Live Debate: Commons Chamber

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

that will guide this government. He was clear that 40 years of overly centralised decision making and centralised decision making and over privatisation has stripped power and resources away from communities in every nation and region of this country. That public control over the things that matter control over the things that matter so much to people's lives have been systematically eroded and become a systematically eroded and become a barrier to businesses to start and grow. That a broken economic and political model has cost good jobs and opportunities in many parts of the country, while delivering sky high prices in exchange for poorer customer services.

The Prime Minister was clear that this government will be the circuit breaker that our country needs, the government that will take power from Westminster and Whitehall and put it in the hands of the communities who are best placed to use it. That will rewire Britain so that our politics and our economy work for every person and every place. Built on a bedrock of fiscal discipline. We will build a pro-business, culture and innovation led economy that delivers good growth in every postcode.

Mr. speaker, we have wasted no time in delivering on that commitment. In the newly formed office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, we are rewiring the machinery of government so that the Prime Minister has the resources and levers he needs to deliver on his priorities. By stripping out many of the bureaucratic functions of the office, we have created a stronger, more focussed department that is capable of driving forward the Prime Minister's agenda, because this government recognises that for far too long there has been a disconnect between the Cabinet Office and number ten, and it is that lack of joined up thinking that has hampered the ability of successive prime Ministers to drive forward their own agendas across government.

We have had a dichotomy at the heart of government, the most centralised state in the G20, with one of the most underpowered centres. So in the newly established Opmc, we are ensuring that the Prime Minister has the support and resources he needs to deliver the change. The public are impatient to see, and from this office we will drive forward work across government to put the essentials like water, transport, energy and housing under greater public control to regenerate our communities, breathe new life into our high streets and to give people more room to breathe through action on the cost of living.

And that work of change has begun. Mr. speaker, working closely with the Prime Minister and Cabinet

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Secretary, we have begun the work of shifting power and resources away From Whitehall through our devolution blueprint and the devolution blueprint and the establishment of number ten North, we have created a new engine of regional economic growth that will regional economic growth that will empower places that have been overlooked by Westminster for too long. We are granting new powers to long. We are granting new powers to strategic authorities to take more control over the future of their. A control over the future of their.

A greater share of locally generated revenues, beginning with business rates, more control over housing, public transport and infrastructure. For the first time, local leaders will have the power and resources they need to invest in the things that matter most to their communities, and this government is filling in the map to bring an end to the system of two tier devolution, so that we are able to extend the same offer to all parts of England by the end of 2028 that the rest has enjoyed for many years.

This is how we can empower communities, drive local economic growth, create new jobs and deliver maximum benefit to the people who live there. This is devolution by design and devolution by default and working across government, we will build a new economic model that begins to put life's essentials back under stronger public control and make them affordable for people again. Working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Governments and the hon. Member for Doncaster Central.

Building on the strong foundations laid down by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West, who I give my thanks to for his work today. We are delivering a once in a generation rebalancing of power in this country. This is what a Rewired State looks like, Mr. Speaker, one that is relentlessly focussed on delivering for the people of this country, empowered communities, good growth in every postcode. These are the tests against which our decisions will be measured, and the metrics by which our actions will be judged.

Last month, the Chancellor and I announced reforms to public procurement that will cut red tape and unleash a new wave of British job creation. Too often, small and medium sized businesses have struggled to navigate complicated procurement processes that seem to prioritise everything. And when we prioritise everything, we prioritise nothing. So we are making the process simpler and doing things differently from next year. Businesses seeking to win a share of £90 billion in central government contracts will be left in no doubt about what we want from them.

Creating good jobs and giving young people the skills they need for the future. These new rules will ensure the £90 billion that is spent each year through government contracts supports British jobs, skills and people in every postcode and we are going further in our reforms to public procurement to ensure taxpayers money is delivering more for our communities. For the first time since 2020, we are removing the defence exemption from social value. That means billions of pounds of defence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contracts will soon give waiting to jobs and skills for young people across Britain. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. This is how we back businesses in every part of the country. And in my ministerial colleagues, the in my ministerial colleagues, the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham and the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, businesses for Chipping Barnet, businesses that are looking to build and grow here in Britain, creating those good jobs and driving that good good jobs and driving that good growth will have strong advocates in this government. Mr. speaker, the work of my Department in strengthening our national resilience and coordinating the government's response to emergencies remains central.

