendum expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(17) In Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and members associations)—
(a) In paragraph 6A(5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”;
(b) In paragraph 6B(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”;
(c) In paragraph 13(4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(18) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations, in paragraph 13(4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(19) In Schedule 19A (reports of gifts received by unincorporated associations making political contributions), in paragraph 6(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(20) In Schedule 19B (investigatory powers of Commission), in paragraph 13(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.”
This new clause reduces the threshold for certain offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false statements or declarations are made in relation to election expenses, an offence is committed if the person has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are doing so.
New clause 100—Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount—
“In section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration as to source of donation)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “£7,500” substitute “the specified amount”;
(b) in subsection (2)(B), for “£7,500” substitute “the specified amount”;
(c) after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) In this section, the specified amount is—
(a) where subsection (2) applies and, to the best of the knowledge or belief of the individual giving the written declaration under subsection (1), the person other than P is not a permissible donor, £500;
(b) in all other circumstances, £7,500.””
This new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration as to its source (rather than the current minimum of £7,500) if the source is not a permissible donor.
New clause 101—Penalties for false declarations—
“(1) Schedule 20 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (penalties) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for section 54A(5) (making a false declaration as to source of donation), in the second column, for “1 year” substitute “3 years”.
(3) In the entry for section 83(3)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for “1 year” substitute “3 years”.
(4) In the entry for section 123(4)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for “1 year” substitute “3 years”.”
This new clause raises the maximum penalties for submitting false declarations from 1 year’s imprisonment upon conviction on indictment to 3 years’ imprisonment upon conviction on indictment.
New clause 102—Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding—
“(1) The Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) must each produce and publish an annual report about—
(a) the risk of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations, and
(b) the adequacy of any systems designed to address risks of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations.
(2) The Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.
(3) In this section—
“controlled donation” means—
(a) a donation to a registered party, individual or members association that is subject to Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) a donation to a candidate or their agent that is subject to Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983;
“foreign interference” includes the commission of a relevant electoral offence to which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 applies (foreign interference in elections).”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) to make annual reports about the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
New clause 103—Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 54 (permissible donors to registered parties) insert—
“54A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A donation received by a registered party by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the party must not be accepted by the party unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 52(2)(a) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a registered party;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(3) In Schedule 7 (controls on donations to individuals and members associations), after paragraph 6 insert—
“Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
6ZA (1) A controlled donation received by a regulated donee by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the donee must not be accepted by the donee unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(3)(b) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a regulated donee;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this paragraph, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(4) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 in Schedule 2A (controls on donations to candidates), after paragraph 6 insert—
“Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
6A (1) A relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent by way of a transfer of cryptoassets must not be accepted unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(2) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a candidate or agent;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent (including information relating to any transactions between the original source of the funds and the transfer of those funds into the cryptoassets);
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause introduces controls on donations made by way of transfers of cryptoassets to registered political parties, regulated individuals and associations linked to political parties, electoral candidates and their agents. The new clause prevents such donations from being accepted unless the donation or transfer complies with requirements set out in regulations made by the Electoral Commission. This will operate to prohibit such donations until such time as the Commission has made such regulations in order to control cryptoasset donations.
New clause 104—Electoral Commission: Education of young people about electoral information—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After Section (13A) insert—
“13ZA Education of young people about electoral information and media literacy.
(1) The Commission shall promote awareness among people under the current age of registration to vote of—
(a) access to independent and impartial information relating to elections;
(b) media literacy, as set out in section 11(1) (duties to promote media literacy) of the Communications Act 2003; and;
(c) disinformation and misinformation relating to elections, including information generated using artificial intelligence.
(2) The Commission shall perform their functions under subsection (1) in such manner as they think fit but may, in particular, do so by carrying out programmes of education or information to promote awareness of any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).””
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to promote access to information relating to elections and media literacy to young people to support the recognition of partisan information and mis- and disinformation, including content generated by AI.
New clause 105—False statements as to candidates: deepfakes—
“In section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), making or publishing any electronic communication, including moving images and images incorporating text, that has been generated using artificial intelligence deepfake technology which includes an impersonation of a candidate that depicts the candidate saying or doing something that did not occur commits an offence unless the conditions in subsection (1B) are met.
(1B) The conditions in this subsection are—
(a) any reasonable person would recognise the content of the communication as, parody, caricature or artistic expression; or,
(b) the communication is clearly and prominently identified as fictional, altered or artificially generated.””
This new clause would mean that publishing or making AI generated deep fakes is included in the meaning of “making or publishing any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate” for the purpose of the offence of making a false statement as to a candidate.
New clause 106—Removal of right to vote from Commonwealth citizens—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c) for “Commonwealth” substitute “British”.
(3) In section 2 (local government electors) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—
“(c) is a British citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; and”
(4) In section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government electors)
(a) in subsection (1)(c) for “Commonwealth” substitute “British”,
(b) for subsection (3)(c) substitute—
“is a British citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland”,
(c) in subsection (6) omit the words from “Commonwealth” to “such leave”.”
This new clause would remove the right of Commonwealth citizens who are not British citizens to vote in parliamentary elections and in local government elections in England and Wales.
New clause 108—Limitations on postal voting—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 2 (power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters) insert—
“2A Postal voting entitlement restricted to serving members of the armed forces and those unable to vote in person
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no person is entitled to vote by post at a parliamentary or local government election unless the person is a serving member of the armed forces of the Crown or unable to vote in person.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “serving member of the armed forces of the Crown” means a person who—
(a) is a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces (within the meaning given by section 59(1) of this Act), and
(b) is serving with the armed forces on the date of the poll.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the form of declaration or evidence required to establish entitlement under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the categories of persons who are unable to vote in person.””
This new clause would limit postal voting to serving members of the armed forces and other persons who are unable to vote in person.
New clause 109—Protection against controlling and coercive in-person voting—
“(1) Section 62C of RPA 1983 (influencing voters at polling booths) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) The presiding officer or a representative of the presiding officer may require that persons, who appear to have arrived at the polling station together, or who are otherwise associating with each other, enter the polling station and cast their votes one at a time in order to ensure that there is no undue influence.
(7) The presiding officer or a representative of the presiding officer may speak to any voter to determine, in general terms, the voter’s ability to understand—
(a) the voting process; and
(b) the English or Welsh language.
(8) If the presiding officer or representative has concerns over the voter’s ability to understand either matter referred to in subsection (7), the presiding officer shall—
(a) place the ballot paper aside, mark it as belonging to the voter, and it shall not be counted; and
(b) inform the voter that the vote has been set aside and of the right of appeal under subsection (9).
(9) The person whose vote has been set aside under subsection (8) may appeal to the magistrates’ court (or, in Scotland, the sheriff court) for an order that the vote be counted, and such an appeal must be made no later than 48 hours after the close of the poll and the court shall list the matter within 48 hours.
(10) A person who does not comply with the requirement of a presiding officer or representative under subsection (6) is guilty of an offence under this section and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months (or both).””
This new clause would allow presiding officers or their representatives to require voters to vote separately and to set aside votes from voters where there are concerns about their ability to understand the voting process or language.
New clause 110—Election expenses for parliamentary by-elections—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In section 90ZA (meaning of “election expenses”)—
(a) In subsection (4), after “expenses” insert “other than for a parliamentary by-election”
(b) After subsection (4), insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, election expenses in connection with a parliamentary by-election are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election if they are incurred—
(a) by the candidate or his election agent,
(b) by any person authorised by the candidate or his election agent to incur expenses, or
(c) by a registered political party in the name of which the candidate has been nominated, for the purposes set out in subsection (4B)
(4B) The conditions in this subsection are that they relate to—
(a) a candidate;
(b) the constituency in which the election is taking place; or
(c) the by-election;
and are intended to influence electors in the constituency in which the election is taking place.””
This new clause would ensure that national party expenditure directed at promoting a candidate or campaign in a parliamentary by-election counts towards the candidate's spending limit, preventing national party campaign activity from circumventing constituency campaign spending limits.
New clause 111—Cap on donations of more than £5,000 a year from a single individual to parties and candidates—
“(1) After section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general) of PPERA 2000 insert—
“56A Cap on donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation or gift from an individual registered in an electoral register if the value of donations and gifts from that person during the course of the year to any one recipient exceeds £5,000.
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after subparagraph (b) insert—
(a) the person by whom the donation would be made would have made a donation or donations to the candidate or his election agent over the course of the year which exceed £5,000 unless the donation is made by the candidate to themselves.””
This new clause will prevent donations in one calendar year from a single donor to a single candidate or individual party that exceed a total of £5,000.
New clause 112—Ban on donations from companies—
“(1) In section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA 2000, omit subsection (2)(b).
(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make further provision to prevent regulated donees from accepting donations from companies.
(3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) the Electoral Commission, and
(c) any other persons who the Secretary of State thinks necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause prevents companies from donating to political parties, and requires the Government to bring forward regulations to prevent companies from donating to other regulated donees.
New clause 118—Education about electoral and democratic systems in schools—
(1) Section 13 of PPERA 2000 (education about electoral and democratic systems) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1B) The Commission shall carry out programmes of education to promote awareness of children aged 13 and over of current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems.
(1C) Programmes under subsection (1B) must include—
(a) information to enable them to register and vote as soon as they become eligible to do so;
(b) media literacy, as set out in section 11(1) (duties to promote media literacy) of the Communications Act 2003;
(c) political confidence and electoral participation among disadvantaged groups, including—
(i) girls and young women;
(ii) people from lower socio-economic backgrounds,
(iii) ethnic minority groups,
(iv) disabled people; and
(v) any other groups facing barriers to political and electoral participation identified by the Commission;
(d) such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine.
(1D) The Commission shall carry out programmes of teacher training and continuing professional development for the purposes of providing programmes under subsection (1B).”
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (1B), a system is “pending” when arrangements for giving effect to it have been made by any enactment but the arrangements are not yet in force.””
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to carry out education programmes for young people ahead of being eligible to vote, and training for educators on providing such information.
New clause 119—Election material only in languages native to the British Isles—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 110 (details to appear on election publications) insert—
“110ZA Election publications to be in languages native to the British Isles only
(1) A person shall not print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any bill, placard, poster or printed document to which section 110(1) of this Act applies unless the material is in English, Welsh, a language native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(3) In the case of a candidate or election agent, a contravention of subsection (1) is an illegal practice.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
“accessible communications format” means a format which enables a person with a disability to access the information concerned as feasibly and comfortably as a person who does not have that disability,
“language native to the British Isles” means a language specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
(3) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (4) below.
(4) After section 143 (details to appear on election material) insert—
“143ZA Election material to be in languages native to the British Isles only
(1) No election material shall be published unless the material is in English, Welsh, a language native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(4) In the case of a registered party or its officers, a contravention of subsection (1) is an illegal practice.
(5) In this section—
“election material” has the meaning given by section 143ZA(1) of this Act),
“accessible communications format” means a format which enables a person with a disability to access the information concerned as feasibly and comfortably as a person who does not have that disability,
“language native to the British Isles” means a language specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause would require election material to be published only in English, Welsh, languages native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats such as Braille or BSL.
New clause 120—Donation cap on UK-based donors—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 56 (acceptance of return of donations: general) insert—
“56A Cap on donations
(1) A registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee, or permitted participant must not accept a donation or gift from a person if the value of donations and gifts from that person, during the course of that calendar year exceeds the limit set out in subsection (5).
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to donations between registered parties or where the source of funds for the donation are—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(c) a trade union’s political funds, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (4);
(d) subscriptions paid by registered societies under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to a registered party; or
(e) bequests.
(4) The conditions for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) that the total amount contributed by members of a union to its political fund during a calendar year is no less than the total donations made by that union during the same year; and
(b) that the trade union is taking all reasonable steps to comply with Chapter VI of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(5) The limit for the purposes of subsection (1) is—
(a) for the calendar year in which this Act is passed, £500,000;
(b) for the calendar year following the passage of this Act, £100,000; and
(c) for the second and each subsequent calendar year following the passage of this Act, an amount specified by regulations made under subsection (6).
(6) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify a limit for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) within two years of the passage of this Act.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the limit for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) and (5)(b).
(8) Regulations under subsection (6) or (7) must provide a limit for the purposes of subsection (1) at an amount the Secretary of State considers appropriate which does not exceed £500,000.
(9) In considering the level of the limit for the purposes of subsection (8) the Secretary of State must commission and have regard to advice from the Electoral Commission.
(10) Regulations under subsection (6) and (7) may provide for—
(a) requirements to make declarations, reports, and to create and keep records and receipts;
(b) anti-evasion provisions, including the aggregation of donations made by individuals connected to unincorporated associations and legal entities also making donations; and
(c) the amendment, repeal or revocation of any enactment, including provisions within this Act and other electoral legislation, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
This new clause would ensure an immediate donations cap of £500,000, decreasing to £100,000 in the second calendar year, and requiring the Secretary of State during this time to set an appropriate permanent donations cap by regulations.
New clause 121—Requirement for Electoral Commission recommendation to vary specified sums or percentages—
“(1) Section 155 of PPERA 2000 (Power to vary specified sums or percentages) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (1) only if the order gives effect to a recommendation made by the Electoral Commission.
(1C) The Electoral Commission must make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (1B) at least once every five years.
(1D) In making a recommendation under subsection (1C), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the fairness of elections,
(b) the effect on political parties, and
(c) public confidence in the integrity of elections.”
(3) Omit subsections (2) to (4).”
This new clause would require changes to specified sums or percentages specified in PPERA 2000 to be based on a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which would be required to review those amounts at least once every five years.
New clause 122—Equality impact assessment prior to extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out an equality impact assessment of the proposed extension of the franchise in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State must within nine months lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) the equality impact assessment required by subsection (1); and
(b) a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the equality impact assessment.
(3) The Secretary of State may not bring Part 1 of this Act into force until the report specified in subsection (2)(b) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause is connected to Amendment 152 and facilitates a debate on the equality impact of the proposed General Election franchise change on young people in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK.
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“the age at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which an offence is not committed by selling them alcohol.
Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“the age at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which they may enter into a marriage.
Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which they attain the age of majority, including for the purposes of obtaining a mortgage or owning property.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“the age at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“the age at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”;
(b) in paragraph (3) for “of 18 years” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 51, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”
(b) in paragraph 3 for “of 18 years” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “the age of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”
(b) in paragraph (3) for “the age of 18 years” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “of eighteen” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “of eighteen” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 59, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “eighteen” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘of 18’ substitute ‘at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 53, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘of 18’ substitute ‘at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 60, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ’18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘the age of 18’ substitute ‘full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘the age at which they may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 54, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘the age at which they may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 61, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Government amendments 138 and 139.
Amendment 29, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) A registration officer must register a person who is not, for the purposes of section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector) of this Act, resident at any address in the United Kingdom, in a relevant register maintained by the officer if—
(a) the officer is aware of the person’s name and date of birth,
(b) the officer is aware that the person is a homeless person,
(c) the officer is aware of a local connection as set out in section (7B) (notional residence: declarations of local connection) of this Act,
(d) the person is not registered in the register,
(e) the person appears to the officer to be of voting age and entitled to be registered in the register,
(f) the officer has given the person a notice in accordance with section 12B (1) in relation to the register,and
(g) either (or both) of the following applies—
(i) the response period specified in the notice (in accordance with section 12B(3)(d)) has ended;
(ii) during that period, the person confirmed to the officer that the person wishes to be registered in the register under this section.”
This amendment would create a duty on registration officers to automatically register people who are homeless and are otherwise eligible to be registered.
Government amendments 140 and 141.
Amendment 13, page 44, line 26, leave out clause 35.
Amendment 4, in clause 41, page 50, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) After rule 6 insert—
“Enhanced disclosure and barring service check declaration
6AA (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration that they assent to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain an enhanced DBS certificate if elected.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of an organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be obtained.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule, “enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997.””
This amendment would require candidates in a parliamentary election to agree to undertake and fund an enhanced DBS check if elected, to be obtained from an organisation to be designated by the Secretary of State.
Government amendment 63.
Amendment 2, page 60, line 1, leave out clause 47.
This amendment is linked to NC14.
Government amendments 64 to 68.
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) the source and origin of the funds with which the donation was made,
(db) any connections that the person from whom the donation is received has to high-risk jurisdictions and politically exposed persons, and”.
This amendment will require a party to take into account the source of the funds with which the donation was made and any links the donor has to high-risk jurisdictions and politically exposed persons when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58.
Amendment 132, in clause 58, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) whether the donor, or a person connected with the donor, has at any time been convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, bribery, corruption or money laundering (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere),
(db) the extent to which the donation, or the funds used to make it, derive from or have passed through a person connected with the donor as mentioned in paragraph (da),”.
Amendment 33, in clause 58, page 69, line 8, leave out “the party” and insert “a reasonable person”.
This amendment would require a party to take into account any other risk factor that a “reasonable person” rather than “the party” considers to be relevant when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58.
Amendment 34, in clause 58, page 69, line 10, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 13 and insert
“only if the regulations would give effect to a recommendation of the Commission.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could only by regulation amend the risk factors that must be considered by parties when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58 if doing so gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
Amendment 133, in clause 58, page 69, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(da) and (db), a person is "connected with" the donor if—
(a) they are the donor's spouse, civil partner, parent, child or sibling;
(b) they are a person with significant control over the donor (within the meaning of section 54E or54F); or
(c) they have, directly or indirectly, provided or arranged any part of the funds used to make the donation.
(2B) A conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (2)(da) if it is spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, unless the sentence imposed exceeded four years.”
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 69, line 31, at end insert—
“(f) the definition of “high-risk jurisdictions” for the purposes of subsection 54C(2).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 31 and would require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance on the definition of a “high-risk jurisdiction”.
Government amendments 142 and 69.
Amendment 14, in clause 60, page 73, line 6, leave out
“set out in subsections (2) to (6)”
and insert “follows”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in clause 60, page 73, line 7, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
“(2) In section 54 (permissible donors) omit subsections (2)(b) and (2)(f)”.
This amendment would prohibit the acceptance of corporate donations by registered political parties.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 134, in clause 60, page 73, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”
This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.
Amendment 135, in clause 60, page 74, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 54D (inserted by section 58 of this Act) insert—
“54ZE Criminal liability of nominated director or partner to follow requirements
(1) A director or partner nominated by virtue of section 54(3ZA)(c) commits an offence if without reasonable excuse they cause or permit a breach of any requirement imposed under this Part.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding £500,000, or to both.””
This amendment provides that the director or partner who has been nominated to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations commits an offence is they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Government amendments 71 to 76.
Amendment 151, in clause 60, page 78, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(3A) The amount of the person’s remaining available profits at the time of the donation’s receipt by the party is calculated as follows—
Step 1 Add together the person’s profit for each financial year within the relevant period to give “the step 1 total”.
Step 2 Divide the step 1 total by the number of relevant financial years to give “the step 2 total”.
Step 3 Then deduct from the step 2 total the value of each relevant benefit (if any) that has already accrued to the party from the person in the calendar year in which the donation is received.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the amount of the person’s remaining available profits shall not include any profits of any connected persons.
(3C) For the purposes of this section “connected persons” has the meaning given in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (“connected” persons).”
This amendment would require the calculation of remaining available profits of a company or LLP to exclude any subsidiaries and be calculated on the average of the relevant financial years.
Government amendments 77 and 78.
Amendment 136, in clause 60, page 78, line 9, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Government amendments 79 to 81.
Amendment 137, in clause 60, page 78, line 23, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Government amendments 82 to 84, 28 and 86 to 99.
Amendment 1, in clause 73, page 94, line 26, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.
Government amendments 143 to 145.
Amendment 30, in clause 82, page 102, line 11, leave from “appoint” to the end of line 39 and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State must consult with the Parliamentary Parties Panel established under section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of PPERA 2000 before commencing any provision in this Act.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State had consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel.
Amendment 152, in clause 82, page 102, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 of this Act comes into force once the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses as required under section (Equality impact assessment prior to extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK).”
This amendment, together with NC122, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report in response to an equality assessment on extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK.
Amendment 5, in clause 82, page 102, line 29, at end insert—
“(ga) section 41(3A) (enhanced disclosure and barring service check declaration)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Government amendments 100 and 146.