Over the summer, we saw communities across the country impacted by unprecedented wildfires, precipitated by one of the hottest and driest summers on record, a reminder of the very real and present threats to the UK posed by climate change. During the third week of August, four major incidents were declared across South Wales, Hampshire, Cambridgeshire and the West Midlands. By the 13th of August, fire and rescue services were tackling 47 wildfire incidents, 79 separate requests for additional equipment and resources were made by fire and rescue services.

In South Wales alone, more than 200 military personnel were deployed to tackle 14 separate incidents. Such was the extent of support being provided across the country. Almost every fire service was impacted or involved in the response, and some of the most stretched services face the prospect of having to deprioritize certain callouts due to the pressures on the system. The day before the national alert was issued, close to 12,999 calls were recorded in a single day, six times the average call volume.

Many services were stretched to breaking point but continued to work around the clock to protect lives, communities and properties. I am sure everyone in the House will join me in thanking our emergency services and military personnel who put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe. On the 14th of August, when the government received direct requests from fire and rescue services for urgent government intervention, we took decisive action. A national emergency alert was issued to provide the public with clear guidance on the steps they should take to avoid inadvertently contributing to an already dangerous situation.

And, Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the British public did their bit. Within 48 hours, there was a 42% decrease in the number of 999 calls, falling from 12,000 to 5200. And by Monday morning, the number of live wildfire incidents had fallen from 47 to 27. This gave our fire and rescue services the breathing space they needed to tackle existing fires and keep us all safe. Over the coming weeks, I will continue to work closely with Cabinet colleagues to ensure the government's response meets the scale of the challenges we face.

I'll be working closely with my ministerial colleague, the Security Minister, in ensuring this government takes a long term and strategic approach to the country's preparedness, and the government will continue to work closely with our frontline services and local resilience forums to mitigate against the risks posed by extreme weather and drought, including £100 million increase in funding for the fire services and a £65 million boost in support of our farmers. Mr. speaker, in the interest of brevity, I will touch briefly on the work that is happening elsewhere in my department.

I have been delighted to welcome the right hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, not only to his role as the Minister for AI, but also in joining us around the Cabinet table. The Prime Minister has been clear that he sees harnessing the potential of artificial intelligence as a central part of our country's future, and the elevation of this role reflects the ambition this government has to make Britain a world leader in these advanced technologies. I am also pleased to welcome the Minister for Intergovernmental and European Relations to his role.

The right hon. Member for Lincoln has wasted no time in the vital work of building stronger ties with our closest neighbours and allies, and I was very grateful for him interrupting his honeymoon to come home and be appointed to the post. My department is also bringing forward a programme to modernise the operation of the state. We are taking public control of the way government works, cutting out the unnecessary processes and needless reviews that slow decision making and stifle innovation. At the heart of this agenda will be the restoration of Ministers responsibility and agency to deliver the change they promised.

With increased accountability to Parliament and the public for the direction they set and the decisions they take. We will bring forward new methods of public deliberation into policy developments and do away with box ticking consultation with the usual suspects. Fewer decisions will be delegated to unelected bodies, and the way decisions are made will be scrutinised in Parliament and not in the courts. Ending the warm Bath of constructive ambiguity which politics has been too happy to soak in for far too long? Mr.

speaker, I am aware and deeply honoured to be the first woman to hold the role of First Secretary of State since the late, great Barbara Castle. If I can channel even a fraction of the energy and determination that she brought to this role, then I'm confident that collectively we can change our country for the better. For too long, too many places have been written out of our national story, with their contribution ignored and their potential overlooked. People feel that the system just doesn't work for them.

That is why in 2024, they voted for change. Mr. speaker, this government is on a mission to ensure we can deliver on the Prime Minister and the public's priorities. It is a collective endeavour, and we will deliver the lasting change that people deserve together. I commend this statement to the House.

12:57

Alex Burghart MP (Brentwood and Ongar, Conservative)

- -

Shadow Secretary of State, Alex Burghart. and I'd like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement and congratulate her on her appointment. It's a major on her appointment. It's a major achievement and I look forward to working with her. I'd also like to congratulate her on the wording of her statement. Rewiring the state was a phrase first coined by the Leader of the Opposition in her leadership contest in the summer of 2024, for a very good reason. You know, the state does need rewiring.

We agree on that. It's in urgent need of rewiring, needs rewiring so that politicians can make decisions. It needs rewiring so that elected governments can fulfil their mandates speedily, and it needs rewiring so the state does not continue to grow ad infinitum, ad infinitum. Now, I know that the new administration delights in nothing more than criticising the Blair government. There were many reasons to criticise the Blair government, but I just wish to talk about three. The first is quangos.

The second is the nature of the Treasury, and the third is the issue of legal constraint. Some of the worst of these problems entrenched institutional inertia on quangos. We've seen over time that they have led to Ministers having less agency over important decisions that affect our constituents lives. So it is unfortunate that the Deputy Prime Ministers today announced the creation of a massive new quango in one govt delivery agency. This is going to be in charge of government recruitment, civil service, pensions, shared services, security vetting and so on.

It will oversee considerable public money. It is a step in the wrong direction because Ministers will retain responsibility for those services, but they will lose power over them. One of the reasons why we've seen a proliferation of albs is because they have become a way of dodging the excessive bureaucracy put on by the centre and by the centre. In this instance, I really mean the Treasury. The Treasury, which was the behemoth created in its modern form by Gordon Brown, designed to control Whitehall, designed to reduce departmental authority over their spend and over their decisions.

So I was genuinely interested to hear the right hon. Lady say over the summer that the Treasury was an Imperial Finance Department, you know, and and I rather hope that she was going to lead the charge to, you know, smash, smash over the barricades and destroy this terrible imperial power. But instead, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Empire has struck back because, you know, the briefing that we were given initially was that number ten North was going to take control of growth.

That seems to have been watered down. It's now rumoured that the Chancellor is going to give the speech on growth next week, and that the real power remains within number 11 South, you know, so will she tell the House what powers, levers and Budget will she, as head of number ten North, have to increase growth across the UK? Legal constraint is obviously a massive problem. Over the Blair years, we saw legislation like the Human Rights Act, create an environmental legislation, create endless sources of endless sources of judicial review, and it made it increasingly difficult for government to do things, to build infrastructure and so on.

It is a colossal drag on the capabilities of the state, and if the hon. Lady wishes to work on that, we would be very happy to work with her on it. What we did here today was a further exposition on devolution and on the merits of number ten North. Now, for this to be credible, the government needs to be able to give three basic guarantees. The first is that it's going to lead to an overall reduction in the size of the civil service, despite promises made after the election.

The opposite has happened under Labour since the general election. The headcount of the civil service is written by over 11,000. Is that going to be reduced by when? The second is on the nature of devolution. Whether it's driven by the interests of local people or just by those of one party. Over the summer, Labour councillors were allowed to redraw the boundaries of the very authorities that they hope to represent, and to do so before any independent review by the Local Government Boundary Commission.

Labour set about the biggest reorganisation of local government in 50 years, with no mandate to do so, and announced it on the day before recess with no scrutiny. One wonders, Mr. Speaker, how it can be localism if it is imposed and imposed with constraints. Again, over the summer, after the Prime Minister had made his interesting announcement about a signed income tax from retained business rates. Tees Valley Mayor Lord Houchen said that he would create a new rebate scheme to put money back into people's pockets and let families keep more of the money they earn.

It's an excellent idea, Mr. Speaker. It's an excellent conservative idea, was so excellent that it was immediately shot down by the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether combined authority mayors will be able to cut taxes or give rebates, so that working people can keep more of their money? Or is this just going to lead to higher taxes? Because otherwise, Mr. Speaker, it appears that local mayors will not have the freedom to cut taxes. They will only have the freedom to increase them.

They will only have the freedom to increase the size of the state, not to reduce it. It appears that this government is rewiring the state, but just to grow it. And so the last point, Mr. Speaker, is simply about cost. How much is this reorganisation costing? How much is it being spent on number ten North? How much will need to be spent in order to power the localisation agenda that this administration has put forward? How much and where is that money coming from? Is it coming from other departments? In which case, from where or is it coming from tax? If so, which tax is and if it is coming from borrowing? Well, I think the bond markets will have something to say about that, because until the government can show that it is able to cut taxes and cut spending so that we can get real growth across the country, I'm afraid all of this will just be another northern pipe dream.

13:03

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Louise Haigh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Louise Haigh. Premiership. Let me thank the Shadow Secretary of State for his Shadow Secretary of State for his for his kind words. My, my title is the first Secretary of State. He may wish to be the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, but that's that's not in shadowing. Shadowing me. But I'm very glad we can find such common ground, and I'm very grateful for his kind words. Let me start by the cost of number ten North, which I imagine he knows already by the number and the sheer quantity of PQs and Foyle that have come in over the summer that has been fully funded within existing Cabinet Office budgets, with no additional spending pressure there.