Amendment 3, in clause 82, page 102, line 31, at end insert—
“(ha) section [Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC19.
Government new schedule 1—Donations in cryptoassets: transitional provision.
Government new schedule 2—Regulated transactions involving cryptoassets.
Government new schedule 5—Loans etc to registered parties by companies and LLPs.
Government new schedule 6—Meaning of “donation”.
Government new schedule 7—Cap on donations to registered parties by overseas contributors: application and transitional provision.
Government new schedule 8—Cap on loans etc to registered parties by overseas contributors.
Government amendments 147 to 150 and 101 to 122.
Amendment 35, in schedule 8, page 158, line 40, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 36 to 39, would require a risk assessment to take place for donations that exceed more than £7,500 to a recognised third party.
Amendment 36, page 159, line 6, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 37, page 159, line 14, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 38, page 159, line 17, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 39, page 159, line 27, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 40, page 164, line 36, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
This amendment, together with amendments 41 and 43, lowers the threshold at which donations to candidates at elections must undertake a risk assessment.
Amendment 41, page 164, line 39, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 40.
Amendment 43, page 164, line 40, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 40.
Amendment 44, page 167, line 10, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
This amendment together with Amendments 45 to 48, lowers the threshold at which donations to accredited campaigners in recall petitions must undertake a risk assessment.
Amendment 45, page 167, line 18, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, page 167, line 27, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, page 167, line 30, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 48, page 167, line 41, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Government amendments 123 to 131.
Amendment 12, title, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age at which a person may be sold alcohol in licenced premises”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 55, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age at which a person may enter into a marriage”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 62, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age of majority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Florence Eshalomi
The Representation of the People Bill is central to our plan for fixing politics. Every one of us in this House has a responsibility to show the value of participating in our elections, but the reality is that too many people have lost faith in politics, and we must address the reasons for that. At the heart of this must come measures to reassure the public that the elections they are voting in are fair and free from foreign interference. We must stand against the unprecedented tide of abuse faced by those who put themselves forward to represent their communities.
The Bill will secure our elections against those who threaten them, protect those who participate, ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and strengthen, preserve and modernise our elections for the next generation. It delivers our 2025 strategy for modern and secure elections. It takes forward the recommendations of the Rycroft review and meets our manifesto commitments. It sets the foundations for elections that are fairer and a democracy that is stronger.
Before I speak to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I thank those who participated in the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her tireless work in getting the Bill to this stage.
Cryptoassets have come up in our debates. Cryptoasset transactions create a new and clear route for untraceable money to enter our politics. These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions. This is to prevent malign actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the ban. If recipients fail to comply, they risk enforcement action and, potentially, criminal liability. The Government intend to end the ban once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are satisfied that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance from foreign interference. Ending the ban will therefore require further legislation.
We are also amending the definition of “donation” to include arrangements in which a property is used to pay for the expenses of a recipient.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I offer my warmest congratulations to her on her appointment to the role; she will be a brilliant Minister. She will know that many in this House welcome the update to the legislation proposed by Ministers to ban cryptoassets, but she will also know that the measures that have been proposed by His Majesty’s Government do not go far enough. In particular, they still permit money to be routed through crypto exchanges, turned into fiat and then donated on. Secondly, they still permit donations through things like memecoins. Will she look at the measures in new clause 34, which is supported by 51 Members of this House, so that over the passage of this Bill through this House and the other place, we can ensure that it is as tight and as tough as possible?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important and valuable contribution. It is right that a number of amendments are seeking to limit donations originating from cryptoassets. We agree that the anonymity of crypto transactions creates a worrying route for illicit actors to channel money into our politics. This is an area that the Government are definitely keen to continue to review, ensuring that we end any unintended loopholes that may still arise.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Minister refers to crypto’s anonymity of source. Does she not agree that it is difficult to know what the attraction of crypto is, other than the fact it allows someone to hide where the money comes from? Why not just be straightforward and simply ban its use? Not a temporary ban or a moratorium—just ban it. Why cannot people simply give old-fashioned cash to support political parties?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I know that the Committee has looked at this. The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned. As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to review the ban on cryptocurrency because this issue has cross-party support. We need to ensure that the money coming into our politics is clean and traceable.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her position. I know that many people, not only on the Government side, but on the Opposition side of the House, will be delighted that she has been made a Minister. Can I just challenge her a bit further, or ask for her guidance, on the moratorium point? The Government intend for the Electoral Commission to have strengthened powers to try to tackle the regulatory regime that will be created by the moratorium, but does the Minister not share my concern that if those responsibilities are not enshrined and given to the Electoral Commission in the correct way, this issue will not be as solved as we would want it to be?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member. It is a shame that we will not get to spar on this now that he has left the shadow Front Bench. This is a really big issue, and the Electoral Commission needs to be given the space to develop the right regulatory framework. As I mentioned earlier, any new additions or changes will require primary legislation, which we will bring back. I am mindful of time, so I will make more progress.
I turn now to the Government amendments that will impose an annualised limit on the amount that overseas electors can donate or otherwise contribute to the UK finance system. That will apply to individuals who have been resident outside the UK at any time in the current or previous calendar year, whether or not they are registered as an overseas elector during that time.
The Rycroft review noted two major concerns regarding donations from UK citizens resident overseas. First, it noted that investigating and tracing the origins of the funds used for such donations is more complex than for domestic donations. The review’s second concern was democratic fairness. We have to ask ourselves why should a wealthy individual who has minimised their contribution to the UK Treasury be able to make unlimited donations into our political system. The review proposed an annual cap of between £100,000 and £300,000 on the amount that an overseas elector can contribute into UK political finance. The provisions of the amendments seek to cap this at the lowest recommended threshold of £100,000 per annum.
Florence Eshalomi
I want to make some more progress.
To ensure the efficacy of this cap, we are introducing a minimum residency period. That will mean that an individual moving or returning to the UK will be subject to the £100,000 cap for the remainder of the calendar year, plus another full calendar year. Measures relating to overseas electors and those who have been registered as overseas electors will be retrospective to the date that they were announced on 25 March 2026. Again, that will prevent bad actors from funnelling money into our elections in advance of the change in the law. We are also applying the cap and a minimum residency period to individuals who move to the UK after 6 July and were not previously overseas electors. The £100,000 annual cap will apply per recipient on donations and regulated transactions made from 6 July until commencement, after which they will be treated in the same way as former registered overseas electors. Further amendments relating to the declarations required for this will follow in the Lords.
Dave Doogan
Just to develop the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s theme, the Minister is taking some steps to control foreign contributions and donations to politics, but why not just ban them? She touched herself on the malign influence of people who would seek to offshore their tax liabilities—not contributing to the business of Government—and then, from some offshore location, direct that Government in how to spend that money, which they will not be subject to the consequences of, and neither will they have to contribute. It is totally unjust. Why is it not banned?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman and refer him to my previous statement on this area.
Florence Eshalomi
I need to make progress. I have a number of areas and amendments to cover, and many Members want to comment in the debate.
Overseas electors and those who fall under the minimum residency period will be required to provide a declaration of any necessary information to the recipient to enable them to check whether the donation is permissible. This declaration must be provided before the donation can be accepted. The cap will apply UK-wide and will operate consistently across the political finance regime across UK elections.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about restricting donations. She has talked about loopholes and the new powers that the commission will have. One loophole I am concerned about is that around donations to candidates, the definition of “candidate”, and how that interacts with other parts of the legal framework. Will she share her thoughts on any progress that the Government are making on that loophole, and say whether there is a chance for it to be considered further?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that important example of where loopholes might exist in this technical area. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on that issue as we continue to develop the Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
I want to make some progress.
Government new clause 78 strengthens information-sharing provisions already in the Bill by establishing a reciprocal statutory gateway between the Electoral Commission and relevant public authorities. We have carefully considered recommendation 9 of the review, and we agree that if we are to expect the commission to regulate political finance effectively and respond to the emerging risk, it must be able to receive relevant information from the bodies it works alongside. The new clause enables the commission and relevant public authorities to share information with one another, where doing so assists the performance of their respective functions. The Government also recognise that information sharing must be accompanied by robust safeguards. That is why the gateway is tightly defined. It does not override express statutory prohibitions on disclosure and includes additional protections for sensitive personal information received from revenue authorities, backed by potential criminal sanctions for an unauthorised onward disclosure.
Government amendments 125 to 131 respond to recommendation 10 of the Rycroft review. They give the Electoral Commission greater powers to require the disclosure of documents, information, and the giving of an explanation outside an investigation. They also make minor amendments to ensure that former accredited recall campaigners can be investigated when they cease participation in the recall petition process. Currently, outside an investigation the Electoral Commission can only issue a notice to specific regulated entities requiring disclosure. To issue a notice requiring disclosure from anyone else, there must have been reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. That places the commission in an impossible situation: the only way it can get such information is to take the serious step of opening a formal investigation. However, without such information it is unable to establish the reasonable grounds for suspicion that it needs to open an investigation in the first place. The amendments extend the commission’s powers outside a formal investigation, so that it is able to require the disclosure of information relating to the income or expenditure of regulated entities from any person or organisation.
Florence Eshalomi
I must make progress.
Government new clause 114 implements recommendation 7 of the Rycroft review by giving the Electoral Commission clear powers to require campaign spending returns to be submitted in a standardised format across the political finance regime. That will make spending returns more consistent and easier to scrutinise, supporting greater transparency and more effective oversight.
The amendments relating to “know your donor” measures make a series of technical and clarification changes to the aggregation powers in the “know your donor” regime. The “know your donor” provisions require recipients, in certain circumstances, to undertake a risk assessment where relevant, or where controlled benefits reach the specified threshold. In determining whether that threshold has been met, the Bill contains provisions that require benefits to be considered together. These technical amendments clarify the operation of aggregation rules, how the rules apply to the connected transactions, and when regulated transactions are entered into, in correcting a drafting error relating to regulated participants. The amendments also remove the requirements of the weekly donation report under section 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to include a declaration about carrying out a “know your donor” risk assessment in relation to donations accepted during the reporting period.
Government amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144 are minor and technical amendments that remove powers granted inadvertently in respect of a reserved matter to Ministers of devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Government have been in constant contact with the devolved Governments throughout the development of the Bill, as well as ensuring they are in touch on specific points. Government new clause 113 closes a gap in current legislation whereby if an overseas elector ceases to be British, they could potentially remain on the electoral register, thus remaining eligible for up to three years. The new clause allows such individuals to be removed from the electoral register as soon as they cease to satisfy eligibility criteria, which essentially allowed them to register as overseas electors.
Finally, Government amendments 140, 141 and 147 to 150 extend the maximum duration for postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three to five years. They also extend the maximum duration for the anonymous election registration to five years to better align with that, and to create a clearly defined reapplication window for postal and proxy postal applications. Together the amendments will make the lives of voters and administrators a lot easier—I speak from experience when returning my postal vote—particularly benefiting vulnerable electors, while maintaining the vital security arrangements that are needed to ensure the integrity of our democratic system.
As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston said on Second Reading:
“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.” —[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 693.]
The Bill delivers a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system that the public rightly deserve, bearing down on those who seek to harm or undermine our elections, protecting those who participate, and opening up our democracy to a generation of new and able voters. This is how we safeguard trust and ensure that every eligible citizen can take part freely and with the safety and confidence that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his work in this role. He has left big shoes to fill, and I look forward to following in his footsteps as best I can. I would also like to register my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), alongside whom I am so fortunate to be working, including on this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been incredibly helpful in handing over, and who has worked so hard on this Bill.
In the same vein, I thank the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill, and I pass on the thanks of my hon. Friends, too. I welcome the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith to her place, and I congratulate her. I know she is much liked and well regarded across the House, having chaired the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past few years. I look forward to working opposite her and her departmental colleagues.
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with her on this point. I proudly represent my constituency of Harlow, and it is really important that I have that local accountability; that means a great deal to me. Does she agree that we need to take foreign interference in our electoral system really seriously? It is important that the be Bill be—as I believe it is—really solid, detailed and willing to make changes, because we recognise that malign influencers will do anything they can to weave their way into our political system.
Katie Lam
It is never anything but a pleasure to allow the hon. Gentleman to put Harlow into Hansard again, and I am happy to repeat his words. He is right: we must be incredibly vigilant. We must not be naive about the extent to which foreign powers are actively pursuing strategies to undermine our democracy, and ultimately, our nation. That must be treated with the utmost seriousness.
While some of the suggested changes are being rushed through in a sweeping way, we feel that the Bill has shockingly little to say about the threats to our democracy that we already know enough about to take decisive action on. This includes the effective disenfranchisement of many British citizens living overseas. Our citizens abroad remain citizens and are often directly affected by decisions taken by this Parliament, but all too often they find it very difficult to register to vote, or to cast their ballot. To that end, we have tabled amendments that require the Secretary of State to make provision for overseas voters to cast their votes in person at British embassies, high commissions and consulates.
Chief among the threats to our democracy today is the rise of coercion, fraud and sectarianism in our democratic process. These are, in turn, most often the result of a poisonous separatism that has taken hold in far too many of our towns and cities. Migration to this country has been far too high for far too long, against the wishes of the British people. Many of those who have come to this country come from cultures with very different norms from ours. At the same time, Britain has been complacent about enforcing our cultural and democratic norms, and far too tolerant of those who weaponise group-based identity politics for their own gain. One consequence has been the rise of explicitly sectarian political campaigning, whereby candidates appeal not to the individual interests of voters, or to the national interest, but to particular ethnic, religious or cultural groups. This is profoundly poisonous, and we must do everything that we can to root it out.
One symptom of this emergent separatism in our society is the rise of so-called family voting, whereby a senior male family member directs other members of their family, particularly women, on how they ought to vote. At the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, volunteers reported
“the highest level of family voting at any election in the past decade.”
Family voting was observed at more than two thirds of polling stations. It may have influenced the votes of more than one in 10 people who turned out to cast their ballot. In Birmingham, at this year’s local elections, polling station staff reported instances of family voting in 50 polling stations. Despite evidence being passed to the police by the council, no further action has been taken
Emily Thornberry
The allegations that the hon. Lady makes are extremely serious, and should be based on robust evidence. To be told that “volunteers had reported” is not sufficient, and she must understand the implications of what she is saying, in terms of social coherence and undermining the very status of our democracy. I ask her to be a little more cautious, and to proceed on the basis of evidence.
Katie Lam
Polling station volunteers reporting what they have seen in their polling stations is evidence. It is not for us to decide what is appropriate to discuss in this Chamber. It is for us to talk about it, and for the public to decide. They can see this, and it was very well reported at the time.
Family voting is a direct assault on two important principles. The first is that each and every voter must be able to cast their ballot on the basis of their individual beliefs and interests. The second is that those ballots should be cast in secret, without pressure or oversight. These two principles are fundamental to the functioning of British democracy. That we live in a country where we have been able to take these things for granted is no small achievement, but it must be defended vigorously. Any practice that results in husbands instructing their wives how to vote, or allows fathers to instruct their daughters how to vote, is an insult to the liberties enjoyed by women in this country, and it must not be allowed to stand, yet this Labour Government have turned a blind eye. They have rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. Indeed, they are scrapping guidance to local councillors and councils about how to stop family voting. Our proposed new clause 62 would help to tackle this catastrophe.
Another favoured tactic of sectarian candidates is the use of foreign language in their campaign material. To return to the Gorton and Denton by-election, during the campaign, the Green party published leaflets in Urdu telling voters that if they wanted to
“give the Muslims a strong voice, give your vote to the Greens.”
Depressingly, this is far from the only example, although it is one of the most reprehensible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Katie Lam
When I have finished this point, I will give way. It should terrify all of us that election material in our country is being produced in a foreign language and designed to drum up support among a particular religious community. Not only does this contribute to a culture of group-based grievance politics, but it makes it impossible for the vast majority of the British public to scrutinise what candidates are saying.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.
Katie Lam
The fact that English takes words from other languages does not mean that an English voter, or indeed any British voter, would be able to read election material in Latin. The point is that our voters must be able to understand the election literature that is being produced, and if it is not produced in a language of the British Isles, they cannot.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Could the hon. Lady confirm to the House whether the Conservative party has ever published election leaflets in particular constituencies or wards in languages other than English? I have a vague memory of seeing Conservative party election literature in community languages during elections in various parts of the country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has memories of that as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?
Paul Holmes
Seeing as this is my amendment, I think I am allowed to intervene to speak on it. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her position, and I know she will agree that the reason why we tabled this amendment was that the Green party’s leaflet said, “Punish the Labour party for Gaza—vote Green.” It has every right to say that, although I would argue that it is divisive, but can I assist the shadow Secretary of State by saying, in response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), that it is Conservative party policy not to produce election literature in a language other than English during the short campaign, and that the Conservative campaign headquarters dismissed some of our candidates for doing so?
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way for a constructive question?
Luke Taylor
I thank the hon. Lady for her patience. Does she see the conflict between addressing problems with family voting, which may well be caused by members of a family not having English as their first language, or as a language at all, and therefore needing to be informed in a language that they are comfortable with, and taking steps to restrict information being produced in a language that enables a family member to understand the arguments that are being made in an election? We can all agree that understanding the English language, which the vast majority of us speak, learning it and having access to it is important for integration, but does she not agree that these measures will have two conflicting outcomes? One is to restrict communication with all members of a family; the other is to ban their influence.
Katie Lam
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I understand his point, but it is a deep, frightening and fundamental problem if we have people in this country who cannot operate in the shared language of our nation. I understand what he is saying, but there are two possible ways to deal with that problem, and I believe that the one he is suggesting will ultimately be deleterious to our nation and our democracy. We must make a choice—I think that is part of the point he is making—and I am making a different choice.
Several hon. Members rose—
Katie Lam
I have given way many times on this point, and I would like to make some progress.
The fundamental point about producing election literature in English or another language of the British Isles is that the public must be able to scrutinise what candidates are saying. We must put a stop to election literature in foreign languages once and for all. We have therefore tabled an amendment that would require that campaign material published during the regulated election period is not promoted or published in a foreign language. Instead, campaign material must be published in English or another native language of the British Isles. Those who engage in our democratic process must do so in the common language of public life—that much is the bare minimum.
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) to her place. She has taken on an immensely challenging role, but one that I am sure will bring her great joy.
It is often said that a week is a long time in politics, and a year has been an extremely long time for this Bill. The evidence of that is the hefty number of amendments that have been tabled; as each political event moves on and people fall on their swords, more amendments come forward. I know that it has been of real interest to Members across the House, as well as many civil society organisations, that the Bill should be crafted to respond to events as they happen. I pay tribute to the Bill team, who have responded incredibly well to the number of amendments that have been tabled and the legislative challenge that the Bill represents.
The Bill removes barriers to voting that were put in the way of electors. It protects our democracy, as my hon. Friend the Minister described, and there are extremely important measures on votes at 16, as well as on automatic voter registration and the powers that will be taken to pilot it, so that we can find those lost voters who fall out of our electoral system and bring them back into democratic engagement.
Committee stage was lively, and I certainly enjoyed it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes)—I think we struck something of an accord. I have to refer him back to one particular point in Committee when he said,
“We have a groundbreaking piece of legislation—I am sure when we get to Report stage, the Minister will now say in the Chamber, ‘the shadow Minister said this is groundbreaking legislation’. It has its bad points and very good points, but I accept that it is groundbreaking”.––[Official Report, Representation of the People Public Bill Committee, 16 April 2026; c. 393.]
Now, neither he nor I are the Minister or the shadow Minister, but I think we agreed on that point, and I thank him for the spirit in which he and other members of the Committee conducted themselves.
What we have to remember is that any political party, candidate or elected representative who abides by the rules that this legislation sets will be able to flourish in our political system, and those who do not can expect to be held very firmly to account. The only point on which I agree with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—who I welcome to her place—is in urging my Labour colleagues to continue working constructively with other political parties. It is not the case that we as a Government have not engaged on this legislation. We have been at great pains to do so, and I urge her to continue to engage not only as the Bill progresses through this House and the other place, but as we go through the secondary legislation that falls from it.