We're very grateful to colleagues in Manchester, in Heron House for hosting us so graciously, and it's working exceptionally well. Look, can I say that I absolutely agree, and I hope that we can work together on looking at where we can streamline the state, on how we can ensure that elected governments of any stripe can make the decisions that they have been elected to do. I think there is an awful lot of common ground and frustration that people would share across this House, around unelected regulators, unelected quangos, standing in the way of democratically elected politicians.

And there is a serious commitment from this government to tear away that red tape and make sure that we can deliver on the change that we were elected to deliver. Can I just gently point out, then, the irony that he's just asked me to ensure that the quango, the Boundary Commission, takes those decisions on local government reorganisation rather than the democratically elected communities Secretary. Can I also say that we've already been very clear that the Central Civil Service is expected to shrink, that we do want it to be more streamlined, more efficient, and that there our commitment to devolution and to rewiring the state absolutely means fewer civil servants at the centre and building the capacity and capability of regional and local government with local government, of which has been a huge, huge victim, of course, of the decade of austerity and has held back growth in our local economies.

The moving of policy functions out of the Cabinet Office is in order to streamline the priorities for the Prime Minister and ensure that we can be ruthlessly committed on delivery and on delivering his priorities. I make no apologies for that. And in terms of the new functions of number ten, we have transferred a number of strategic functions into number ten north, including moving local economic growth and devolution strategy from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and local economic growth policy from Treasury.

It's a little bit of a chip on its empire.

13:06

Mr Clive Betts MP (Sheffield South East, Labour)

- -

Clive Betts thank. >> Clive Betts thank. >> You, Mr. Speaker. First of all, could I offer two congratulations, first of all to my right hon. first of all to my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for this well-deserved promotion. I'm sure she'll do an excellent job. I'm sure she'll do an excellent job. And secondly, to her and the Prime Minister for the real commitment to devolution. It's something I've wanted to see for an awful long time, and I hope it goes to local councils as first tier authorities, as well as to strategic authorities.

Could I ask about one area which isn't really covered so far and that's education. She's probably wearing my constituency that in five wards with some high levels of deprivation, there is not a single sixth form. But responsibility for that rests totally with academy trusts, and the local council has no power or influence over it whatsoever. So when she looks again at devolution to er, to bodies who have democratic control. Could she look again at the education system, which is going to be absolutely key in tackling the problem of NEETs.

OK.

13:07

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Very quickly, to my very good >> Very quickly, to my very good right hon. Friend is absolutely right. And my constituency shares exactly the same problem in the exactly the same problem in the east of the constituency. There are very few options for sixth forms in comparison to the wealthier west of the constituency, and it's a huge issue for educational inequality for our constituents. It's absolutely something I will take away and look at with the Education Secretary. But he'll also note that we have committed to devolution of 16 to 19 as well.

13:07

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Lisa Smart, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. >> Mr. Speaker, and I thank the First Secretary of State for advanced sight of her statement and warmly welcome her to her place. The Liberal Democrats agree strongly that the current political system is overly centralised. We believe the best decisions are believe the best decisions are those taking closest to the people they affect. But renewing communities must also mean giving councils the powers and resources they need to revitalise our high streets, support independent businesses and improve local public services.

After years of severe financial pressure, devolution cannot simply mean transferring responsibilities from Whitehall the deliver them, she mentions not say on whether the shelves are stocked and whether a family in Hazel Grove can get through a week or more of serious disruption without losing their livelihood. And the Covid inquiry was blunt. It found that we were ill prepared for emergency, never mind a pandemic, and these failures cost lives and people deserve to know the lessons have been acted on rather than Fylde away.

And there's certainly progress to welcome. We've got the Resilience Action Plan, UK Resilience Academy and Exercise Pegasus being the largest pandemic exercise this country has ever run. And these are steps my party has long called for. But announcements are not preparedness, and I'd welcome hearing from the First Secretary what plans she has to improve public awareness and understanding of what the whole of society needs to do to be ready. We're in an increasingly uncertain world. So will the government think again on digital sovereignty, so that the critical systems our constituents rely on are not dependent on suppliers this country cannot control? And I agree strongly with the First Secretary that the country has a broken political system.

Later this afternoon, we'll be debating the Representation of the People Bill, which is meant to fix it. It takes some steps in the right direction, but it fails to rise to the moment. Does she agree that there is still so much more to be done, starting with halting the scourge of big money that is poisoning our democracy by capping political donations and bringing in a fairer voting system, we need to fix our politics so we can get on with fixing the country.

And I've heard her previously in this House talk about moving fast and fixing things. I urge her to crack on first.

13:10

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Secretary well, I'm very grateful to the hon. Lady and I can grateful to the hon. Lady and I can confirm my motto is still firmly in place and moving fast and fixing place and moving fast and fixing things. She's absolutely right that in order to deliver devolution effectively and to deliver the growth and improve public services that we need to see, it has to come with resource and revenue as well, which is why we've committed to allowing strategic authorities to take a share of income tax and business rates so that they can be incentivised to grow their economies and and take their fair share to reinvest in their local economies on digital sovereignty.

This is exactly the work that my right hon. Friend the AI Minister is looking at through his task force, and I'm sure he will update the House in due course as one of his important work streams that he is considering with colleagues across government. And as she rightly says this afternoon, we will be debating the elections bill. She and I absolutely share a commitment to stop big money and foreign money in particular, interfering in our politics, and I will be working with colleagues across government through the Defending Democracy Taskforce, which my right hon.

Friend the Security Minister chairs to look at what further steps we can take beyond this bill. Finally, in relation to preparedness, in July, my predecessor announced that we will be delivering a campaign to raise awareness of the simple steps households can take to keep themselves safe during everyday emergencies like extreme weather, and will be announcing more information and beginning the campaign later this year.

13:11

Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Paul Foster thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Lancashire has missed Mr. Speaker. Lancashire has missed out on government investment for decades. My constituents in South Ribble have been treated to nothing Ribble have been treated to nothing other than scraps of investment left in the pot. At the end of the year. We now have an opportunity like no other in generations. Lancashire needs devolution and an elected mayor. Will the First Secretary of State please facilitate an urgent meeting for myself and Lancashire colleagues with number ten North to unlock this desperately needed opportunity for real investment and prosperity in Lancashire.

Thank you.

13:12

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

I'm extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and to hear his enthusiasm for that settlement for Lancashire. He's absolutely right that it is the way absolutely right that it is the way to deliver power and resources for his community and to unlock its potential. I'm sure the speaker agrees. Number ten North are going to be extremely busy with the number of requests that are pouring in, but I will make sure he is top of the queue.

13:12

Rt Hon Sir Oliver Dowden MP (Hertsmere, Conservative)

- -

So Oliver Dowden. >> So Oliver Dowden. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I congratulate the First Secretary of State and welcome her to a very important role in government? And I agree with a number of things that she's said, particularly about strengthening the role of number ten. But I do think there's a very large gap in this statement on rewiring the state, and that's to do with civil service reform. Now, I know there are many excellent civil servants, but I'm afraid it remains a classic 80/20 model where 20% of exceptionally good civil servants do about 80% of the work.

And if we are really to rewire the state, we need to look at this and empower those 20%, not just to deliver more, but to find savings from the headcount amongst the 80%. And I would urge the Secretary of State, if she really wants to rewire the state, she should grasp this nettle while she looks at the entire picture.

13:13

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

So I'm grateful to the the right hon. Gentleman. There is a significant programme of civil significant programme of civil service reform that is underway, led by the Cabinet Secretary. The programme has already begun reforming the Civil service recruitment system to make sure it hires and promotes truly brilliant people, reviewing the talent strategy to develop and grow talent right across the civil service and the whole UK launching capability reviews to assess departmental delivery and identifying areas for improvement and building on successful transformation already underway through the places for growth programme.

But I absolutely agree we need to go further.

13:14

Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP (Oxford East, Labour )

- -

Deb Anneliese Dodds. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over recess, a number of disturbing cases became public of AI agents cases became public of AI agents escaping control of their owners and undertaking unauthorised activity that included 1200 agents collaborating on an unsanctioned message board before 700 engaged in an attack on the company. Hugging face. Can she confirm that following the governmental rewiring she described, her department is responsible for dealing with risks from so-called AI misalignment? And will she introduce regulation in this area? Given the lack of frontier model controls and coordinate with international partners on this matter here?

13:15

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

First Secretary? on this very issue, and I know she's extremely expert in this mobilise action across government and industry, asking Cabinet Ministers to work directly with regulators and supply chains, writing to UK businesses with clear steps to strengthen their cyber defences is ongoing. NCS have engaged over 1000 stakeholders in the wake of mythos release to galvanise action and share best practice, and over the summer, she's absolutely right that there was a routine under a. During a routine cyber evaluation, AC identified an incident in which AI agents took sustained unsanctioned action directed at real people and organisations.

It was detected within an hour. We have been completely transparent about the incident and we've immediately learned lessons from it.