My final point is about the Rycroft review. The final recommendation from Philip Rycroft’s review concerned the organisation of the civil service in response to democracy and elections. He suggested that a permanent secretary be appointed to look after democracy and elections. We have just had the statement from the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), about rewiring public services and government. It often felt to me that many of the areas that this legislation covers do not fall just within the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; they fall within the remit of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Cabinet Office and even the Home Office. I urge the Secretary of State to consider all these things in the round and whether a more strategic Government position could be found in taking this legislation forward. There is sometimes a tension between the powers of the MHCLG and the powers of other Departments. I am sure that that will be debated this afternoon.
It was an enormous privilege to take this Bill through Second Reading and Committee, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing the Bill back in such a timely way on Report.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Lisa Smart
Let me begin by putting on record my thanks to the Minister, who I very much welcome to her place. In particular, I thank her predecessor, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who has shown with her comments today the grace and thoughtfulness with which she conducted herself throughout the whole process. We did not agree on everything in the Bill Committee—indeed, all members of the Bill Committee did not agree—but we conducted our discussions with good grace and occasionally a hint of humour. I am grateful for the work that the other members of the Bill Committee put in, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), who led for us on all matters to do with candidate safety and candidates, given her hugely relevant experience as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. It would be remiss of me not to share the gratitude of the House for Philip Rycroft’s efforts in conducting his review, the recommendations from which have given this legislation more teeth than it started out with.
I do not think it will surprise anyone, however, that we Liberal Democrats think much more could and should be done. The political freedoms and assurances we have relied upon for decades are increasingly vulnerable to insidious, hostile actors. We saw an entirely unnecessary by-election over the summer. It was a waste of taxpayers’ money and was brought about by a resignation whose circumstances are under investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Our rules should not permit a Member under investigation to trigger a by-election and then walk straight back in here at the public’s expense, and that is precisely what new clause 79 in my name would prevent. However, I do not believe it was selectable, so I will move on.
That saga was yet another example of how big money is infiltrating our politics, with millions of pounds paid to politicians, uncapped donations and direct payments for inflammatory social media posts. It is totally disfiguring our politics. We have to tackle big money wherever it comes from, and that is a major omission from the Bill. New clause 88 would require the Secretary of State, within three months of Royal Assent, to publish proposals for a royal commission to consider a cap on political donations and the level at which that cap should be set, and whether existing limits on campaign expenditure and the period over which they bite are still fit for purpose. It would require those proposals to cover terms of reference, membership and funding, and the commission would have to report within 12 months. It is a straightforward request. It does not demand or impose limits without buy-in. It does not ask any Member to sign up to a particular figure. It takes a conversation that has been going on for the better part of 20 years or more, and gives it a proper remit, a proper deadline and a proper independent home.
I want to be fair to the Government, because over the summer things have moved in a positive direction. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words about the defending democracy taskforce yesterday, but we need to hear more detail about how it will function, particularly around money coming into political parties in and around our politics, how its recommendations will come into force and, importantly, when they will come into force. The threat is real, the threat is now, and urgent action is vital.
We have tabled further amendments on money in politics. New clauses 9 and 10 would introduce barriers on who can donate, preventing donations from those who are or have been members of, or political advisers to, foreign Administrations and those convicted of promoting or inciting political violence. New clauses 11 and 12 would require candidates and parties to declare and mitigate the risk of foreign-linked donations. Taken together, they are a natural extension of the “know your donor” scheme, which this Bill enhances. We should know exactly who funds us, and the public have that right, too.
Money is not the only way in which influence is bought. We now live in a world where a handful of people own the platforms and write the algorithms that decide what millions of our constituents see about politics every day. When the owner of a social media platform can openly discuss handing tens of millions of pounds to a British political party, the danger is in plain sight, and the Bill does not meet the moment. The Government chose to reject sensible amendments on deepfakes, AI-generated content and the clear labelling of digital campaign material. Those were not wrecking amendments; they were an offer of cross-party work on a threat that is moving faster than we are legislating. I ask the Government even now to commit to the real-time disclosure of donations and a publicly searchable database of every pound spent on online political advertising, so that voters can see who is trying to influence them and with whose money. That will be more important as we extend the franchise.
The Lib Dems warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16. Indeed, we have campaigned on it for decades, but we are concerned that the current voter registration system does not work well for young people. If we want votes at 16 to be a success, we need the voter registration improvements that the Bill enables to be implemented in time for the next general election. I would welcome hearing some reassurance from the Minister, when she is winding up, that they will be in place for the next general election.
My final point is the one that, I feel, matters the most. This Bill tidies the rules of the game, but it leaves the game itself untouched. There is no silver bullet for fixing our politics—it requires will, consensus and graft—but one thing that is shared by dozens and dozens of Members across the House is the understanding of the need for fairer votes. We cannot have a conversation about representing the people without addressing the elephant in the room: we have a voting system that handed one party two thirds of the seats in this House on barely a third of the vote. Millions of people cast ballots that changed nothing and elected no one, and then they are told to have faith in the result.
I therefore tabled new clause 8 to bring in proportional representation for elections across the United Kingdom. It details the way in which a fairer voting system could be implemented, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity the Bill presents to rise to the occasion. First past the post is unfair and unrepresentative, and lets Governments take voters for granted. No amount of tightening around the edges fixes a system that was out of date a century ago. Despite identifying the crisis of confidence in our political system in their 2024 manifesto, this Government have yet to back even modest steps towards making our voting system fairer, such as a national commission on electoral reform, as detailed in new clause—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before we delve into a rabbit hole about proportional representation, it might be helpful if I remind all Members that it is out of scope of the Bill.
Lisa Smart
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the Government are putting forward a piece of legislation written in such a way that it prohibits proportional representation and fairer votes from being discussed on the Floor of the House. We need to fix our politics so that we can get on with fixing the things we need to fix in our country, so we will support the Bill as a step forward. However, a step is not the final destination. Until this House finds the courage to give people a Parliament that actually reflects how they vote, we will not have restored trust in our democracy. We will keep making that case, and we will support this Bill as the beginning, but certainly not the end, of this work.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me so early, Madam Deputy Speaker. Without wanting to upset you, I was going to talk about new clause 31. I will keep my comments on that to a minimum for fear of upsetting you.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 49 to 55 and amendments 56 to 62 to clause 1, which are in my name, and in support of amendments 6 to 12 to clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford).
Through the Bill, the Government have taken inconsistency to a new level. In their desire to give votes to 16-year-olds, they are bringing more confusion to the legal age of adulthood. In one breath they are giving votes to 16-year-olds, yet at the same time in another piece of legislation they are saying that 16-year-olds are not mature enough to use social media and there will be curfews for those under the age of 16.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I can see that she is clearly opposed to this measure. I remind her that about nine years ago she and I debated at Wilmslow high school. I remember she made a clear commitment then to the students that she would support giving them the vote at 16.
Esther McVey
The hon. Member clearly gave support; I had various caveats. As things have changed recently, children cannot get married now at 16, yet at the same time we do not think those under the age of 18 should be on social media. That is a new addition. We are changing the age of adulthood. Labour Members do not even think the brain is mature enough to be considered for criminal actions until the age of 25.
Esther McVey
Yes, that is right. Things are changing continually. The Bill goes against the age of adulthood, with lawmakers raising the minimum age for many different things. As a country we collectively agree that the age of 18 is adulthood, and with that come rights and responsibilities, and things we can and cannot do. Once we reach the age of 18, an individual can stand for election to this House, make decisions about their own medical treatment, enter into binding financial agreements, and buy cigarettes and vapes. They can even get a tattoo. Perhaps the greatest right of all is the right to vote and the responsibilities that come with that, yet under the Bill 1.7 million 16 to 17-year-olds will be granted the right to vote.
We could all see that the proposal was about fixing the right to vote. It was about ballot fixing. It was in the hope that the Labour party could win the next general election if it got this generation of young people to vote for it. Now that it has seen the latest polling and that young voters are turning Green, the Government might do what they do on a regular basis: screeching U-turns. That might be done not through common sense but self-interest. They might do another screeching U-turn here.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. The shadow Secretary of State made a defence of the right for overseas electors to vote based simply on their citizenship. Why, when someone who does not live in this country can vote based on their citizenship, does the right hon. Lady argue that a 16-year-old with the same citizenship rights who lives here and contributes should not?
Esther McVey
We are talking about two completely different things. We are talking about the age of adulthood, the age at which we think people have the ability to weigh up everything that is going on and come to a decision. The House is saying that those young people cannot go on social media, should not be on certain types of iPhone and should not be able to do other things, yet at the same time they are mature enough to vote—inconsistency. I am saying that we need to be consistent: a bit of common sense and consistency would go a long way in this House.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
In line with that, is the right hon. Lady calling for the age at which one can get a job to be raised from 14 to 18, ruling out 16 to 18-year-olds from being able to work? Is she calling for the age at which one can learn to drive to be raised from 17 to 18? To follow her argument, it would be inconsistent not to support those things.
Esther McVey
I agree there are inconsistencies and we are trying to get them right. Unlike those on the Labour Benches, under whom unemployment always goes up every time they are in office, we want young people to get work experience and go to work. We have, for a long period of time, allowed driving at 17. But my goodness, those on the Labour Benches, for more inconsistency, would want it to go up! I am dealing with the matter at hand, which is voting for 18-year-olds. I am saying that for those on the Labour Benches it was more about vote rigging than whether 16-year-olds should be able to vote.
Esther McVey
I will carry on for a second.
We are not saying that 16-year-olds would be sent off to combat, nor would we be saying that the inconsistencies about the age of marriage carry on. In England and Wales, the legal age for marriage and civil partnerships is 18. Arranging a marriage for anyone under 18 is illegal. The Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, passed by Parliament only four years ago, revoked the previous legal provision that allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to marry with parental consent. The legislation made it clear that marriage is an adult decision and that the law treats anyone under 18 as a child. The 2022 Act passed with cross-party support and the Labour Front Bench at the time supported it. Why did they believe then that people under 18 could not make the decision to marry, but now believe that they can make the decision to vote?
The same applies to property ownership and mortgages. My amendments 56 to 62 would link the age at which people are eligible to vote with the age at which they can obtain a mortgage or own a property. Our laws dictate that those under 18 lack full legal capacity, and therefore cannot enter into binding land or loan contracts. If 16-year-olds are not legally able to own a property or enter into a mortgage in their own right, why are they considered sufficiently mature to vote in elections?
If 16-year-olds are not sensible enough to buy alcohol—and that has been law in our country since 1923—why are they trusted to vote? I am pleased to support amendments 6 to 12, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, which would tie the age at which people can buy alcohol to the age at which they are eligible to vote. The question is simple: why have the Government decided that in respect of voting the age of 16 is adulthood, while in many other areas it does not meet the threshold?
We are told that votes at 16 are essential to engaging young people in our democracy and will empower them to participate in society and effect change, but which young people have the Government spoken to? I have spoken to many on my patch and have visited many local schools, and have found it interesting that many of them do not feel qualified and prepared enough to vote. We should bear in mind the impact of the lowering of the voting age in Scotland, where academic studies have shown that the boost in interest among young people has been short-lived and has failed to translate into wider political participation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Is it Conservative party policy to reverse the votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland? Every single piece of evidence that we can point to suggests that engaging 16 and 17-year-olds makes them better citizens. Does the right hon. Lady seriously want to undermine that?
Esther McVey
If those in Scotland want to carry on with this vote rigging, they are fully entitled to do so, and I am sure that they will conjure up many other ways in which to do it.
This Government can wax lyrical as much as they like about the virtues of lowering the voting age, but we know how important it is for people to fully understand and appreciate what they are doing. It is the inconsistency that strikes me: 16-year-olds cannot buy alcohol, cannot have a tattoo, cannot be on the frontline and cannot get married, yet we are pushing for them to have a vote. It does not make sense at all. I therefore urge all Members to support my amendments and those in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, and to put aside their self-interest in relation to extra votes.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Government for, in particular, the proposals on 16 and 17-year-olds. I spent my summer conducting about 80 events across my constituency, meeting some of my youngest—and some of my oldest—constituents, and regularly hosting work experience students in my office and sixth-form surgeries at the schools in my constituency, and I have generally found more political maturity and wisdom in sixth forms than in the Northumberland county council Conservative group.
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, which enables me to welcome my two work experience students, Maja and Stacey, to the Gallery. I am sure they are enjoying his speech.
Joe Morris
I am very glad to have set up my hon. Friend for that.
I want to speak about money in politics, particularly with reference to new clause 17, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration. It has been clear to me, not just over the summer but when I have spoken to voters since my election and beforehand, that the influence of money on politics is increasing. That is undermining faith in our democracy; it is an assault by algorithms on our democracy itself. The figures that were chucked around historically now seem relatively parochial. What we are seeing is a complete and utter oligarchic takeover of our voting system by those with the very deepest pockets. I hope that when she winds up the debate, the Minister will explain what more can be done and how the Government will work constructively, as the Bill progresses through the other place, to tighten the safeguards that are already in it. I sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who think that more must be done in the Bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, and particularly to guard against the role of the international social media platform owners who are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy. Indeed, we all read the conspiratorial narratives that often appear in our inboxes.
I know that new clause 31 is not in scope, so I will not major on it. Suffice it to say that it is the people who are losing faith with politics who feel the most disenfranchised, and we owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. Let me end by pleading again with the Minister to provide more clarity on the pace of tackling the influence of money in politics and by again welcoming the Prime Minister’s commitment to electoral reform.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
It was an absolute privilege to serve on the Bill Committee for this legislation and, before that, on the Speaker’s Conference, many of whose recommendations have appeared in the Bill. I am particularly pleased to see the Government adopt the long-held Liberal Democrat policy of extending the right to vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Giving young people a say in the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue, and I am glad that we will see it become reality. I agree with many colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue. When I speak to young people about politics, I see so much awareness, and so much desire to be able to contribute to the political debate and have agency over their votes and their future.
I am pleased to have tabled new clause 2, as well as the other new clauses that stand in my name. I thank the organisations that have worked with me on my people-focused proposals, particularly Centenary Action and Elect Her. However, I am disappointed that the Government have continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, and on some of the concerns about personal safety that I have sought to raise in a range of amendments. In respect of the access to elected office fund, I have to ask the Government what we are waiting for. Back in June last year, they announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated the issue in Committee before the recess we were told that work was ongoing, and when I met the Minister who was then in charge of the Bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed.
We are not reinventing the wheel here. An access to elected office fund has existed in England before, and equivalent schemes are operating now in both Wales and Scotland. Why does England need an entirely new fund, rewritten from scratch, that is taking over a year to create? We know what this support is for, we know the difference that it can make, and we know that disabled candidates continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy. The Bill is precisely the vehicle to put that right. Rather than forming another working group, commissioning another review, or offering another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the Government to support new clause 37 and reinstate the fund in statutory form. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty. We want our elected representatives to be truly representative of our communities.
The same frustration applies to the personal safety of those who participate in our democracy. Before the summer recess, after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe, the Home Secretary addressed the issue in the Chamber with great seriousness. I was grateful when she assured the House that she would look at amendments to the Bill with colleagues across Government, and would consider what further action was needed to protect people in our democracy. Sadly, however, I have not been able to spot the those commitments in the Bill, and it is also disappointing that we did not hear more about this aspect of the Bill from the Minister in her opening speech.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for speaking about the security of candidates. That is the motivation behind my new clause 81, which would automatically make all candidates’ addresses anonymous. Does she agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that all candidates feel secure and able to stand for public office at all levels?
Zöe Franklin
I could not agree more. We have seen the difference that such a change has made at a local government level, where councillors’ home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the same for all candidates.
Returning to my point about the safety of candidates and those in elected office, I have tabled amendment 1 and new clause 6 to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves and to their staff and families. Sadly, threats and intimidation do not stop at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us and run our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find themselves targeted simply because of the public role that we choose to take on. We must do everything we can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level.
If the Government take these issues seriously, they will support both of my amendments and commit to continually review the threats to candidates, to work with organisations such as the Local Government Association and to listen to the plethora of councillors at every single level—from town and parish, right up to unitary—who are telling terrible stories of death threats and attacks on their homes. We have to address these issues, because we must ensure not only that candidates are kept safe, but that our democracy is kept safe. It is a rapidly changing political environment, and we all have a responsibility to address it.
I really hope that the Government and the new Cabinet will act on these issues as the Bill progresses, and it will be deeply disappointing if this opportunity to implement change through the access to elected office fund, or through something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the Bill. If the Government will not act on these issues in this Chamber, we will continue, with our Liberal Democrat colleagues and others in the other place, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on her appointment as the Minister for Democracy. I thank her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for the work that she and the brilliant officials in the Department did on this very important Bill, and I thank the Minister for tabling the Government amendments. I had the privilege of serving as her predecessor’s predecessor and working on the strategy that formed this important Bill.
This is a significant piece of legislation, and the proposal to bring forward votes at 16 is important, radical and necessary. It is right that we give young people the right to vote when they can participate in other areas of life, and when they get the vote, political parties will absolutely pay much greater attention to their interests. I would like to see whether those who oppose this particular change go and canvass for the votes of 16 and 17-year-olds when they have the vote. We certainly will, because we believe that it is important to encourage participation from an early age.
This Bill introduces important changes to tackle harassment and intimidation and to move towards automated voting, and it picks up on the important findings from the Rycroft review. This significant piece of legislation has been improved as it has gone through its different stages, and today marks another opportunity for my hon. Friend the new Minister to take on board some of the suggestions that have been made in the form of the amendments.
I express my support for new clause 34, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would beef up our resistance to cryptoassets flooding our political system. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that we are moving in the right direction, but we need to go further, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee also pointed out. For reasons that are well documented, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill has said, the Bill must include digital tokens and meme coins accepted into crypto-wallets, as defined by the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
My right hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work and provided an analysis to warn about the dangers of cryptoassets being used to drench our democracy with malign messages, fuelling populist hate and misinformation. We are seeing that play out in our streets and our communities at the moment. I do not think that I am allowed to make a plug for his excellent book on populism, but he has outlined that £200 million has already been spent in the UK on promoting division and undermining our democracy. That is terrifying. We need to put a stop to it, and that is why this Bill needs to go further. Nothing less than a full ban on crypto donations will do, and I hope that Ministers consider doing this now rather than coming back later.
I have seen the ability of the enormously talented group of civil servants to move at pace in amending legislation and being more and more ambitious over time in making this Bill much more significant—from the time I started working on it to the end of the period when the strategy was published and subsequently. Where there is a will, there will be a way. In the interests of moving away from the incremental changes to which the new Prime Minister has committed, I hope that we can get this done in one go. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to be bold and to get this done now.
Furthermore, I support new clauses 41, 47, 82 and 83, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), which seek to tackle online harms and online hate in the context of elections and deepfakes, especially videos purporting to depict politicians and candidates. This has become more and more dangerous and serious. In the 2024 election, only a handful of candidates were depicted in AI-driven deepfake images, which were already presenting disinformation and causing damage to candidates’ election chances. Now, these have become more and more sophisticated, more and more problematic and, at worst, damaging and dangerous. It means that the elector often cannot see the distinction between a real image of a candidate and a deepfake-created image.
Now—don’t get me wrong—I have seen some of those deepfakes, and some of them are quite entertaining. The problem is that the ones that are filled with poison and hate can do deep damage to the reputation of candidates. That is very damaging and is moving very fast. When citizens look at such material, we are asking a lot of them. We are asking them to make a distinction between what is real and what is fake in the context of social media, which is heavily funded with billions of pounds by tech companies. Ordinary citizens have to compete with that, and it is not feasible.
That is why it is really important that we make those changes. As I have said, when I worked on the election strategy that was the foundation for this Bill, it was challenging to get the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to do more. I therefore hope that those Ministers can work with my hon. Friend the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith and her Department to include the changes that are needed in the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central, so that we can get this done in one go, rather than waste time while damage is done at the speed of lightning in the form of deepfake and disinformation spreading, which is infecting our democracy and forcing candidates and elected representatives out of politics.
Increasingly, too many Members of Parliament, candidates who did not make it here and those in local government and other areas of public life are asking: how is it going to be at the next election? As well as trying to keep ourselves safe, how do we protect our reputations when lies are spreading at breakneck speed? What is the point, and how do we protect our families when these lies are being spread online? How do we compete with that as candidates? How do we protect our protected characteristics? People of colour and people from minority faiths are particularly targeted, and women—female candidates—are being subjected to a scale of misogyny and hatred using deepfake and disinformation on a scale and at a level that I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
At the 2024 general election, just 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted. That is a shocking systemic failure of our democratic process. It means that nearly half of all overseas electors who took the time to register, requested a ballot and tried to exercise their democratic right were effectively disenfranchised by international mail delays.