13:16

Simon Hoare MP (North Dorset, Conservative)

- -

Simon Hoare thank you. >> Mr. Speaker. >> Can I also. >> Welcome the. >> First Secretary of State to her place? It's great to see her back place? It's great to see her back on the Treasury bench. I also welcome the creation of the office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. She's absolutely right. In a She's absolutely right. In a centralised system, it was the most underpowered organisation imaginable and it needed some turbocharging. I hope she will agree that rewiring has to be a process, not an event.

We remember my committee will remember the great fanfare that mission led government was mentioned and talked about a couple of years ago, and it died a rather slow, lamentable death. So can she assure us that she does have the personal energy and commitment to see this through to the end, but also the support resources around her in order to achieve it? And can I echo the call from my hon. Friend, the Shadow Minister, about the importance of looking at quangos and arm's length bodies, particularly within the devolution and decision making space.

Too many of them have got out of control and also outsourcing, because outsourcing takes away a lot of agency from local communities and individuals, and that needs to be looked at with some urgency.

13:17

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Secretary Mr. Speaker, I am >> Secretary Mr. Speaker, I am loving all the common ground that we are finding with the benches opposite today. I completely agree that we need to look at outsourcing across government, and the previous administration already took administration already took significant steps to reduce spend on consultancy, and has begun the work on the largest wave of insourcing in a generation. As promised in our manifesto, I have worked with the right hon. Gentleman in the past.

He has witnessed my energy up close. He can be assured of my continued commitment to this agenda.

13:17

Kirsteen Sullivan MP (Bathgate and Linlithgow, Labour )

- -

Kirsteen Sullivan thank. >> You. >> Mr. Speaker, and may I begin by welcoming my right hon. Friend to her place and wish her every her place and wish her every success in her new role. Can also thank her for this statement and thank her for this statement and this government's renewed focus on reindustrialisation in the UK, bringing opportunity and economic growth to every corner of the UK. But with everything pushing towards increased manufacturing and construction, PPE is more important than ever as the last line of defence between workers and hazardous materials and incidents, and the state does have a role to play here.

It can lead by example and ensure that every worker gets the protection that they need to do their job and safety. So will she meet with me to discuss public sector procurement, procurement specifications and BS30417 on inclusive PPE.

13:18

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well. Friend on her sustained campaign on this area? I know she has done an extraordinary amount of work and continues to raise raise issues around PPE when they have fallen out of the public spotlight post out of the public spotlight post Covid. My. My hon. Friend the Minister for procurement will be delighted to meet with her to discuss this issue.

13:19

Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Steve Darling thank you, Mr. >> Ten of the North actually moves it two hours further away from constituents of Torbay and. >> Devon and Cornwall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Devon and Cornwall. And whilst we as Liberal Democrats genuinely welcome devolution, that brings power closer to people. I represent a constituency that has high, high levels of deprivation. Can the Secretary of State advise of how their reforms will particularly support areas such as mine?

13:19

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Yeah, well, he's. reforms that have been proposed through the devolution blueprint and the Cabinet statement are designed to address exactly this issue. For too long, devolution has issue. For too long, devolution has been two tier in this country, allowing certain areas of the country to steam ahead, whilst others have not been given the others have not been given the powers and resources that they deserve. Devon and Cornwall will be incentivised with potential powers and resources, including the overnight visitors levy. And you will have heard the Prime Minister, Mr.

Speaker, mention his trip to Cornwall and engagement with the authorities there, including Devon. It. I appreciate it is a long visit to Manchester. It's quite an irritating visit from Sheffield, to be honest, Mr. Speaker, but I hope he will engage with number ten North on this important issue so we can deliver for his constituents.

13:20

Mr Toby Perkins MP (Chesterfield, Labour)

- -

Toby Perkins you very. >> Toby Perkins you very. >> Much, Mr. Speaker. Start by congratulating my right hon. Friend congratulating my right hon. Friend on securing this role, and I've no doubt she'll do a wonderful job in doubt she'll do a wonderful job in it. I was particularly interested in her, what she said in the statement about her department strengthening the national resilience and that remaining central. We've just had the hottest summer on record. We are in now a climate.

This country was built for a climate that no longer exists, as we were told at the Environmental Audit Committee, and 2500 people are estimated to have died this summer. As a result, diabetics, asthmatics, the very old and very young, particularly threat. So can my hon. Friend tell us that whether she has any plans to bring forward the new National Adaptation Plan, National Adaptation Plan three under the previous government was widely derided, but there is not currently a plan for a new one until 2028, and it is clear that the pressures we are facing in these summers is worse than ever before.

Can she tell us either whether there'll be a new national adaptation plan, or, if not, what she's going to do to ensure that we're better prepared next summer than we were this.

13:21

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

First? Secretary? >> Well, I'm. >> Very grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued work in this for his continued work in this important area and around the environment. Tackling the threats posed by climate change requires consistent and coordinated action consistent and coordinated action across every department, from £710 million to fund upgrades to our school estates, to the construction of nine new reservoirs across the country, this government is taking the necessary steps to ensure our country is more resilient and our communities are kept safe.

He will have heard the Prime Minister reference an upcoming wildfire summit. I hope he will participate fully in that, and I will return to him on our commitment on the National Adaptation Plan.

13:22

Rt Hon Sir Julian Lewis MP (New Forest East, Conservative)

- -

Julian Lewis. >> Normally. >> When functions and roles are devolved from London to another devolved from London to another area, you see a diminution in the capital and an increase in the area capital and an increase in the area concerned. There is an obvious danger of duplication by having a number ten north and a number ten south. So will the First Secretary, whom I congratulate on her appointment, be transparent about this and agree that the public should be able to see how many people are working permanently in number ten North, how many working permanently in number ten South, and how many are going back and forth between the two?

13:23

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

That is. traditionally the model of moving people or roles out of London has meant duplication in the centre. And that's exactly what we're attempting to fix. We want new senior roles across the country, senior roles across the country, just as and I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond, who who created the Darlington campus, a proper model of delivery and senior policy making and senior civil servants that sits in Darlington based around the Treasury there, that has helped to deliver and change decision making.

And that is exactly what number ten North is attempting to do as well.

13:23

Noah Law MP (St Austell and Newquay, Labour)

- -

Noah Law thank. >> You. >> Mr. Speaker. I really welcome the steps by the First Secretary to ensure that strategic authorities ensure that strategic authorities like Cornwall have the capacity to deliver on our growth agenda, but I want to ask specifically what steps she has taken to ensure that both local and national government has the financial analytical capability to identify those most promising investment cases and help shepherd them towards success?

13:24

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

It's an. Excellent question, Mr. >> It's an. Excellent question, Mr. Speaker, and something that my hon. Friend, the Minister, who we share with the Treasury has been working with the Treasury has been working on through number ten North. We are planning a brand of civil service reform that will move civil servants from the centre to regional and local government in order to share expertise and provide them with the AI and data expertise that we currently have at the centre. In order to do exactly that better.

13:24

Graham Leadbitter MP (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, Scottish National Party)

- -

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I remind the Minister that during the remind the Minister that during the summer, my own constituency experienced the extensive Cairngorms wildfire, also a major Cairngorms wildfire, also a major incident in difficult terrain that 2 hillside and forestry threatened home. The efforts of over 500 firefighters and volunteers. There are actions required of UK government, devolved governments and numerous public agencies and landowners, and impressing all of them on these issues with a growing risk. My ask is that the first Secretary is that the lack of military aerial firefighting capability within the UK is urgently reviewed, so that aerial assistance can be provided in these extreme and often prolonged incidents.

And what work is being done with our European neighbours in respect of mutual aid in tackling wildfires, we must recognise that exceptional local effort cannot substitute for national and international preparedness.

13:25

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Secretary. Gentleman for his question and my thoughts and sympathies are with all those affected in his all those affected in his constituency by the wildfire. 100 million has already been invested in fire and rescue services, and we will continue to look at the issues that he raises with equipment in future budgets. We are engaging with our European neighbours on exactly the deal and the issue he raises, and we're well aware of the of the opportunities that arise from it.

13:26

Amanda Martin MP (Portsmouth North, Labour)

- -

Amanda Martin thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to welcome the first Secretary Secretary to her place and to thank for making her place and to thank for making her first constituency visit to Portsmouth North and the fantastic Griffin Marine. Mr. speaker, as a coastal city, residents in coastal city, residents in Portsmouth are rightly furious that Southern Water continues to pump sewage into our seas. We've had hardly any rain this summer, yet sewage pollution and rising bills continue while private companies make profits.

It's abundantly clear that under the Tories, privatisation has failed again and again the British public. So could the First Secretary of State set out a little more detail of the government's plans to reforming the industry and giving the public greater control over our water companies?