As Members of this House, our fundamental duty is to maximise participation in the democratic system we are privileged to represent. When we look around the world at regimes where the public voice is silenced or undervalued, we must redouble our efforts to prevent a democratic deficit here at home.
The amendments tabled by my Conservative colleagues offer practical, common-sense fixes to the deficit we see today, ensuring that all British citizens can partake in our great democracy and that the Representation of the People Bill lives up to its name, representing all those who belong to our nation in a fair and equal way. New clause 63 would address the core logistical bottleneck by permitting in-person voting at designated UK embassies and consulates across the globe. For British citizens who cannot rely on slow, unpredictable international postal transit, this would provide a secure and reliable alternative, allowing them to put their cross in a box on election day. It would work hand in hand with new clause 64, which would mandate a comprehensive review into overseas participation to establish best practice and expand registration. New clause 65 would introduce another simple improvement, allowing citizens to register on the electoral roll when renewing their British passport, which would dramatically boost engagement among our global community.
Having rightly expanded the overseas franchise in recent years, Parliament has a moral obligation to provide the administrative infrastructure to make that right meaningful. It is deeply regrettable that the Government have failed to incorporate these practical solutions into the core text of the Bill. We will continue to champion these measures to ensure that every British citizen, wherever they live, work or serve, can make their voice heard at the ballot box.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I start by paying tribute to the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for all the work she did on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee on these issues. I know that she will do a brilliant job in this role. I also pay tribute to everyone who has played a part in this Bill to date, because for all our ambitions for the things we would like to change in the world, if the process by which we make those changes is not fair and free, we will not be able to achieve anything. We all know and understand that.
Like everybody else, I recognise that new clause 31 is out of scope. I would gently suggest to the shadow Minister that there are many versions of proportional representation and electoral reform—those of us who have nerded out over this for years know that. We would welcome her having that conversation, which might be more illuminating than whether she is concerned about Zach Goldmsith’s leaflets.
I add my support to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on domestic abuse and those supported by many of my colleagues from east London—maybe that says something about politics in our part of town—about abuse of candidates. I know well what my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) has been through, and it is a testament to her character that she is here fighting for change. I also support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on crypto donations. I do not really understand the technology, but I know that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly.
We come here today to debate this Bill because we all know that trust is a bygone issue in our politics. It takes something for us in this House to be lectured by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, but we are being lectured on this. It is like turkeys being told that Christmas is a good idea. IPSA has pointed out to us that only 28% of the public think that MPs care about their local community at all—so two thirds of our constituents think that we are here out of our own self-interest—and only 4% think that we are doing anything good for the country. The difficult question that we all have to take on the chin is: in whose interest do the public think we are acting? From today, if we do not take a stand with this Bill to tackle the ways that money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is that they will think we are acting in the interests of our own back pockets.
We have heard a lot of quotes today, so let me bring in William Blake, who said:
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but foresight is better”.
We have all seen it. We know that money is coming in. We know that this is something different, and we know enough to know that it is a problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will put in place an immediate five-minute time limit.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I will speak in favour of new clause 88, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would require the Government to establish a royal commission on political donations and campaign expenditure. It would examine the case for a donations cap review and whether existing campaign spending limits remain effective, and would report back within 12 months. Crucially, it would take account of the modern flavours of old challenges, because money can now shape political debate through social media platforms, algorithmic amplification, third-party campaigning and political advertising that can reach millions of voters almost immediately.
When we knock on doors in our constituencies, or even when they are only our prospective constituencies, we are taking part in the most important act of our democratic system. We are listening to the concerns of citizens. We are empowering them to test us on our politics and to push us to champion their causes, and through taking forward the electorate’s concerns, we are giving them a voice. The principle is simple: one citizen, one vote. It is the basis of a democratic system. If a voter is particularly taken by our arguments, they may choose to donate to us to cover the cost of those snappy little pamphlets we leave behind in our wake, which some on the Liberal Democrat Benches are particularly passionate about.
At this point, I will explain something that we did in Sutton to welcome the huge number of Hongkongers who moved to our borough and to my constituency over the last few years. We produced leaflets in their local language, so that those who did not have particularly strong English skills could read the information about our political party. They had travelled here, escaping the Communist regime to take part in a democratic process, and escaping the crackdown on democratic rights in Hong Kong. I invite an intervention from the Conservative Benches to explain why that communication, in a language that was understood by those who had not long been in our country and did not have the language skills to understand the English leaflets, is such a bad thing. There are none.
When our election laws were written, donations to political parties would have probably have been covered by the existing laws. Maybe a big local donor would pay for an advertising board, or for posters and a loudspeaker on the roof rack of a clapped-out old Volvo of the kind that my dad used to go around his prospective constituency in the ’90s. However, our citizens still held the levers of power relatively directly. Today, the spending in our politics, and therefore the influence and power of money and donors, has shifted so dramatically that the question is how we rise to the challenge of constantly having to patch the cracks and the potholes in our outdated election law.
If we fail to answer that question, we condemn the voting public to powerlessness, as those with the deepest pockets and strongest influence rip our hands off the wheel of the ship of state. We cannot fail to address the modern challenges first posed by those who bankrolled the Brexit campaign, who promised to give back control to the public and then handed it straight to their oligarch friends. For those reasons, I was disappointed the Government did not use this Bill to introduce a meaningful cap on political donations.
Wealthy individuals are increasingly able to spend sums that would be completely beyond the reach of ordinary voters, while public confidence in the way politics is funded remains extremely weak. We can see how members of two parties in this Chamber have received more than £56,000 through X, a company owned by the very model of a modern fascist oligarch. It has an algorithm that he designs and the payments are therefore decided and funnelled directly to those political actors.
There will always be those with bigger pockets who can make a larger contribution to political parties and projects than others. The vast majority do so for the right, philanthropic or ideological, reasons. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has given a passionate explanation of why political donation through unions, with proper controls, is absolutely an appropriate way to deliver political support and political power to those groups of people who need that representation the most. However, when money has been flowing in from those who would do our country harm and who want to rip control of the state away from the voting public and turn our nation into a Russian-style oligarchy, and when democratic institutions are just shopfronts for a nefarious state captured by the rich and powerful, we cannot stand idly by. That is why new clause 88 is so important.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I applaud the Government’s ambitions in this Bill and the fact that they want to fix politics and for it to be fair and free from foreign interference. There is much to be enthusiastic about in the Bill, although in the five minutes I have been given to speak, I cannot go through it all. This might be the only such legislation that we have before the next general election, and I believe that it is incumbent upon us to prepare ourselves and our constitution for the possibility, God forbid, that a populist party might take control of our country. We are allowing ourselves to be wide open to all kinds of things.
The Foreign Affairs Committee did a report into foreign influence across Europe, and we saw a number of shocking things. I recommend the report to Members, if they are in any doubt about the ways in which malign actors, either state or non-state, are trying to influence and undermine democracies across Europe, but if we think that we are free of that because we are on the other side of the channel, we have got another think coming. We are so complacent about the things that can happen, that have happened and that might happen to our country next. We must protect ourselves. We must take this seriously.
There is not enough in this Bill to protect us. We must go further. I do not understand why we do not. For example, when it comes to disinformation from other countries trying to influence our democracy, how many Ministers do we have who are responsible for disinformation? We have seven. If we have seven Ministers for disinformation, we have no Minister for disinformation, but disinformation is undermining our democracy right now, and it will get worse coming up to the next general election. There is not enough in the Bill to be able to deal with that.
I ought to speak to my new clauses, including new clause 85, which are supported by the TUC and have been welcomed by Transparency International. I am proposing a complete ban on overseas voters donating to political parties. Why not? I do not understand why not. Rycroft says that foreign money is more difficult to trace and more difficult to ensure that it is clean. That is why he puts a £100,000 cap on it. Well, why do we not go further? We are the politicians. Why do we not just ban it? People can come to this country, live here, pay their taxes and get involved in our democracy. Then they can make donations. If they live somewhere else in a tax haven—tough, they cannot.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Is the right hon. Lady suggesting that all 3.5 million overseas electors should not be able to donate to political parties?
Emily Thornberry
Yes, I am. I am not getting into all the arguments about whether people who live abroad should have a vote—
Emily Thornberry
No, I have only got two minutes. Come on!
People should just pay their taxes and get involved. New clause 86 proposes that a donor would have to be a total citizen. It is not enough to come back to Britain and go, “Oh well, I’m here now. I’m going to pay a little bit of tax because there are various tax dodges and I can do that.” No, they have to be here paying their full whack of taxes, and then they can make donations to political parties. If they care so much about Britain and about democracy, they should come here and be a full citizen, in my opinion.
My new clause 84 relates to descriptions on ballot papers. At the moment, instead of having just “the Labour party” on the ballot paper, it is possible to have “the Labour party, the party of equality and fairness”—fair enough. However, at the last local elections, the Greens registered candidates with the Electoral Commission as “first choice candidate” or “lead candidate”, so that, in an election with three votes, there was an instruction on the ballot paper as to who someone should vote for. That is an abuse, and it should be stopped. That is what that new clause is about.
New clause 87 is about ballot papers always being in alphabetical order. I speak as a T. My constituents had to look very hard to find me, and fortunately they did, but when we vote in alphabetical order, the Ts are at the far end—and there were hardly any of us. It is definitely an advantage to be at the beginning of the alphabet. Why do we not have the Australian system, and just randomise it?
There is so much more that we could do. Although there are rumours that a group may discuss how much more we can do, will there really be enough legislative time to bring forward another Bill that will deal with the many problems we have?
My predecessor, 180 years ago, was the MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncombe. He brought in the massive Chartist petition—3.3 million people wanting to be allowed to vote. So many people had signed it that they had to take the doors off the Chamber to get all the bits of paper through. Presumably it did not go into the Bag behind the Chair, but there was that much enthusiasm—that was what democracy was about. I do not want to be an MP for Finsbury who sits back complacently and allows our democracy to be undermined. We have to fight back.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
The Bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law, and we are having a very important debate this afternoon. It is important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. I pay tribute to the remarks made by the hon. Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) about the impact of algorithms, social media and deepfakes. There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology that the Bill does not closely address.
Let us face it: the Bill is not concerned with those questions. The claim is made that the Bill will defend democracy, but it is actually a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap Reform UK. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy)—always reliable—who made clear exactly what the Bill is about and who it is aimed at. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, too, for pointing out that the Bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction donations by trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour party in the last five years, £10 million of that at the last election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are delighted; they welcome it. Of course they are happy with that sort of support. This is partisan and highly partial legislation.
I put on record my resentment and outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to Reform UK, whom the Minister called “malign actors”. I wonder who she is referring to. She is talking about individuals, British citizens, who have made money and are choosing to donate it in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right.
Danny Kruger
No, I am not going to give way.
It is their right to support a political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote and of which they are citizens. It is absolutely wrong to traduce them in that way.
Some suggest that the Bill will restore trust in politics, which is exactly what is needed, but what they mean is restore trust in the class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in—[Interruption]—including, I am afraid to say, the party of which I was a part. That is why I left it. We need change.
I am glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, and it will put the interests of the British people, not the class of politicians and parties that got us into this mess, first. That is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and vibrancy of our democracy.
Let me turn to the amendments that I support, because we do have a real threat to our democracy, and let me make these points as seriously and soberly as I can. Our democracy is underwired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system and therefore did not need to be stated. They did not need to be stated, but now they do, and they need to be stated because over the last couple of generations, we have brought into this country millions of people, many of whom do not understand or honour those implicit principles.
Let me go through the changes that are necessary to make explicit formerly implicit principles. The first is that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and commitment that that brings. There were historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who were in this country. That now needs to change. The number of Irish citizens is still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens resident in this country who are entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom. That is wrong; it is time to correct that anomaly.
Danny Kruger
No, I will not.
The second implicit principle that we now need to bring to the surface is that we are one country, speaking a common language, taking part in a single election concerning matters about our country. That means election materials printed in English and the other native languages of the British isles. That might feel like a small thing or a petty one, but it is an important principle. How can we integrate genuinely? How can we bring our divided country together if we do not do our democracy in the same language?
The third principle that was implicit before is that people vote in person. We now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that.
Lastly, the system depends on the principle that people vote individually, on their own; it is a secret choice. That principle is clearly not fully understood or honoured, as we have seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections—so-called family voting. It is already illegal, so we need to ensure that it does not happen.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I congratulate the new Minister and wish her well in her role. I share the confidence of the House, as has been expressed, from her excellent role as the Chair of the Select Committee, and I know that she will do her best in this role, too.
This Bill and the amendments we are discussing matter because they go to the heart of what all of us hear on the doorstep, which is that people simply do not trust in politics or in many of the people in it any more. Trust and turnout are regrettably at record lows. That is not an abstract complaint or something where it would be nicer if we had a bit more of it; it is corrosive to democracy itself, so this Bill is a significant and welcome step forward, to do things such as give young people a voice, iron out some of the inconsistencies in voter registration, and crack down on the money and abuse that too often poison our elections.
Taken together, a number of the amendments before us are a genuine opportunity to further rebuild that trust by making our voting system fairer, getting big money and dodgy money out of politics, and ensuring that everyone can safely, confidently, independently, secretly and, one day—who knows?—enthusiastically be able to cast their vote.
I want to make the broader point that I acknowledge and accept that there is a new clause that cannot be named which is no longer in scope, but I wish to express my regret that it is not. This Bill is an opportunity to go as far as possible in restoring trust. Many of us believe that that is now missing.
Luke Akehurst
Does my hon. Friend agree that the objective of the new clause that we are not talking about, because it is not in—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I remind Members that discussion of an amendment that is not in scope and has not been selected, is not in scope.
Darren Paffey
My point is that in addressing amendments 69,70, 80, 120, 72 and 48, as I intend to, there is a context. Many of us believe that the world of two-party politics no longer exists, and we need a political system that supports what every other amendment and every other part of the Bill seeks to do.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Bill gives us a real chance to defend and strengthen our democracy, and although it is not in the scope of the Bill, I hope that the Government will look in future legislation at electoral reform and proportional representation.
I have tabled new clauses 20 and 21 and supported many amendments because the Bill as it stands does not go far enough. New clause 21 enshrines in the Bill the principle of a cap on political donations. It is time to kick big money, foreign or domestic, out of British politics, and restore public trust in our political system. As I have said previously, the people of this country, not the deep pockets of billionaires—foreign or otherwise—or corporate interests, should decide our country’s future in elections and referendums. I welcome the Government amendment on donations from overseas electors, but at present there is no limit at all on how much a single individual in the UK can give to a political party. New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on political donations, informed by an independent review, so we can ensure that the cap is sustainable.
The Bill’s title is “Representation of the People”. New clause 20 would extend the parliamentary franchise—that representation—to qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and would extend the local government franchise in England on that same basis. Having leave to remain does not automatically give someone the right to vote, no matter how long they have been in the UK, and we now have different franchises in relation to EU citizens living in the UK following Brexit. That means that millions of residents have no right to vote at all.
Like many of us, I represent a constituency where people who have lived here for years, who pay their taxes, work in our hospitals and run our businesses, still have no vote in the elections that decide who represents them. Residents pay council tax but some of them cannot vote on who is going to be in charge of their refuse collection. As the old American revolution slogan goes,
“taxation without representation is tyranny.”
Voting based on residency rights means that democratic participation is extended fully to people across the whole of British society.
I want to set out where else I think the Bill needs to go further, because the argument runs the same way throughout: open up participation and representation, close down improper or malign influence, restore trust in our politics, and raise the standards for the campaigns we run. On widening participation and making voting genuinely accessible, I want to see a proper feasibility study into overseas voting, because British citizens abroad still face real, practical barriers to casting a ballot. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights, I have heard from British electors living abroad about the challenges and barriers they face just to exercise their right.
I support the Government extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is really brilliant news for our young people and for representation. I welcome the case for automatic registration, so that the right to vote does not depend on people navigating forms.
On the integrity of political money, which is where I believe the Bill still has the most to tackle, the same logic that applies to new clause 21 applies with even more costs. The loopholes that currently let donations flow from foreign Administrations, from those linked to political violence and from undeclared foreign income and corporate interests, like those fossil fuel companies, have no place in our politics and I want them closed. I fully support closing the loophole currently exploited by non-permissible donors giving in small amounts, and I support tightening the rules on cryptoasset donations, which are far too easy to hide. Parties should be required to carry out proper due diligence on where donations actually come from, and I support a proper independent look at spending limits.
Finally, on standards and the world in which we now campaign, candidates deserve proper safety guidance. AI-generated campaign material must be honestly labelled, and I want the Electoral Commission to have strong powers over online harms and disinformation, along with proper measures against foreign interference. Our democracy should be open to everyone who lives under its laws, and closed to the money, undue influence and manipulation that nobody voted for.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I start by welcoming the Minister to her new role. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational Bill with which to start. It will allow British politics to take huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and to protect our democracy from being sold off for profit. I have personally set up and hosted an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voices of 16-year-olds and younger children is truly a humbling experience—their dedication and education is always awe inspiring.
I had hoped that the amendments I have tabled would improve the Bill even further, returning integrity to British politics, but I am reassured that the Government are seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and congratulate him on his promotion, and I thank him for his work in bringing forward these amendments. I also thank my other colleagues who have tabled valuable amendments, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington).
Our election law was written in an analogue age, and the legislation has not kept pace with how safe or unsafe something is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hands, 24/7. Election campaigns with highly targeted content are delivered directly into social media feeds, distributed at speed, with some of it only seen by the people it is designed to influence. Legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products or sausages. Food producers face a wealth of legislation that restricts what they are allowed to say about their products and rightly makes sure it is factually accurate—makers of porky sausages cannot tell porky pies, and pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts are under no such restrictions. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve integrity and trust in our political system.
AI-generated campaigning, which looks so convincing, produces misinformation that spreads at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly decided on wafer-thin margins with more and more candidates on ballot papers. With elections that close, and with budgets having been increased by 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real, material difference to our politics and our futures. New clauses 49 to 51, which stand in my name, present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined category of factual claims in paid material. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, argument, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate; they simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. That distinction matters. If we wish to restore faith in our politics, any reasonable person would agree that voters must have accurate information to build their opinions on. Research by Opinium found that 76% of people agree, alongside the backing of this House.
I have also tabled new clause 52—which, again, builds on the excellent work of my colleagues—to strengthen a code of conduct and standards relating to harassment and intimidation, placing them on a statutory footing. This will ensure people have the right to stand for election and represent their views safely. I accept the Government’s decisions on these issues and look forward to further debate, but I do wish that they would accept some of the other amendments that have been mentioned today to ensure that this Bill achieves its enormous potential and that our democracy is protected.
Brendan O’Hara
During this Bill’s Second Reading back in March, I said that the SNP generally welcomed its introduction, particularly its extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We on the SNP Benches still do. Evidence is always helpful; unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is no longer in her place, but Scotland has had this in place for 12 years, and it has been an unqualified success. No serious person is planning to backtrack on it.
That said, we do still have serious concerns about the Bill, because what is currently on offer is a far cry from what the Labour party promised during the passage of the Elections Act 2022. Back then, we all recognised that that Act was an appalling piece of legislation; it was nakedly partisan, and quite rightly, when opposing it, the Labour party promised to shred it. Now it is in power, I fear that it has chosen to tinker rather than shred. We can see for ourselves the levels of frustration that exist on the Labour Benches, because Labour Members know that this Bill was an opportunity to undo great democratic harms that were caused by the 2022 Act and introduce an entirely new system—one that would have fairness, equality, transparency and accountability at its heart. I fear that the Bill as it currently stands squanders that opportunity.
The clearest manifestation of that frustration is the number of amendments to the Bill that have originated from the Government’s own Back Benches. There are scores of amendments—215 pages of them. I want to highlight a few that I believe would have significantly improved the Bill, had the Government taken them on.
New clause 34, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), would tighten up cryptocurrency. He explained in an intervention earlier that the Government’s position in the Bill does not go nearly far enough, and we agree. New clause 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would extend the franchise to those with indefinite leave to remain. Such a system has been in place in Scotland for more than six years, and it works well and has been entirely uncontroversial.
Chris Curtis
Before I turn to the substance of the Bill, may I take a moment to put on record how much I enjoyed serving on the Select Committee under the chairship of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)? I am proud of the work we did together, including on tackling rough sleeping and confronting Britain’s housing crisis. I know she will take that into government as she takes on her new role.
New clause 56, standing in my name, concerns the implementation of automatic voter registration. It is hopefully slightly less controversial than some of the other topics we have covered today, and I hope the Minister will support it, given that the new clause stood in her name until just a few weeks ago. Fundamentally, if we want high participation in our elections, we should make it as frictionless and easy as possible for eligible citizens to take part.
We know that participation is too low. Turnout at the 2024 general election was a little under 60%, which was the lowest figure since 2001. However, that does not tell us the whole story, because the published turnout figure is the percentage of registered voters who go out to vote in the election. It excludes the estimated 8 million people, according to the Electoral Commission, who are eligible to vote but do not do so, because they are not on the electoral register. That could be because they are registered incorrectly, they have moved home or they did not get around to registering. Meanwhile, research from the University of Manchester showed us that we make it harder to register to vote here in the UK than almost any other democracy.
This problem is not evenly distributed across our constituencies or across demographics. Young people, private renters, disabled people and those who are more transient are all less likely to be registered to vote. For too long, we have operated a slightly absurd system whereby the British state can know where you live, your age, your demographics and whether you are eligible to vote, and yet you still have to fill out a separate form to be registered to vote.
The Bill creates a new process through which electoral registration officers can register eligible voters without requiring them to make that separate application once the necessary commitments are met. It allows existing registrations to be updated without requiring somebody to submit a fresh application, and it creates a data sharing and piloting framework needed to move towards a genuinely modern system of electoral registration. These are all brilliant things that really move automatic voter registration in the right direction.
The purpose of new clause 56 is simply to ensure that we now turn that legislative framework into a reality. At the moment, the Bill gives us the architecture for automatic registration. What it does not yet give us is a clear public timetable for when the different parts of that architecture will actually be implemented. It would be good to hear from the Minister something on that timetable in her closing remarks today. We should have a clear pathway to delivering substantial change during this Parliament, which the Electoral Commission says is possible. New clause 56 asks for just that. Within two months of the new clause coming into force, the Government would have to publish a plan setting out the steps needed to implement registration without an application, the dates by which those steps would be completed, when they expect regulations for the registration pilots to be laid before Parliament, and how many additional people they expect to be registered by 15 August 2029 as a result of implementing part 2.
I will just make one very quick point on the pilots. I mentioned it on Second Reading and I still think we need a response. The fear about piloting automatic voter registration projects is that if they are done on local authority boundaries, as they would be, because local authorities are responsible for voter registration, there might be constituencies—Vauxhall and Camberwell Green is a perfect example, given that it is in both Lambeth and Southwark—where one part stands under the new scheme being piloted and another part of it does not. That can create a problem if part of one party’s votes come from a system where the registration has gone up and another part does not. So, may we please get a commitment from the Government or the Electoral Commission that when they are running pilots they will consider that point and preferably not run them in places where constituency boundaries do not line up?
Finally, I completely understand the Government’s arguments that reform cannot happen overnight and that we need to do it securely, accurately and carefully, especially when it comes to ensuring that only those who are eligible to vote, go out and vote. The Government have made the right decision to put a legislative framework in place for automatic and direct voter registration. We just need to know when it will be implemented.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I would like to speak to amendment 15 and new clause 30, tabled in my name, and to new clauses tabled by other colleagues from across the House. First of all, I welcome the new Minister to her place and I welcome the Bill. I always like to start where there is common ground. It is certainly true that there are steps forward in the Bill: the implementation of the Rycroft recommendations to tackle foreign influence in our politics; movements towards automatic voter registration; and dealing with crypto to some extent, although not enough. Those are all positive steps forward. I also warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16, which is a long-standing Green party policy.
But—there is a big but, I am afraid, Minister—the Bill could and really should do far, far more to clean up our politics. There are three big things that we need to do: get rid of the influence of dirty and big money in our politics; eliminate the poison of disinformation in our politics; and fix the fundamental structures of our politics that disenfranchise so many people. It is therefore frankly ridiculous that in a Bill about elections called the Representation of the People Bill we are not even allowed to discuss new clause 31 on a national commission on electoral reform. This is fundamentally important to our politics. The fundamental principle of democracy is that everybody’s vote must count equally.
The Government, of course, do not need to legislate on a national commission on electoral reform. They could kickstart one anyway. I really hope that the Minister will take that back to the Prime Minister—who, after all, is supposedly a supporter of electoral reform—and strongly encourage him to put his action where his mouth is on this issue and demonstrate that, if he is serious about problem-solving, he needs to work to solve the problems in our democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Will the hon. Member please remember to keep her speech within the scope of what is currently before us?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask the hon. Member please to take my comments as they were made, and stick to the scope of the Bill.
Dr Chowns
I will move on to my amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Amendment 15 seeks to ban all corporate donations. Donations from companies are banned in France and Canada, among many other countries. According to research conducted by CenTax, about a quarter of donor companies are so opaque that it is not possible to identify who controls them, and almost £1 in every £10 given by companies comes, indirectly, from people who could not make donations themselves. This is a loophole in our politics. The Bill already accepts that a company has no independent right to donate, as it depends on the individuals who own it being on the electoral register, so it makes sense to complete the step and ban corporate donations altogether. If the House is not willing to go as far as a ban, it can still strengthen the Bill by strengthening clause 60.
I have also tabled new clause 30, which calls for
“a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis”.
The new clause would deal with another huge loophole. We recognise that money skews politics; that is why there are spending limits during the short campaign; but we know that politics does not happen just in that short period before an election. Politics happens all the year round, especially now that the online world is such a big part of our politics. Long gone are the days when elections were fought only in those short weeks. Political campaigning happens throughout the year, not just on doorsteps but also online, and it is therefore imperative to place limits on annual campaign expenditure to prevent our politics from being skewed out of all proportion by big money. That is why I support new clause 70, tabled by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which would lower limits for campaign spending altogether.
In her new clause 120, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) makes a clear case for a cap on all donations. Big money has been allowed to skew our politics for far too long. I would prefer the cap to be much lower, perhaps at £50,000 a year, and that view is supported by the majority of the British people, but any move in that direction would be an improvement.
Moreover, some donations simply should not be allowed. I welcome new clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon): there is no place for fossil fuels in a sustainable future, and no place for dirty fossil money in our politics.
I also welcome the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), particularly new clause 43, which calls for
“a repository of digital political advertising”.
This is absolutely crucial: we have to guard against the use of AI to fuel disinformation. We have to take big money out of politics, take the poison of disinformation out of politics, and fix our political system once and for all.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, the largest APPG in Parliament, I am delighted to welcome the Bill as a significant culture shift for our democracy and a generational step towards fairer politics. I also welcome the Minister to her place, as she is a trusted friend and ally on fair elections. The APPG’s loss is certainly the Government’s gain.
It is fitting that the Representation of the People Bill is the first piece of legislation to come to the House under the Government’s new leadership. The Prime Minister’s long-standing commitment to free and fair elections, support for young people and commitment to cleaning up our politics is well known, and I look forward to this being the first of many steps that he will take to make our politics fit for the future and reflective of the United Kingdom in which we live today.
The Labour party is the party of change: system change, culture change, democratic change. I am proud to be part of a party that has always fought to strengthen our democracy. We must now do that for a new generation, by facing up to the triple threat that disinformation, dark money and a failing electoral system pose to our politics. Westminster is unfortunately becoming dangerously outdated. A five-party electorate can no longer be represented by a two-party system. “Business as usual” and low voter turnout are changing everything.
I am sad that my new clause 31 has been ruled out of scope today.
Luke Akehurst
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns) that it does not require legislation for the Government to set up a commission to look at electoral systems?
Alex Sobel
I do not want to anger Madam Deputy Speaker, with whom I have served not just here but in other democratic forums, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The number of Members who signed new clause 31 shows the amount of support there is for this in the House; it reflects how many Members support change. I understand that this issue is not in scope of the Bill, but I trust our Prime Minister, who has long been supportive on this issue.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I would like to speak to new clause 19, in my name, which concerns overseas voters. It would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving voting arrangements. It has more than 50 signatures from Members from across the House, including many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, but also Conservatives, Greens and Independents, demonstrating a clear call for change. It also briefly had a Labour Member supporting it, before the Government Whips presumably intervened. We are demanding change on behalf of the 3.5 million overseas voters, including members of our armed forces stationed abroad. Postal ballots all too often arrive too late for them to be returned to the UK in time. The postal ballot return rate was just 48% in the last general election. Proxies, which are a potential solution, are problematic to arrange if people no longer have contacts where they previously resided.
The UK is lagging on the international stage. In France, voting is allowed at overseas embassies. In the Netherlands, constituents can print their own secure ballot, as I have previously done. Estonia permits the use of electronic voting, and New Zealand’s voters can download and return ballot papers online. Of course, any change to our voting arrangements would need to be secure, and to be adapted to the UK context, but if other countries can improve their participation of overseas electors, so can we. However, the Government have so far refused to act.
In a recent meeting with the former Minister for Democracy, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), I was disappointed by the lack of ambition. I was told that it is not possible to make the printing of ballots secure, yet other European and Commonwealth countries do it. What is so unique about either the UK electoral system or the British state that means we are incapable of enfranchising our overseas voters? Under a Bill that is supposed to ensure the representation of the people, the Government have made only negligible and limited changes to support the 3.5 million eligible voters abroad.
The Minister’s response, if there is one, will refer to minor changes made to the timeline for registering for postal voting and the mailing of ballots, but this will not be enough. Half of all overseas voters were registered before the last election, and they still suffered from delayed ballots, so we already know that the changes proposed will not be effective. One voter got in touch with Liberal Democrats in Europe to share her story. Angela, a voter in Oldham living in France, was registered to vote before the election, but she received her ballot in the post the day after polling day. If this is the experience in France, what hope is there for those in Australia?
Under the new leadership, can the previous Prime Minister’s incrementalism be dropped in favour of a solution that meets the size of the problem? As we have heard, there is interest in this Bill from Members from across the House, and not all amendments will be voted on, but I do hope that my new clause, or something similar, will be pursued in the Lords, and will, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation expressed by the Prime Minister, get a fair hearing.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my new clause 22, to stop oil and gas companies donating to political parties. The context is the extreme heat; there were tens of thousands of heat-related deaths in Europe alone this summer, as well as dangerous wildfires and the droughts. All these things give us a terrifying glimpse of what climate breakdown means, and they underline just how dangerous it is to deny climate breakdown or delay the action needed to tackle it. The reality is that climate breakdown will shape our country for decades. It will affect food prices, whether people can live and work safely, and the functioning of key public services, as well as our economic and national security. We must do all we can to tackle climate change and protect people from its increasingly severe impacts.
However, if we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of climate change, we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use. That will mean breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have over our politics. That is where my new clause 22 comes in. Fossil fuel giants have not only driven us towards climate disaster, but have done so knowing the consequences. They did their best to cover up the science, and used their vast wealth and power to distract, and to delay action, so that they could keep raking in obscene levels of profits—profits that have soared even higher in recent years, while people have been hit with horrendously high bills.
The principle of my new clause is clear: those profiting from and helping to drive this crisis should not be using their wealth to pollute our politics, spread misinformation and delay the action needed. It would put a stop to any donations from oil and gas companies to political parties and candidates at elections. Of course, the problem goes way beyond direct donations, but my new clause can be part of the action needed to break the link between fossil fuel wealth and the influence it seeks to exert on our politics.
For example, research by the environmental investigations group DeSmog and The Guardian found that when the previous Conservative Government were considering new North sea fossil fuel licences, the Conservative party received more than £400,000 in one year alone in donations from individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries. That was part of what DeSmog estimated was the over £2 million donated to the Conservative party by fossil fuel interests between the 2019 and 2024 general elections. DeSmog research has also highlighted what it describes as Reform links to oil and gas interests. Beyond party donations, there is a complex web of fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, donors, so-called think-tanks and other organisations seeking to shape our politics, and no doubt they were delighted with the Conservative party’s shift against climate action in recent years. Those interests, as we have seen, have had huge success in shaping US politics. We need to avoid there ever being that scale of influence here.
For decades, across the globe, oil and gas money has sought to buy influence to help delay the action that we desperately need. My new clause 22 is one step towards ending that, and I thank the cross-party group of MPs who have backed it. I hope that we can continue to work together to stop fossil fuel money polluting our politics. The decisions we take on climate action should be driven by the public interest, not fossil fuel interests.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
In the five minutes you have allotted me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to speak to my clauses 41 to 47 in my name, new clauses 82 and 83, which are now in my name—I put them in my name on behalf of the Education Secretary—and amendment 4, which I put in my name on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White).
I thank the previous Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) and for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their constant engagement with me on this matter over the past year and a bit, and I also thank the Minister with responsibility for online safety. I welcome the new Minister to her place—she is a fantastic appointment. I thank the Electoral Commission, Philip Rycroft, members of the Online Safety Network in particular, Demos, Adobe, British broadcasters and colleagues from across this House for working with me to table these crucial amendments.
Our democracy is under attack by foreign actors who want to destabilise our country, and individuals in our country who want to create chaos and division. They use the online space to create and spread disinformation, create deepfakes, and use algorithms to amplify bots pretending to be British citizens. These distort the debate, negate the facts, and take away our right to free choice in a free election.
AI-generated material can be fun—for example, images of cats riding on dolphins—but it can also be destructive. A network of 73 TikTok accounts that pretend to be authentic news organisations suddenly sprang up in March 2025; they have nearly one million followers and have published thousands of deepfakes of Government Ministers supposedly announcing controversial policies. They use real BBC footage. In the first week of December 2025 alone, they had nearly one million viewers. That translates to the doorstep. I spoke to a voter in December 2025 who was convinced that the then Prime Minister was imposing a Christmas tax because she saw a video of him announcing it. Those accounts have made us less sure of who and what we can trust. When that happens, people still vote and make a choice, but the ground beneath their judgment shifts.
New clause 47 would ensure that all material that is AI-generated is clearly labelled. It does not stop any party or candidate from creating crowds at their speeches or wearing a superhero outfit to leap over the Elizabeth Tower, but it would bring transparency to the public.
As has often been said, democracy does not require us to agree, but it does require us to live in the same reality, so new clause 82 would create a liability for false statements, and new clause 41 would ensure that the law offline is applied online—mainly sections 106 and 114A from the Representation of the People Act 1983. These need to be made priority offences under the Online Safety Act 2023. I thank the Minister for online safety for his engagement; it allows us to work together to ensure that this happens and that Ofcom understands the importance of protecting democracy.
The algorithms are powerful because they do not look dramatic. They look ordinary; it is just content in our feed. No single message changes our mind; scale, volume, emotion and the cumulative effect do. Online social media bosses can use their control of algorithms to promote their political views without reporting to the public. That is why I tabled new clause 42.
I will skip new clause 44, on the Electoral Commission. I want to raise new clause 43, which would require a repository for political advertising, so that any voter can see what a party is advertising in different parts of the country and on different platforms. It would also ensure that all political advertising and the money spent on it can be audited and properly declared.
Everyone in this House knows that this harmful activity is not limited to election periods, but is happening all the time, spreading disinformation or nudifying and humiliating female candidates and politicians. New clauses 46 and 83, which look to introduce the broadcast code to online platforms, would deal with this matter.
Finally, we need an emergency election protocol that is appropriate, transparent and holds public confidence. That is what new clause 45 is about.
None of my amendments has been selected for decision, so they will be relaid in the Lords. I thank the Minister for Online Safety, No. 10 and the Secretary of State for their engagement. Working together, I am sure that we can find a way to protect our democracy.
Liam Byrne
Let me start with a word of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), who is not in her place, who said quite rightly that an awful lot has changed since the Bill was first introduced to this House. Indeed, a lot has been revealed over the course of the summer. In fact, reporting in The Times, The Sunday Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian and Byline Times has now revealed 37 different questions around the finances of the Reform party, but no doubt we will find there is an innocent explanation for all of it.
No doubt there is an innocent explanation for why Mr George Cottrell passed $2 million through US-based crypto exchanges just a day or two before he moved the money to his mother, who then went on to make big donations to Reform. No doubt we will learn that Mr Cottrell was in fact on the electoral register when that money was passed. No doubt we will discover that his mother, Fiona Cottrell, declared and did not disguise the fact that the money had ultimately come from her son. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why loans to Reform through Britain Means Business were reclassified as donations, even though the party treasurer was not told about that. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who—surprise, surprise—is not in his place, did not declare a £5 million donation before he was elected to this place and went off to lobby the Governor of the Bank of England on behalf of his cryptocurrency allies. No doubt it is a complete coincidence that the man who has given Reform half of its fortune—more than £25 million—made his fortune in the crypto industry.
No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of that. I very much hope that absolutely no offences have been committed. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of it—and no doubt it will stink to high heaven to the British public.
I very much hope that all of that has been above the law, but that is not the test for political finance regulation in this country. It is not enough to be above the law; conduct must be above suspicion. And right now, the conduct of political finance in this country is not above suspicion. That is why the measures in this Bill are needed, and that is why it will be madness if we do not use this Bill to once and for all eliminate not just cryptocurrency donations, but the cryptocurrency system from British politics.
I welcome the moves that the Minister has made and the commitment she has made at the Dispatch Box this afternoon to continue to listen to the debate and ensure that the rules under the Bill are as tight as possible. However, the revelations in the newspapers over the summer underline why we must be as hard and as tough as possible. The truth is that right now, the amendments that the Government have tabled to the Bill are full of holes. Under those rules, it would still be possible to move money through digital tokens; it would still be possible to move money through memecoins like the $BRITAIN token; and it would still be possible to aggregate it, convert it into conventional currency and then donate it, for example, to Restore Britain.
We know that this is not some speculative feature of the system. We know that donations that have gone to Reform have been routed through cryptocurrency exchanges like Radom. Now, I have nothing against Radom; it is clearly wholly committed to transparency, which is why it has moved its domicile from Poland to the Cook Islands—that beacon of transparency. With risks like that multiplying, why on earth would we leave loopholes open?
The effect of new clause 34 would be to ban off-ramping, ban new forms of digital currency transactions and ban memecoins, which are exactly the kind of measures that Ministers now need to bring forward. If we want to take the crypto system out of political finance, this is what we need to do.
The final point I want to make is about a larger hole in the Bill, which I hope we will square up to over the course of this debate. There are now Members of this House who are making more out of ad share revenue than they are from their salary. If Elon Musk decided to write a cheque to a political party, under the terms of this Bill it would be outlawed. If he decided to retweet something and generate tens of thousands of pounds in ad share revenue, it would be allowed.
We have got to recognise that over the last five years £200 million has been assembled to build a media political complex on behalf of a party that thinks there is a problem with foreigners but not with foreign money. Frankly, it is time that we eliminated that kind of politics, argument and system from our country.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I join others in warmly welcoming the Democracy Minister to her place. I know that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it is great to have such a strong ally on these issues in Government.
We have returned to this place after a summer when barely a day has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages. As the previous speaker referred to, there have been accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflicts of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more.
I doubt that anyone in this House could say with confidence that we currently have the right safeguards in place to ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so that the public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign-based billionaires. That is why this Bill is so important and why so many of the measures in it are welcome.
I am delighted that following the Rycroft review there are amendments to strengthen the Bill, including: the cap on donations from overseas electors; the new residency test to close the potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics; the moratorium on crypto, which will ensure that companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits; and the swift recent action we have seen to look at lower caps on how much parties and candidates can spend during regulated periods. These are all really welcome steps that will help to limit the influence of big money and curb foreign influence.
We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat and to ensure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. In that spirit, I have a couple of suggestions. I do hope that in the Electoral Commission’s review of spending limits, per the Government amendment, it could also be asked to look at whether the whole concept of the long and short campaign is working to keep spending in check. Candidates have already been selected by parties for the next general election, and many more will be in place by the end of this year, but the long campaign regulated period does not kick in until 4 February 2029. That means, in many cases, more than two years of further uncapped spending, with declaration of interest rules only formally in place for the year before an MP is elected and nothing for candidates who do not win.
This is really important because we know that the reality of modern politics is that campaigning never switches off. I am glad that in this country we have avoided the money-pit of TV advertising that the United States has, but social media means that vast sums of hard-to-trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or party outside of these regulated periods. I am fully supportive of the Government’s intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think that a thorough look at these regulated periods would help to deliver that goal and ensure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods.
I am also glad that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this Bill is the start of the political reform agenda and not the end. Unfortunately, many of these big money interests and foreign states with malign intent are very good at finding loopholes and working around our laws, and they will continue to do that and adapt once these new laws are enforced. To avoid that risk, the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels that are currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests.
I welcome the Democracy Minister’s positive engagement on this topic, and I hope that there may be a way to use this Bill to review that issue and build consensus while ensuring that we do not have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging. In that spirit, we do not need legislation to talk about the national commission—we could do that immediately.
As I said, I hope the Bill is the start of the new Administration’s political reform effort and not the end. We all know the context, with plummeting trust, the influence of big money and the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are serving not them but other interests. I know that the Minister is committed to going as far as possible. The Bill is in really good shape—it has been strengthened—and I hope that in the summing up from the Dispatch Box we might hear about next steps to take it that little bit further.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was absent from the House for some time to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee. It is a privilege to speak in the debate, because it is the ultimate manifestation of involvement in our democratic process. The policy paper that goes with the Bill says:
“The right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity”.
What that speaks to is equal citizenship: that every citizen, no matter from where, who is on the electoral register in the United Kingdom should be able to have the same right to elect those who make their laws, whether that is for a council, a devolved institution—if they have one—or the Parliament of this United Kingdom. Those who make our laws, whoever they are, should be subject to the right of every citizen to elect them.
What I bring to the debate is the situation in Northern Ireland. That is how it used to be—until 2021, my constituents had the equal right to elect, whether at council, Stormont or Westminster, those who were making their laws—but under what we now call the Windsor framework, in Northern Ireland we are denied the right to elect those who make laws in 300 areas of law. Those laws are not made in this place and they are not made in Stormont. They are made in a foreign Parliament, elected by no one from the United Kingdom.
That takes me back to that founding, underlying principle: the right to participate in our democracy is a defining aspect of our national identity. New clause 122 and amendment 152 bring that matter to the House’s attention by suggesting that unless and until there is an equality impact assessment in respect of the whole United Kingdom’s participation in all aspects of democracy, the Bill should not have effect.
Let me put it to the House like this. The Bill proposes that a 16-year-old in Cardiff, London or Edinburgh who has paid no tax and who has never served their country has full franchise on all aspects of law—they can elect everyone who makes rules governing their lives—but a 67-year-old veteran in Northern Ireland who has paid tax all his life and who has served his country, or any other citizen, is denied that right to elect those who make his or her laws in over 300 areas of law. That is the inequity that I respectfully suggest the House needs to face up to.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Regretfully, I think that the hon. and learned Member is confused about the constitutional process. That 67-year-old constituent of his votes for a representative to come to this place, and this place takes decisions on their behalf equally, on any part of the United Kingdom. This institution decided that it was in the best interests, and continues to be in the best interests, of this country and of Northern Ireland to maintain the Windsor framework in lieu of any better alternative on the table. I find using that issue to try to withhold the ability of 16 and 17-year-olds to have directly elected representation in this place to be spurious at best.
Jim Allister
I think the hon. Gentleman should reflect on what he has effectively just said: that it is right for this House to disenfranchise my constituents, to take from them to right to vote for those who make the laws in 300 areas. Those 300 areas are what shape our economy in Northern Ireland: how we manufacture our goods, how we package them, how we sell them. All that has been removed from the reach of any single constituent in Northern Ireland to elect anyone to have any say over that.
That is disenfranchising and that is the fundamental objection, from a democratic point of view, to the Windsor framework. I therefore say to this House that yes, we can argue about whether 16-year-olds should have a vote. What I say is that if 16-year-olds are due to have a vote in Great Britain, 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland should have an equal reach on their franchise. It should enable them to elect those who make the laws, and not be subcontracted out to those we do not elect. That is why those two new clauses are there.
That is a probing, fundamental issue that touches upon our commitment to equal citizenship and to the fundamentals of our democracy, which is everyone’s right to participate on an equal footing in our democracy, electing those who make our laws. It is incontestable—it is wrong—to say to my constituents and every other constituent in Northern Ireland, “It is good for us in Great Britain to have those rights, but it is not good for you.” That is fundamentally wrong.
I make a final point on a different subject. I tried to intervene on the Minister but she would not take the intervention. On the £100,000 cap, will she confirm, in winding up, that Sinn Féin, for example, which is a party registered in Northern Ireland, will be exempt from the effect of that cap if an Irish citizen living abroad makes a donation in excess of it? Is that the position? If it is, and it is my reading of the Bill that it is, why has that loophole not been closed? Why should I or anyone else have to compete with a party that is not subject to the same constraints as the rest of us? Perhaps the Minister will address that, because it seems to be a loophole crying out to be closed.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
As so many have said in this debate, our democracy must not be for sale, so it is disturbing that the campaign spending arms race is becoming out of control. As has been mentioned, in 2023 the previous cap on campaign spending of £19 million was increased massively to £34 million. None of our constituents was asked whether they wanted that, and the Electoral Commission said at the time that it had not seen evidence to justify the increase.
We all know what can happen when campaign spending spirals out of control. A number of Members have referred to the situation in the US, where opaque crypto interests spent $189 million just between January and the end of June this year. That is with four months to go before the mid-term elections. We have also seen huge donations from crypto interests in our own country, but they were given in pounds.
New clause 70 would set a limit on campaign spending of £24.4 million. That is what the previous limit of £19 million would be now, allowing for inflation, minus 15%, per the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I understand that the Government are keen to avoid additional legislation at this stage, given the time pressure for ensuring that votes at 16 are delivered. I also acknowledge the letter from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the First Secretary of State, which was published last night, urging the Electoral Commission to examine the matter. That letter makes it explicit that
“spending limits on parties and candidates are too high, and ought to be reduced”.
It asks the commission to provide recommendations to the Government by July 2027 at the latest.
I am pleased that the Government have heard the call from Members right across the House from the many different parties represented here who have supported my new clause. I am really grateful to the Members who supported it. As the Government have made that request to the Electoral Commission clear, I will not push for a vote on my new clause, but I really want to see progress. The Electoral Commission now has to work speedily on a lowered limit for campaign spend, to stop this arms race. That message has come clearly from this House, and the commission needs to act on it now.
In my remaining remarks, I want to urge the Government to move at pace on the further risks to UK democracy to which so many speakers have referred, many of which are covered by the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). As others have said, we must ensure greater transparency on targeted online political advertising, including that facilitated through artificial intelligence, and on additional measures on third-party campaigning and political funding.
The stakes really could not be higher, as so many have said. The UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre has recently shown that online platforms and AI-generated content are playing a powerful role in amplifying not just divisive narratives, but extremist narratives and conspiracy theories. This has led to a disturbing increase in the size of the still small, but now much more consequential, minority that accepts political violence. Over one in 10 people in our country now say that they could accept political violence. There has also been an increase in those who reject at least some democratic norms, with almost a third of people saying that we should ignore democratic institutions and rules if they get in the way of change. In the centre’s words,
“hostile states and domestic extremists are deliberately accelerating these fractures to further destabilise Britain”.
The Bill and the Government’s amendments will help, but they do not yet meet the full scale of this challenge. The Government have to engage in the kind of protection and promotion of democracy that they successfully urge many other nations to do when under the threat of foreign interference. Extremist narratives have to be contested and online platforms regulated and reformed, so while welcoming the Bill overall, I will continue to push for change so that we can really ensure that we have what is the right of every citizen in our country: free and fair elections.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Listening to the debate, I think part of the problem is that the Bill is being brought forward in an enormous transitional period. Some of its original objectives might be being met within the legislation that we are proposing, but the debate has moved on since then. We also have to admit that the debate has moved on within the Labour party because the change of leadership. So in some instances, we might not be talking to this Bill; we might be debating what we want to see in the next Bill, which needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment in our country and that we must address the threats that are creating that moment.
I can understand the Government not being willing to accept several of today’s amendments, and there might not be time enough when the Bill goes to the other place to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that they can be legislated for quickly. However, I would urge a rethink about the next Bill, which should certainly be brought forward before the end of the year to take into account this whole range of measures, particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the Bill, which is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the House’s political debate.
I have tabled two very straightforward new clauses. I thought they were in the tenor of the original Bill, and I was surprised when they were not included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments in 2022. They relate to the Bill’s aims to bring England and Northern Ireland into line with the reforms taking place in Scotland around the age limit of 16. Also, I thought that we were going to ensure that the franchise was the same.
As people know, Scotland and Wales lowered the voting age, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. At the moment, because we base voting on citizenship, 4.4 million residents cannot vote in a general election in our country, and 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland cannot vote in any election. That means that 16,300 people in my constituency have no vote whatsoever—people who live here and work here. Most pay their taxes, and fund our public services, but they are locked out of the democratic system.
My new clauses argue that, as in Scotland and Wales, voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. Some may argue that there should be some investment of time, and other countries designate a timescale for residency. In New Zealand, for example, 12 months’ residency allows someone to vote. New clause 36 deals with local elections, and would permit those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK to vote in elections.
New clause 35 would extend that to general elections for those with settled status—that is an accepted term in many of our pieces of legislation—and indefinite leave to remain. It is an amendment that we have supported in the past. It would mean a simpler system of registration, and it would increase voter participation. Above all else, it would bring about a greater sense of social cohesion: people who live in our society yet have no say in our society would be brought into the political system.
We have had the debate about different languages and all the rest—to be honest, I wish we had never got rid of the Latin mass, but that is another thing, and might offend the other side on that issue—but all my new clauses try to do is recognise the reality of our society. The reality is that our society is a diverse community. This legislation could recognise that diversity, and ensure that everyone has a stake in our society and a democratic right to vote.
Peter Lamb
May I express my delight at my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) making it on to the Front Bench? She is going to do a fantastic job.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I had 14 years in local government, and I was very involved in electoral administration in my area. So much of what we are talking about today involves the Elections Act. I was appointed to chair the Local Government Association working group that went through it, which was a cross-party group. By the end, we came up with a consensus viewpoint: based on the evidence and expert testimony we received, very little of that Act was thought to make much sense. I will not insult Conservative Members by saying that it was a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, but if they were going make a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, it would have looked exactly like the Elections Act.
The basis on which they argued the case at the time was personation. It is vanishingly rare that people actually turn up and try and pretend to be anyone else at a polling station. I will deal with that in just a second, but I must respond to the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), at the start of this debate. We knew that the Opposition would say something to try to explain why widening the franchise or making it easier for people to register to vote was a bad idea, but I was not expecting that. It was a good thing we had free hearing tests in Parliament just before recess, but I did not need one: the dog whistle across the Chamber was so loud that it was apparent to all of us.
When Reform eventually turned up to say something, it was the exact same talking points. Conservative Members will not rebuild their party by aping the Reform party. Parties have had this issue time and again; what they are doing might play well within their own ranks, but it will not rebuild their party with the country. Although I have never voted for the Conservative party, I know that there are many moderate Conservatives who must feel a great deal of shame at what is happening to their party, which is driving towards the right and away from common-sense positions.
Personation is vanishingly rare in our system. The reality is that someone would need to know that a seat was on an absolute knife edge to make it work at all. They could not do it as a single person going around all the polling stations—they would need hundreds of people to go around with them. It could not be rigged in a way that would not leak out; they would run into someone in the process. They would need decades of marked registers, which are available to purchase only for six months after an election. Someone would need so many people and to run such a well organised campaign, and even then, they could just get unlucky in the process. I can confidently say that personation has never changed the result of any national election, and it is very unlikely that it has affected a local seat.
What has caused a real problem—personation is not a real-world problem—is foreign interference in our political system. We know there are people who we may soon be at war with who are trying to intervene directly in our elections. We know that questionable money is a problem. Frankly, Russia was pretty happy to give the Conservatives money at one point. We know that tens of thousands of people have been turned away from polling stations since the introduction of voter ID. We know that millions of people are not registered. One in seven eligible voters is not registered in our system, and individual voter registration helped to make that the case. Disenfranchisement in our system is an absolute travesty, and this Bill gives control back to the British public by re-enfranchising them.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
As has already been mentioned, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, the British public increasingly do not trust their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, we must tackle this problem head on. That is why the Representation of the People Bill really matters.
As the Minister rightly noted—I welcome her to her place—this landmark piece of legislation introduces some of the most ambitious changes to Britain’s democracy for a generation, including tougher rules to keep dirty money out of politics and to safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of these measures is essential. They will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and each sends an unambiguous message that this Labour Government take the health of our democracy far more seriously than their predecessors.
Many of the safeguards needed against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into the Bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already, but as we explored in some considerable detail in Committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I tabled new clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole.
Under existing rules, there is a complete absence of scrutiny of the funds that new parties hold upon registration. While new parties are required to submit a declaration of assets and liabilities when they register, there are no checks on the permissibility of these funds. Members will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) launched a new political party, Restore Britain, no such checks were in place. Prior to the launch, Restore Britain was a political movement that may, or may not, have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. As things stand, that is entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors. There is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent brand new political parties from sidestepping controls on donations by simply accepting as many donations and gifts as they please before registering.
We should not wait until formal registration before asking questions about the true origin of major political donations. My amendment would mean that any new party would have to subject any funds it holds of over £250,000 to post-registration permissibility checks. Having already raised such proposals in Committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that no loopholes of that kind remain in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting for any significant funds that parties hold on registration. That will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny.
As we look ahead, I hope that the Minister will hear not only enthusiastic support for the Bill, but the strength of feeling across the House that it must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat we currently face. We must rebuild trust in our democratic institutions and protect our democracy from corrupting influences, deep-pocketed individuals and unwanted foreign interference. This landmark Bill, with the right changes, is our opportunity to do just that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Our democracy is precious but faces significant challenges, and if we want to protect our system, it must change with the times. The turnout for the 2024 general election was far too low, at below 50% in the poorest areas. Property ownership was still dictating representation, with renters voting at a rate of 38%, and owner-occupiers at a rate of 71%. The delta between younger and older voters is still too high. Expanding participation and trust in politics is an issue of equality, but also one of social, economic and generational fairness, and I am proud of the Government’s efforts to address that in the Bill.
No Member who has spoken today is under any illusion about the limited trust in our current political system, and the bandwidth of that system to enable meaningful democratic participation, especially among those who need it most. MPs elected with increasingly fractured minority votes, and a Parliament that is sometimes unrepresentative of the voting intentions of the country, repel the trust, participation and engagement that our elected representatives in government need. It is not a party political point to state that; this is about every person stepping up to participate and seeing their vote reflected in this place. When MPs and Governments are enabled with a low share and turnout of the vote, increasingly fewer people see their ballot as meaning anything in this place. If that is their first experience of voting, they are far less likely to vote again.
I believe that the Government can give us a route that starts from the first principles of enabling a system to become fairer and more representative and that sustains public confidence through an independent national commission. That is not something that the Government will do today, but they ought to do in the future so that the next Parliament does not start from scratch on long overdue reform to our electoral system.
New clause 68, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), to which I have added my signature, requires registration officers to accept postal and proxy vote applications that are received after the deadline when there is proof of timely posting. That is a meaningful effort and step to prevent people from losing their votes after having made reasonable steps to submit it. It is not reasonable for voters to lose their say in an election because of the potential—and quite common—unreliability of the postal system, and the new clause would empower returning officers to count the votes of people who have made an effort in good faith to vote.
Sadly, we see amendments from Opposition parties that would limit postal voting, such as Reform’s new clause 108, which would have created serious issues, especially in Scotland. For example, when the last general election was called, the last Tory Prime Minister called it for the first Thursday of the Scottish school holidays, and under new clause 108 thousands of people would have been made ineligible to vote through no fault of their own.
In the last wheeze of parliamentary effort, amendments have been proposed to stop votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I have to thank Conservative Members, because their arguments have only compounded my belief that this is the right step for the Government to take. It is ludicrous that amendment 6 and subsequent amendments link the voting age to the age that people can buy alcohol as a way of getting around the Government’s manifesto commitment in the Bill to extend the franchise. Perhaps Members would have been persuaded to support the amendment if we were to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote if they then went to a licensed restaurant for a sit-down meal accompanied by an adult. Sadly, that seems to have been omitted in the amendment.
If there is a serious concern about where we draw the line on the age of capacity, I make the principled point that allowing 16-year-olds to vote so that they can have their democratic say in how the taxes that they contribute are spent and how the conditions of their labour are regulated is a far more rational place to tie that milestone than whether they would be able to have a pint at 8 o’clock while watching the Scottish premiership. The Government is right on this principle and I am glad that we will be able to achieve this milestone today.
Opposition Members have made a lot of references to vote rigging. I find that ludicrous, principally because when votes for 16 and 17-year-olds were passed in Scotland it was with cross-party support, including from the Scottish Conservatives, and because engagement has been increased among 16 and 17-year-olds ever since. I cast my first vote aged 16 in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I was not grateful for the Government of the day. I went out and enthusiastically voted for the SNP—a ludicrous proposal considering how much time I spend in this place opposing SNP measures. I voted because it was the right thing to do and it was recognised by the Scottish Parliament. I am glad that we have that cross-party consensus today: even if it is a majority and not the unanimity that we had in 2016, it is going to get this over the line.
Sadly, the Conservative and Reform amendments have been about restricting political participation; comparatively, what we have heard from Government colleagues has been about expanding political participation. I hope the Government will go further and set up a national commission, but I look at this Bill as the first stage of our political reform agenda.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
A political system, even one with regular elections, is not really a democracy if rich individuals and corporations are able to use their wealth to buy access and influence, and shape decisions in a way that ordinary citizens will never enjoy. That is what new clause 25, tabled in my name, seeks to address.
The British people will never be able to trust the fact that we are genuinely representing their interests if those with deep pockets can wield disproportionate political power. Unless we use this Bill to drain the influence of money from our politics, that doubt will continue to rot away at the foundations of our democracy, driving more and more of our constituents to disbelieve that Parliament is here to serve them, and meaningful engagement with politics in our country will continue to sink to ever more dismal depths, until no Government have the mandate to legitimately call themselves representative.
The amendment in my name focuses on a specific aspect of this problem that is particularly pernicious and should be banned in its own right: developers donating to political parties to weight the planning system in their own favour. What gets built and where shapes our daily lives like nothing else, and the decisions made through our planning system are often the most tangible touchpoints with democracy for local communities. Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about the urgent need to put agency and power back in the hands of the people, but in recent years the near universal experience of those engaging with the planning system as ordinary citizens is that their hopes and concerns are dismissed and trampled on by decision making that overwhelmingly favours the interests of speculative developers.
This is not an accident. Developers are among the biggest donors to political parties, and the successive waves of planning deregulation that have served to silence and curtail community participation in planning decisions have allowed these businesses to make vast sums of money throwing up expensive housing that most young families could never hope to afford, while providing as few amenities as they can get away with and destroying our countryside in their pursuit of profit. Our constituents are not daft. They can see the depressing results of the triumph of speculative developers’ interests all around them, and they can also see those same developers and their lobbyists donating huge sums to political parties. The public can read the reports of exclusive fundraising events and access for those able to pay thousands for dinners with Ministers, and they can put two and two together.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
What consideration did the hon. Member give to extending his proposed amendment to trade unions, which—a neutral observer might conclude—gave very large sums of money to the Labour party precisely to influence the Employment Rights Bill that it has now turned into law?
Chris Hinchliff
As we have heard many times in today’s debate, there is a vast difference between trade unions—which are made up of millions of members making small contributions that are collectively donated to the Labour party, which they support—and corporations and rich individuals seeking influence and to further their own vested interests.
To continue where I left off, what confidence can the British people have that the houses that will be built in their area will meet the actual needs of local families and enhance the beauty of their communities, when the developers throwing up sprawling, characterless, rip-off estates across the country are able to buy seats for a quiet chat with Ministers, during which they can lobby them? It is time to ban developers from donating to political parties, to wash away the stain of undue influence, and to deliver a housing and planning system that puts people before profit.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
The Representation of the People Bill makes much-needed changes that I am very pleased to support. The Bill, and the Government amendments we are discussing, show that this Government are taking protecting our democracy seriously.
Government new clause 72 would introduce a ban on donations using cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is unregulated and untraceable money, and we are right to take it out of our democracy. The amendment would place a moratorium on those donations—a non-permanent ban—until regulation can be put in place, but I have heard some very compelling arguments today for introducing a complete ban. Any hostile foreign actors wishing to disrupt our democracy are able to fund that disruption through cryptocurrency donations. There is no way to trace them, and any political party that takes crypto donations should take a long, hard look at itself. There is clearly a risk that they are taking money from those bent on harming our country.
Government new clause 116 would put a cap on donations from overseas electors, so that those who do not live in or contribute to this country cannot unduly sway our elections. Our democracy is not the business of individuals and organisations that are based abroad. British democracy should be in the hands of the people who live here and contribute, not those of rich individuals who choose to live elsewhere. That should be something that all parties can agree on, but sadly, it is not. I know that some parties have benefited from foreign donations a little more than others, and perhaps do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. I congratulate the newly elected hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place again—because he is never here, is he? He never engages properly with legislation—not only on winning the most pointless by-election in history, but on the fact that his party broke the UK record for the single largest individual political donation by a living person. Some £9 million was donated by one person, a Thailand-based businessman, in one donation. With foreign friends like that, no wonder the hon. Member for Clacton has no need to spend time in his constituency. The new clauses I have spoken to will strengthen our democracy.
Votes at 16 have also been discussed today. The Conservatives say that 16-year-olds are not mature or wise enough to vote. I disagree; I do not think there is a clear correlation between age and wisdom. All of us in this Chamber speak to people of all ages. Some of the best questions I have ever been asked and some of the best suggestions I have ever heard have come from the 16 and 17-year-olds at the local schools and colleges I have visited.
I think the most compelling argument for votes at 16 is that it gets people in the habit of voting. Most 16 and 17-year-olds will still be at school, at college or in some sort of training. Voting is a way to show people how elections work. I know adults who have never voted simply because they did not understand how it worked. I have had to talk them through it, saying, “You go with your ID. You will have a list, and you will mark a box with a cross. No, you do not tick it. That would make too much sense.” If we get people involved in democracy at a younger age, they are more likely to be lifelong voters, and that is really important.
However, this Bill does not address the most pressing issue for our democracy, which is the glaring problems with our current voting system. It is clear that first past the post simply does not work anymore. That is why I am calling for a national commission on electoral reform. I know that the new clause has been ruled out of scope today, so I will not speak any further on it, but if anyone would like to talk about the problems with first past the post and the potential for a new voting system, please do get in touch. It is one of my favourite subjects.
I want to speak briefly against new clause 67, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). I am puzzled by the idea that leaflets in other languages are somehow detrimental to our democracy. I used to live in Spain, and I was in a minority among Brits, because I actually spoke Spanish. Some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish, but I know from experience the difference between being able to understand a language and being able to understand the political nuances, the history, and the code used in political text, which can be different. We want to expand participation in our democracy, so I think it is perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. I note that only 0.3% of people in Britain do not speak English. It is a tiny minority of people. Unfortunately, this place is yet again being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis in reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am reluctant even to mention this, because all the Members here are so highly experienced, but when mentioning another Member in the Chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior warning, so that they have an opportunity to offer a rebuttal in real time.
I am looking for Luke Akehurst, but he is not here, so he has missed his turn.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, because at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It is the bedrock of our society, and we have got to defend it at all costs. In that spirit, I am delighted to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she will do a fantastic job.
We need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This Bill makes provision to ensure that we give protection not only to candidates, campaigners and elected office holders, but to electoral staff. I am sure that many of us in this place can point to times when we have been intimidated while out campaigning. Civil and robust debate is important, but it is very different from intimidatory behaviour. We require changes to keep pace with the changing world we live in and the increasingly digital life that we experience, so I note new clauses 41 to 47, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), to prevent online harms. Online harassment or worse is growing exponentially year on year. AI-generated images, deepfakes, disinformation and misinformation being circulated on social media and other forms of online harassment are simply unacceptable. That must be addressed as a matter of urgency for the preservation of Members in this Chamber, particularly women, who suffer even higher levels of abuse.
The spirit of those new clauses is spot on, and I am pleased that the Government are taking these issues seriously through the Online Safety Act 2023 and through the defending democracy taskforce. I am also pleased to see the Government establishing an AI-labelling taskforce, and as the Bill passes through the other place, I hope that the Government will continue their work to further tighten up measures in this area.
For very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate those risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key. We know that only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.
Cleaning up political donations is also vital. One critically important clean-up—we have heard about it today—is of cryptocurrency. I have spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about the crypto world as it stands today. Rules around the sector need to be watertight before it can be safe to allow contributions to political parties from cryptoassets. Crypto, in my view, has a place in the future of the UK financial system, and there are many in the UK industry who are working hard for tighter, more appropriate regulation to get that moving, but for now, the anonymity in the political donations world is simply not acceptable, as it creates the risk of a significant reduction in transparency. I believe the measures in the Bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy.
To conclude, I want to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules that update measures that give 16-year-olds the opportunity to vote. After all, 16-year-olds can join the armed forces, and they have to pay taxes if they are working. Ultimately, they are the ones who will be most exposed for the longest period to good or bad decisions made by future Governments. We must start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their minds. I have met some incredible young people through work experience in my office, and through my youth days and visits to schools. At my last youth day, 70 pupils—the clear majority, with only two against—were in favour of votes for 16-year-olds. Even the teachers, the people who know the children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age in which young people can have a proper say on their future. Democracy has endured because of its ability to accommodate change, and we are now in a rapidly changing world. The changes we need to make to protect our democracy for years to come are vital.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
It is clear from this debate that the public have lost trust in politics and the political process, and that is linked to them seeing money have an undue influence on the decisions that politicians make. In 2015, just 1% of private donations came from individuals or companies giving £1 million or more. By 2024, that figure had risen to over a third. We have seen the obscene amounts of money that some MPs have made doing second—or even third and fourth—jobs while they are supposed to be representing their constituents. Equally, we know that businesses that donate to political parties are often in line for Government contracts in return. That has got to stop, because if it does not, more than half of all political donations could soon come from just a handful of individuals, leaving elected politicians increasingly reliant on the patronage of a small elite. We will have wealthy individuals and companies with influence over the direction of our country, despite never having won a single election.
New clause 26, in my name, would begin to address those concerns. It would ban political donors from securing government contracts from the Administrations they paid to elect. Over the past 25 years, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth in government contracts, including during the covid era. In the middle of a national crisis, people needed confidence that decisions were made on merit and in the public interest, not shaped by big donors. The Government are quite rightly starting to claim back some of the covid contracts money, but they would also benefit from distancing themselves from those donors who are only interested in the party as a vehicle for achieving their own ends.
In this debate, we are rightly having a wider conversation about our democracy. There is scrutiny of a Westminster-centric political culture in which communities have often been left behind. Redistributing power on the basis of place is one side of the coin, which must go hand on hand with redistributing power on the basis of wealth. According to a recent Oxfam report, the super-rich exert influence in three main ways: buying political influence by funding parties and candidates; gaining direct access to decision makers and institutions; and shaping public opinion to defend elite power. That is why I am supporting amendments to limit donations from harmful lobbying interests and place stronger caps on what wealthy individuals and private companies can give.
Sam Rushworth
I congratulate the new Minister, and welcome her to her place. It was, I think, a long overdue promotion.
It was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee; it was my first time. I enjoyed the Committee, and I enjoyed the spirit in which we conducted our debates. There were many occasions when I thought that amendments proposed by Opposition parties were sincere and tabled with good intentions, and on more than one occasion the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), had to take me aside and explain to me patiently why the Government’s position was that we could not do something that seemed to me to be a reasonable request. Some complex issues have arisen today as well. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who suggested that there might be a need for a second phase, and to many other contributions from Members who are more expert than me in in various fields. There has been a real sense of concern about the point that we have reached as a democracy.
I wanted to take a couple of minutes to continue my debate with the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). She is no longer in the Chamber, but I should like to respond to some of her comments about her amendments. Broadly speaking, she seems to be of the opinion that contributing a single vote towards the election of a representative for a four-to-five-year period should be done at exactly the same age at which people choose who should be their marriage partner till death them do part. Let me explain why I do not think that is correct.
We can play a quick game of “higher or lower”. The compulsory school age is five. The age of criminal responsibility is 10. At 12, you can be trained to take part in dangerous performances. You can be kept in police detention if arrested, and you have to sign your own passport application. At 14, you can get a Saturday job. At 15, you can apply to join the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. At 16, you can buy spray aerosols, enter a pub on your own, drink beer or wine with a meal, join the armed forces, change your name by deed poll without parental consent, hold a licence to drive a moped, or gamble by buying a lottery ticket. You can enter a housing contract. You can leave home. You can apply for legal aid, and be assessed on your own means. You can consent to surgical or dental treatment. You can buy premium bonds. You can become a pet owner, you can consent to sexual activity, and you can obtain your national insurance number. You have to be 17, however, to donate blood. At 18 you can be deployed in the armed forces, you can act as the executor of a will, you can buy fireworks and explosives and you can buy firearms, but you have to be 21 to adopt, or to supervise a learner driver.
The point I am making is that the transition from childhood to adulthood is not like flicking a switch; it is a process. The question that we are really debating is: at what point within that process should we trust somebody to take their first step as a democratic citizen by thinking deeply and contributing one of many thousands of votes in an election for who represents them?
Speaking as someone who has raised three children to the age of 16, but also as someone whose career has involved working with children and youth, I believe that 16 is the right age for a number of reasons. In particular, the evidence is strong that getting young people engaged in the democratic process at that age means that it sticks with them throughout the rest of their lives, but there is another reason too. We have heard talk of this being vote rigging. I have to wonder what it is about so many Conservative Members that makes them automatically assume that a 16-year-old will not vote for them. Every party in this place has an equal opportunity to appeal to that young person for their vote, but when they do not have a vote, they can be ignored. We only have to look at the Conservatives’ record—cutting child trust funds, closing down Sure Start centres, cutting primary school budgets, cutting the educational maintenance allowance, cutting school transport, closing careers services, closing youth centres, tripling tuition fees, locking people out of the housing market, and not doing enough on climate change—to see why it is important that we give that generation a say in their future. The right hon. Member for Tatton made that commitment at Wilmslow high school nine years ago, and I am disappointed that she has rowed back on it today.
I strongly endorse the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington). We need to look at the issue of deepfakes and protect our democracy, because we are all subject to it.
Anna Dixon
I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on becoming a Minister. It is great to see her on the Front Bench.
I really welcome this Bill. We can go back in history and look at the amazing enfranchisement that happened with the Representation of the People Acts 1918 and 1928, when suffrage was extended to women and those with no property. When I have visitors in Parliament, I love showing them the stained-glass windows where, here in this place, we celebrate giving more people the vote. I hope that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we can celebrate the enfranchisement of 16 and 17-year-olds. I am really proud that this Labour Government are extending the vote and reversing the Conservatives’ measures that disenfranchise people without voter ID, and that we are also going further with automatic voter registration. These are all really great strides forward in enabling more people to vote.
I hugely support a lot of other provisions in the Bill that ensure that our elections are free and fair, but I want to speak specifically to new clause 81, in my name. One part of a free and fair democracy is that it is essential that candidates and elected officials feel safe. My new clause would take forward a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, and put an end to the publication of candidates’ home addresses. Today, the default option is for a candidate’s home address to be published. In the increasingly hostile and toxic political climate in which we operate, that is clearly a cause for concern, and I believe it has a chilling effect on our democracy.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) in remembering our dear colleagues Jo Cox and David Amess, who were both tragically murdered, and we think of the family of Ann Widdecombe as her horrific murder continues to be investigated. It is a travesty that death threats are now seen as part of the job, and as we know, it is women who are more at risk and more likely to be threatened. It has been reported—so, Madam Deputy Speaker, no worries—that a constituent of mine has recently received a suspended custodial sentence and a lifetime restraining order for a threat to kill me, in which he wrote:
“If I see you in public, I will try my best to kill you. I will work hard to find out where you live, and I will kill you there.”
That is why this amendment is personal to me. As things stand, if a candidate does not want their address to be published, they must actively request it. Thankfully, I had the foresight and I did, but it does put people like me who choose to do that at a disadvantage to other candidates by creating the impression that we do not want to be open and transparent. If this new clause were implemented, the requirements for those who decline to have their address published would become the default for all candidates, giving everyone confidence that, at least in their own home, they and their families would be safe.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her earlier engagement, and I look forward to and hope that the Minister will continue to work with me and the Jo Cox Foundation, as this Bill progresses through to the other place, to ensure we can put in safeguards and protections for candidates, their families and others, such as agents, who support them. I am not going to push my amendment to a vote, but I do hope that we can take measures to protect all those who put themselves forward for elected office at all levels.
I add my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), who is no longer in his place, for his leadership of the APPG for fair elections, of which I am a member. Others have commented on just how unfair, unrepresentative and unsustainable our electoral system is at the moment, so I do hope—even though we are not considering it—that, in summing up and her wind-up comments, the Minister will give assurances about the steps the Government may take to further protect our democracy and ensure that every vote counts by looking at further measures of electoral reform in the future.
It is vital that we protect our democracy against foreign interests and others who wish to undermine it, and I hope the Minister will consider my amendment and some of those of other hon. Members.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
First, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for their collective engagement so far on this Bill. As a former anti-corruption specialist for more than a decade and chair of the APPG on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I have had the pleasure of working with Members from across the House on this Bill in seeking to drive foreign interference, dirty money and undue influence out of our democracy.
To that end, I wholeheartedly endorse a number of amendments: new clause 34 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on cryptocurrency; amendments 31 to 34 from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on strengthening “know your donor” requirements; new clause 61 from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) on closing the political party start-up funding loophole; new clause 70 from my formidable right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on reducing campaign spending limits; new clauses 93 to 95 from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on foreign source donations and loans; and new clause 86 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) on overseas donations. I hope the Minister will respond substantively to each of those amendments when she winds up.
I want to focus my remarks on new clause 121 and amendment 151, which are in my name on the amendment paper. Both are ultimately about one deliverable that I know the Government want to achieve—namely, restoring trust in politics as a force for good.
On new clause 121, I welcome the Government’s move over the weekend to expedite their existing ask of the Electoral Commission to review campaign spending limits. However, if the Electoral Commission concludes that spending limits should come down, we need to ensure that that decision is future-proof, and that is what my new clause 121 would secure. Critically, it would ensure that spending limits are set according to three key tests: first, the fairness of elections; secondly, the impact on the political parties; and thirdly, public confidence in electoral integrity.
The new clause would also ensure that future increases could take place only following an independent recommendation from the Electoral Commission. This matters because politics is caught in an increasingly unsustainable fundraising arms race. In 2023, spending limits were increased unilaterally by the Government of the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) by 80%. The result was that the 2024 general election became the most expensive in British history, with parties spending £94 million between them. As spending limits rise, so does the pressure on parties to raise ever larger sums of money, and when the demand for money grows, it follows that the risk appetite for parties accepting donations, and therefore the window of opportunity for bad actors, also grows. The Rycroft review made exactly that point. Reducing spending limits can help reduce incentives to seek funding from problematic sources and lessen the pressures that fuel concerns about foreign interference in our politics.
Secondly, on amendment 151 in my name, I welcome the Government’s decision in July to move to a profit-based cap on corporate donations—a clear improvement on the previous proposals, which would have tied the cap to revenue, and something that the APPG I chair had for months been calling for. However, two significant loopholes remain. Amendment 151 would close both loopholes by ensuring that only the profits of the donating company itself are counted, and by calculating donation limits using average profits over five years, rather than accumulated profits. That would provide a more accurate measure of genuine economic activity, and make it far harder for corporate structures to be used to circumvent the intention of the law.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clauses 58 and 59 in my name. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, for reasons ranging from the risk to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment, as well as the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. I know this all too well from my own horrific election experiences, where my ex-husband stood against me. I know that my experiences are not unique, and there are others who have suffered. In fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clauses 58 and 59 would resolve all those issues by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act 2022, so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered.
I am proud to say that so many leading women’s rights and violence against women and girls organisations, including Elect Her, the Jo Cox Foundation, Right to Equality, Women’s Aid, Southall Black Sisters and many more, have joined me in calling for the law to change, along with at least 40 Members from all parties across this House. I am very grateful for that support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently agreeing that these amendments would
“help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.”
I am asking Members to support new clauses 58 and 59, and I am calling on the Government to adopt those changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments, and for meeting with me. In her closing remarks, I hope that she will confirm that the Government will consider updating schedule 9 of the Elections Act through secondary legislation, looking at protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater number of relevant offences being included, so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in elections.
Our democracy cannot be said to be representative if we tolerate the structural barriers that block out survivors. Every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for office.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour to her place; she will make a fantastic Minister. I want to start by talking about the risks that we are seeing to our democracy: the emergence of AI and the use of crypto to fund parties, alongside an expanding electorate and a move away from the two-party system. It is vital that the Bill introduces a much-needed refresh.
One area that the Bill has overlooked is electoral participation, which has been in stark decline for many years. At the last general election, just 59.7% of the electorate voted—the lowest turnout since 2001. The picture is far worse in local elections and by-elections; the Clacton by-election, for instance, saw turnout of a mere 44%, although there may have been other reasons for that. Low turnout is indicative of a worrisome lack of engagement in the most integral act of political participation.
That is why I have tabled new clause 57, which would require the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general and local elections in England within 12 months of the Bill passing. Since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, Australia has consistently seen a minimum turnout of 90%, with only a minimal fine for non-participation. There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some cannot vote, and this new clause recognises that, while also protecting the right to spoil one’s ballot paper or return a blank paper.
Coupled with the compulsory voting provision, new clause 57 would introduce a programme of civic education. This is important, as research from the Institute For Public Policy Research shows that fewer than 42% of teachers in England report their school providing regular citizenship lessons. As the incredibly bright young people who participated in my activism academy this summer told me, it is not just young people who need political education through no fault of their own—many adults also do not understand the basics of our political system. Knowledge is power, which is why new clause 57 calls for the production of learning materials for adults, too.
Alongside new clause 57, I support a number of new clauses that would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to qualifying EU citizens and foreign nationals with the right to remain in the UK. I have also supported measures that address the wild west of UK political donation regulations. Our democracy is seriously at risk of being hijacked by those who have only their own interests at heart.
I am extremely proud to support my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) with new clauses 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse in public life. I do not understand why support of such new clauses would even be a question or why we would not support them right now, today.
Finally, although the Bill does not cover constituency boundaries, I would really like to see a review of how they are set. We represent constituents regardless of their right to vote, and thinking about the numbers in terms of the electorate who go on to vote, fewer and fewer people are involved in our political decisions. However, it is not just that: boundaries drawn on the electorate, not on residents, mean that inner-city constituencies like mine, which have the highest levels of residents relative to electorate, face disproportionately higher levels of casework, representing far more people. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter when enacting part 2 of the Bill.
Bills of this nature do not come around often. They offer a generational chance to refresh our democracy, and I hope that the Government will recognise the benefits that these amendments would bring.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to see this Bill back on the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill—it was a pleasure to serve with her in Committee—and I congratulate the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), on her appointment.
As was acknowledged on Second Reading, there are significant concerns about the potential for cryptocurrency donations to undermine the integrity of our politics. These concerns were raised by many Government Members in Committee too, and we were reassured that amendments would be brought in at this stage. These concerns are not least because it can be difficult to determine the true source of the funds.
During the Bill’s earlier stages, the Government committed to incorporating the findings of Sir Philip Rycroft’s review and ensuring that the recommendations were reflected in the legislation. I welcome the fact that Ministers took the time to do that, leading to Government new clause 72. This new clause would prohibit UK-registered political parties from accepting donations made in cryptoassets. Any donation made wholly or partially in cryptoassets would automatically be treated as coming from an impermissible donor, and therefore could not be accepted. The Government are proposing that parties take reasonable steps to identify anyone attempting to make a cryptoasset donation and, where such donations are received, to return them or otherwise dispose of them in accordance with the existing rules governing prohibited donations.
New clause 72 also introduces a statutory definition of “cryptoasset” and gives the Secretary of State the power to update the definition through regulations. This is a sensible and proportionate measure. Since the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 was passed at the start of the century, the financial landscape has changed considerably, most notably through the growth of cryptocurrencies. This has created new challenges for regulators, law enforcement agencies and those responsible for maintaining public confidence in democratic institutions. After listening to many colleagues today, I think that some concerns remain unaddressed, so I hope that the Minister will address those that have been raised and close all the loopholes that have been mentioned.
Government new clause 116 would introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on political donations and certain regulated transactions from overseas contributors. The cap would apply to individuals registered as overseas electors and certain individuals who are on the UK electoral register but have spent time living outside the United Kingdom. It is, of course, welcome that British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years have since 2022 been entitled to vote in UK elections once again. However, as Philip Rycroft noted in his review, while British citizens living overseas can legitimately participate in UK democracy and make political donations, donations from overseas electors present additional risks that need to be managed.
We have heard numerous concerns in this debate, and I hope that Ministers will look again into those concerns and address the loopholes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I will extend the time limit because we have gathered some time. Mark Sewards now has six minutes.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I know that many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I will try to keep it under five minutes. I will speak specifically about amendments 31 and 34. When the Government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhanced “know your donor” checks, because before accepting donations from anyone all political parties should know who those donors are and where the money is coming from. We know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. They often try through wealthy individuals who have the means to try to distort things here in the UK, so I was pleased with the Government’s announcement on donor checks.
However, I did not think that the original Bill as drafted was strong enough, and with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) I drafted some amendments that I think will greatly strengthen those checks. For example, amendment 31 states that parties must consider things like the location or jurisdiction of the donor, any links the donor has to politically exposed people, and the source of the wealth being donated from.
I was equally delighted a few months ago when the Government, in a statement from the Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft review, said that location would be incorporated within the “know your donor” checks. However, it is now the second day back, I have had two Select Committees and some work on funeral regulation, and I have looked through the amendment paper and have not, other than in my amendment, been able to find reference to location in any of the Government’s amendments. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that and on whether the Government are still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation.
I would also like to ask the Minister about two other areas. Why did the Government not consider that it was necessary to include politically exposed people or the source of the wealth being donated from? I ask that because recommendation 5 of the Rycroft review said that “know your donor” rules should
“more closely mirror the customer due diligence provisions in the anti-money laundering regulations.”
If a young couple from Leeds South West and Morley seeks to take out a mortgage, they have to answer these questions. It is reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer them. If the Government have fully accepted the Rycroft review yet not incorporated those two recommendations, I suggest there might be a contradiction, which I would like the Minister to acknowledge.
It is worth saying that the things in amendment 31 are not radical; they are not new. The Electoral Commission said as far back as 2018 that such changes could prevent foreign money from being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said in 2021 that such measures would be useful and that, again, the money laundering regulations are the model that we should follow. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on why those additional two things were not incorporated in the Bill.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
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?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for all her work on the Bill. I also welcome the Minister to her place.
I will speak briefly to new clause 48, tabled in my name. I thank the many Members from across the House who have supported it and the Royal National Institute of Blind People for its assistance and support in drafting it. The Bill takes a significant step towards strengthening and protecting our democracy and extending the franchise. However, we must recognise that one group of voters remain disenfranchised and unable to vote independently and in secret because they cannot see the ballot form in front of them.
I first worked on the issue of accessible voting at the 1997 general election, when I had the privilege of working for Scope on the “Polls Apart” campaign. “Polls Apart” shone a light on the physical barriers that disabled people face when exercising their right to vote. It went on to secure changes in the law to remove many of those barriers. Nearly three decades on, however, blind and partially sighted people still cannot reliably vote independently and in secret.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the Bill and on trying to level the playing field to ensure that every Member and every person has the ability to vote independently and in secret. She rightly highlights that one group, which includes me, are unable to vote independently and in secret because we are unable to see our ballot paper clearly. Does she agree that it is time for everyone to work together to ensure that we level the playing field so that every person has the ability and the right to exercise their vote independently and in secret?
Ms Minns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right was first enshrined by this Parliament in 1872, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) said earlier in the debate. More than 150 years later, blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. It is time that was brought to an end.
One of those people currently denied that right is my constituent John, who on arriving at the polling station with his guide dog at the last general election found that there was no usable tactile device. John had to fold his ballot paper to make creases as reference points and ask the staff to read out the names in order as he navigated the creases to identify his candidate of choice. Unlike me and most of the people in this Chamber, John could not be sure that his vote was private, accurate or truly his, because he was dependent on someone else verifying it for him.
John’s experience is echoed by RNIB research that found that only a quarter of blind voters said they were able to vote independently and in secret, while two thirds had to rely on a companion or polling station staff. New clause 48 offers a practical way forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) and for indicating the Government’s readiness to act, as the Bill moves to the other place, to give blind and partially sighted voters the right to vote independently and in secret.
Anna Dixon
I very much support my hon. Friend’s work to ensure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does she agree that other groups, such as those with learning disabilities, also face barriers in participating in elections, and that further work should be done to ensure that everybody has a free vote?
Ms Minns
I absolutely agree. From my work in the 1997 election I know that Mencap has looked extensively at the issue of accessible information for people with learning disabilities.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to place on record the Government’s commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when the Bill moves to the other place, and to ensuring that blind and partially sighted voters are able to make their own choice, mark their own ballot and know that their vote is their own.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned.
This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate for their constructive and informed contributions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to face a telling-off from you, so given the timings, I will not reference each amendment but instead talk broadly about the main themes of the debate. I assure Members, who have asked a number of detailed and serious questions, that I have taken note of many of the questions; I commit to writing to them individually if I do not cover those areas in my closing speech.
Florence Eshalomi
All of us need to work to protect the integrity of all elections, not just the next general election. Every election should matter. Local elections, regional elections, mayoral elections—every election should have the same weight when it comes to ensuring that it is free from any foreign interference. That is how we strengthen our democracy.
A number of hon. Members have tabled amendments on candidate safety, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) spoke about her lived experience. Threats to candidates, campaigners and elected officials are totally unacceptable. Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can already be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. The Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences, and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.
New clauses 58 and 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022 for the purpose of the disqualification order, and require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders relating to abuse or harassment when the relevant behaviour was aggravated by hostility towards someone’s status as a candidate, campaigner or office holder. This Government take domestic abuse extremely seriously and recognise the devastating impact it can have on victims. I know the extremely difficult personal circumstances faced by my hon. Friend and thank her for her bravery and continued efforts to raise this important issue. I can give the commitment that we will review these laws and ensure that the necessary protections are in place, as my hon. Friend describes. With regard to domestic abuse convictions, the list of offences in schedule 9 can be updated via secondary legislation.
On candidate requirements, the Government recognise that trust in our elected representatives is vital to the effective functioning of our democracy. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill includes a number of measures to strengthen the nomination process for candidates.
New clause 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), aims to require candidates who have been convicted and sentenced under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime. This is a complex and sensitive matter, and we must ensure that any proposals that might restrict or deter individuals from taking part in our democratic system are carefully considered.
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is making fantastic progress on protecting our democracy. On criminal convictions, as she will know, I have taken over amendment 4 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). It is about listing on registers of interests, once a candidate is elected as an MP or councillor, that they have undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service check. That would provide schools, care homes and women’s shelters with the clarity that they can feel safe with that person. Will the Minister consider that, as part of ensuring transparency, so that people can understand who it is, and is not, appropriate to invite to particular venues?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is right that we look at the range of different requirements placed on candidates. My understanding is that some people, such as local councillors, are required to have DBS checks, but again, as many hon. Members have noted, there is no such requirement for us as parliamentarians; that is something that we need to test and look at further. I can continue to work with her and other interested Members on looking at this area.
New clause 48 concerns accessibility for voters and seeks to mandate the provision of audio and tactile devices in polling stations. The Government are firmly committed to supporting democratic participation for all eligible voters. I recognise the important work that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have undertaken to champion accessibility and ensure that disabled people can participate fully in our democracy.
Alex Sobel
I know the Minister has long supported changing the system of election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has also committed to it. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are actively considering changing the system from first past the post?
Florence Eshalomi
I will come on to my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my speech. To come back to accessibility, we agree with the principle outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her amendment, which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who has lived experience of this, and many other Members. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and other interested Members from both Houses on a suitable amendment that can be tabled in the Lords.
A number of Members from right across the House have mentioned electoral reform. In the spirit of transparency, I should say that a number of Members know my position on electoral reform. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. The Prime Minister remains committed to electoral reform as a way of supporting that objective. However, this is a complex constitutional matter, and it is premature to legislate now for one approach. I would be happy to meet Members from across the House to hear their views, look at how we can work on strong proposals, and discuss next steps.
On new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the rules on third-party campaigning are clear, proportionate and workable in practice. On new clauses relating to spending limits, we are of the opinion that an independent assessment is needed of the adequacy of current spending limits in electoral law. We agree that the Electoral Commission is best placed to provide that assessment. That is why the Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State wrote to the Electoral Commission on 29 August, asking it to expand its review of spending limits to include candidate limits. That builds on the Government’s current ask of the commission to provide recommendations by July 2027, and will ensure that the electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose for the modern campaigning world.
Lisa Smart
It is welcome that the Government have asked the Electoral Commission to look at spending limits. I love a task-and-finish group almost as much as I love a taskforce or a sub-committee, but will the Minister put a little more meat on the bones, and say what she is doing on donation caps, specifically on timing, and on whether things will be in place ahead of the next general election? I would not want a Member to press for a separate Division on an amendment because there was not enough meat on the bone.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson. I cannot stand here and unilaterally write the terms of reference for the taskforce, but I would be happy to discuss with her at a later stage what the taskforce would entail. She also spoke about voter registration provisions. We will move towards more automated voter registration, but that takes time. We hope to use existing powers or non-legislative approaches as part of that.
The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes. Although there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining AI-generated content, we will continue to explore solutions and are taking the first steps forward. Several amendments relate to social media and elections. The Government agree that we must protect the integrity of our elections from malign influence, and greater transparency is part of that. We believe that the way to achieve that is through a new targeted transparency regime. That is why we are strengthening the imprint framework through the Bill. We have taken steps to tackle a range of threats from foreign states that are actively seeking to disrupt our political system. We are alive to the issues that Members have raised in this debate through their amendments, such as those on deepfakes and online harassment, and the Government are continuing to assess the best way to mitigate those concerns.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I chair the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we conducted an inquiry on votes at 16. We were speaking directly to young people, and they are delighted that the Bill will empower them with the vote. However, they are equally concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and having the tools that they need to engage in the democratic process. Does the Minister agree that that is a key issue, and that if we are to empower young people with the vote, we must also empower them with the tools that they need to use that vote in an informed and engaged way?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chaired formerly, will continue to consider such issues, and many hon. Members will continue to feed into our proposals as we develop them.
In conclusion, I wish briefly to reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Many Members will recall the toll that the last general election took on those who stood for election. The Electoral Commission’s research told us that more than half of candidates faced harassment or intimidation in the course of campaigning.
The Speaker’s Conference heard worse: families targeted, tyres slashed and campaigners driven away from the streets where they were trying to represent candidates. Women and candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds bore this disproportionately. I know from conversations I have had with Members from across the House, including with those who sometimes do not want to discuss the issue because doing so can invite further abuse, that this was not confined to the doorsteps—it reached people’s homes and their families. This is not robust political debate—it is organised intimidation and it strikes at the willingness of good people to stand for office, or even not stand.
A democracy that cannot protect those who offer themselves for its service is not in any sense one that is secure. This Bill will not fix that on its own—no legislation could—but it takes this House further than before, extending disqualification for hostility motivated offences to cover election staff as well as candidates, adding a new aggravating factor for such offences, and working with the Electoral Commission on a code of conduct and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates alike. The Bill will sit alongside a wider purpose: trust in our elections is not owed to us as parliamentarians, but earned through the integrity of the system we ask people to trust.
The Bill secures a system against foreign and elicit money, closing routes that hostile actors have sought to exploit through crypto-currency, opaque company structures and unlimited overseas donations. It protects the people who make our elections happen—candidates, campaigners and electoral staff alike. It keeps our democracy open to legitimate voters, including for the first time those aged 16 and 17, a change that I have long campaigned for and I am glad to bring to the House as the Minister now responsible for it. It modernises the machinery of registration and absent voting, so that participating in our democracy is neither harder nor more confusing than it needs to be.
The next stage of the Bill is shaped by extensive engagement, by the Rycroft review’s recommendations, which the Government have accepted in full, and by many Members across the House who have brought expertise and lived experience, in some cases at a personal cost, to this debate. I thank all colleagues involved in getting us to where we are at this stage, and to state again that the Government remain committed to doing whatever is necessary. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 72 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 76
Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000
“(1) Part 4A of PPERA 2000 (regulation of loans and related transactions) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 71F (regulated transactions), after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) A reference to a regulated transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a regulated transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.”
(3) In section 71L (offences relating to regulated transactions), omit subsection (12).
(4) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations), in paragraph 1 (operation and construction of Schedule), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) A reference to a controlled transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a controlled transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.”
(5) In that Schedule, in paragraph 8 (offences), omit sub-paragraph (12).”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This new Clause would make amendments relating to the circumstances in which a regulated transaction is entered into for the purposes of Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and takes the place of amendments that are currently made by Schedule 8 to the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Section 148D(4) (onward disclosure of personal information disclosed to the Commission by the Revenue and Customs) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On conviction on indictment: fine or 2 years |
|---|---|
Section 148E(4) (onward disclosure of personal information disclosed to the Commission by the Welsh Revenue Authority) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On conviction on indictment: fine or 2 years |
Section 148F(4) (onward disclosure of personal information disclosed to the Commission by Revenue Scotland) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On conviction on indictment: fine or 2 years”.” |
Donation | Valuation provision |
|---|---|
(a) A donation within the meaning of this Part of this Act to a registered party | Section 53 of this Act |
(b) A controlled donation within the meaning of Schedule 7 to this Act to a regulated donee | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(c) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 11 to this Act to a recognised third party | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(d) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 15 to this Act to a permitted participant in a Part 7 referendum | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(e) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to which that Act applies | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(f) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Recall of MPs Act 2015 to an accredited campaigner | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(g) A relevant donation within the meaning of Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2) to a permitted participant in a Scottish referendum | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(h) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to the Scottish Parliament (see article 36(4) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/425)) | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(i) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 6 to the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025/864) to a candidate at an election to Senedd Cymru | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(j) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c. 14 (N.I.)) to a candidate at a local election in Northern Ireland | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
(k) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 5 to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1917) to a candidate at an election of a police and crime commissioner | Paragraph 5 of that Schedule |
Donation | Relevant refusal provision |
|---|---|
(a) A donation within the meaning of this Part of this Act to a registered party | Section 56(2) of this Act |
(b) A controlled donation within the meaning of Schedule 7 to this Act to a regulated donee | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 8 of that Schedule |
(c) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 11 to this Act to a recognised third party | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(d) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 15 to this Act to a permitted participant in a Part 7 referendum | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(e) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to which that Act applies | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(f) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 4 to the Recall of MPs Act 2015 to an accredited campaigner | Paragraph 14 or 15 of that Schedule |
(g) A relevant donation within the meaning of Part 5 of Schedule 3 to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2) to a permitted participant in a Scottish referendum | Paragraph 36 of that Schedule |
(h) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to a candidate at an election to the Scottish Parliament (see article 36(4) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/425)) | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, as that paragraph is applied by article 36(4) of the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2015 |
(i) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 6 to the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025/864) to a candidate at an election to Senedd Cymru | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(j) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 3A to the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c. 14 (N.I.)) to a candidate at a local election in Northern Ireland | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
(k) A relevant donation within the meaning of Schedule 5 to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1917) to a candidate at an election of a police and crime commissioner | Section 56(2) of this Act, as applied by paragraph 7 of that Schedule |
Transaction | Valuation provision |
|---|---|
(a) A regulated transaction within the meaning of Part 4A of this Act | Section 71G |
(b) A controlled transaction within the meaning of Schedule 7A to this Act | Paragraph 3 of that Schedule |
(c) A regulated transaction within the meaning of Part 6 of Schedule 3 to the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 (asp 2) | Paragraph 48 of that Schedule |
“Section 55D(8) (making a false declaration about donation by overseas contributor) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates’ court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”. |
“Section 71HD(5) (failure to give notice of becoming, or ceasing to be, overseas elector) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine On summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland: level 5 |
Section 71HE(8) (making a false declaration about regulated transaction involving overseas contributor) | On summary conviction in England and Wales: fine or the general limit in a magistrates court On summary conviction in Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”. |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind the House that this business has to conclude by 8.3 pm, and that the shadow Front-Bench team may wish to speak on it.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill strengthens our elections and takes a stand against hostile actors at home and abroad who seek to threaten them. It extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and automates voter registration. It protects candidates and officers, and introduces new, tougher rules around political donations.
The legislation reflects the commitments made in our strategy for modern and secure elections, which I published as Secretary of State in July 2025. It also now delivers much of the Rycroft review on foreign interference. It meets our manifesto commitments and sets the foundations for a new model of politics that is both stronger and fairer.
I reassure the House and hon. Members that during the Bill’s passage we have committed to returning to various issues in the other place. I look forward to a strengthened Bill returning.
I will briefly pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed) and the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, who have carried the Bill through the House, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), who delivered much of the policy that led to the Bill.
I also thank those hon. Members form across the House who have contributed to debates on the Bill. In particular, I thank the Opposition and those who took part in the Bill Committee. It would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes). As he said in Committee, the Bill is “groundbreaking” legislation, and I most certainly agree. Finally, I thank my team in the private office, all the officials at the elections directorate in my Department, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, who have worked so hard to produce the Bill before us today.
The Bill will leave our politics stronger and fairer, and all those who have contributed to its drafting and passage should take huge pride in having done so. The measures are the next step in the evolution of our democracy, strengthening our institutions and processes to ensure that they work for the people they serve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.
As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.
I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.
As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.
Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It has been a privilege to be part of this process and to listen to the impassioned contributions from Members across the House, from Second Reading through to Committee and Report. The contents of this legislation have been a long time coming, and owe a great deal to the hard work of the people who have campaigned tirelessly for improvements to our system and to clean up our politics, and of course, to those who do the work on the ground. Our returning officers and those who deliver democracy, often on shoestring budgets, so that we can sit here, rarely get the praise they deserve. We should be strengthening what they do and how they do it, and we owe them the resources to do what is needed.
The Liberal Democrats will support the Bill tonight, and we will do so because it extends the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds—a measure that we have argued for over many years, and which I will be delighted to vote for this evening. We will also support the Bill because, without it, corrupt practices will only entrench further. The “know your donor” regime is not perfect, but it is a step that we welcome, and we will not obstruct it. We do not stand in the way of progress.
The Bill will make it easier for people to register, safer for people to stand and harder for the wrong money to stay in our politics. Those are good things and will have a long-lasting effect. I look forward to the discussions with Ministers that were promised on further work that they are doing on donation and spending limits, which they outlined earlier. The true test of whether the people really are represented fairly will be whether votes count when they are cast. That argument has not been resolved yet, and I do not think it is an argument that will fade away any time soon. For tonight, though, I am content that this is a better Bill than the one that arrived, and that is down to the scrutiny and grit that this House has been supported to deliver. I look forward to seeing how our noble friends in the other place can make it even stronger.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In her opening remarks on Report of the important Representation of the People Bill, the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), repeated—I am sure inadvertently—misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton by-election, despite the fact that it was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester police found no evidence of criminality. What steps can be taken to ensure that the record is properly corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.
Katie Lam
It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.
Representation of the People Bill
Thursday 3rd September 2026
(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 2 September 2026 - large print - (2 Sep 2026)