13:26

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Secretary. >> Well, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend, and it was indeed a great pleasure to visit her and announce our procurement reforms at announce our procurement reforms at Griffin Marine in her constituency. The Prime Minister has been repeatedly clear that more public repeatedly clear that more public control of our water industry is not just desired. It's absolutely necessary that the current system that that invokes poor infrastructure investment, higher water bills and the kind of sewage and leakage and poor quality that she has described cannot continue any longer.

And we will set out our plans for reform shortly.

13:27

Rt Hon Sir Julian Smith MP (Skipton and Ripon, Conservative)

- -

So, Julian Smith. >> So, Julian Smith. >> I welcome. >> The right hon. Lady to her post. I'm sure she'll be very effective I'm sure she'll be very effective at this job. On the issue of wildfires, could I urge her to talk wildfires, could I urge her to talk to DEFRA who are putting further constraints on moorland owners? Moorland owners have traditionally undertaken controlled burning, and they're really worried at the moment that this change in DEFRA policy will make more London areas, such as the one I represent, more vulnerable to wildfires in the future.

13:28

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I'm extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristically constructive and thoughtful contribution. I will, of course, raise that with Defra and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, raise that with Defra and look into that specific issue on his behalf. Andrew Pakes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and it's a pleasure to welcome my right hon. Friend to her place. Mr. speaker,

13:28

Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )

- -

the greatest shift of power in rewiring this country we have seen rewiring this country we have seen started in Rochdale in 1844, when the Rochdale pioneers came together and created an inspired a world and created an inspired a world wide movement. We now have our first ever Labour and co-operative Prime Minister and a historic Prime Minister and a historic commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutual economy, highlighting the vital role of highlighting the vital role of double devolution not just to institutions but powers directly handed to people to form and take part in creating their own solutions and their own power in their communities.

Can I ask my right hon. Friend what assessment she has made of the machinery of government and its ability to deliver on this fantastic ambition?

13:29

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

For. My honourable. >> Friend has put it incredibly poetically, better than better than I ever could. He's absolutely right. The machinery of government and the culture across Whitehall needs to be challenged, and the Prime Minister has been clear that this government will bring about an end to local government and regional government coming to Whitehall with a begging bowl, Whitehall, Whitehall and government as a whole has been told in no uncertain terms. They will now be required to justify why policies are not round.

13:29

Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP (Orkney and Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Mr. Carmichael. transition to clean energy could be an opportunity to build a different model that would, to use the First model that would, to use the First Secretary's own words, end the overly centralised decision making and over privatisation. The development thus far has simply concentrated power in the hands of the big corporates and left communities feeling left behind and disempowered. In Shetland, we host one of the largest onshore wind farms in the country, but we have the highest levels of fuel poverty and we.

Last year the developer, SSE, was paid £9 million in constraint payments not to generate electricity. That is regulatory madness. So in this rewired state, will the communities that host renewable energy developments control and get direct financial benefit from.

13:30

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Them here? >> Them here? >> First Secretary. >> Will the right hon. >> Gentleman raises a number of really important and interesting issues that will absolutely be considered as we look to greater considered as we look to greater public control of our energy system. Local and community control is absolutely central to the Prime Minister's vision for public control. And the madness, as he describes it, is is something that will absolutely drive our energy reforms.

13:30

Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)

- -

Joe Powell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker. Secretary. >> To her place. >> And welcome today's statement. And the one in July, the first English devolution settlement was, of course, London. And despite some of course, London. And despite some incremental improvements since 1999, our capitals mayor, the GLA and the 32 London boroughs are not currently set up to deliver on the full potential of our capital, whether that's on productivity and growth or dealing with our housing crisis and the massive increase in temporary accommodation spending to combat homelessness.

So I wonder if you can outline whether revisiting London's devolution settlement would also be on the agenda for her and her team.

13:31

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Secretary. absolutely been involved in continued talks through number ten North on on their devolution North on on their devolution settlement, and we will continue to consider what further powers and resources London deserves.

13:31

Rt Hon David Mundell MP (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, Conservative)

- -

David Mundell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the First Secretary on her appointment. First Secretary on her appointment. Can she confirm to me and to the House that the intergovernmental relations responsibilities in her Department will be given the the weight that they require? And indeed, that part of that is making the case for the continuance of the United Kingdom. We have three first Ministers across the United Kingdom whose position is to break up the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government have already brought forward a time wasting and unnecessary Bill to hold another divisive independence referendum, and it is vital that this government plays its part in pushing back against independence in Scotland and elsewhere, and making the case for the United Kingdom.

13:32

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman, gentleman and the Prime Minister has been and the Prime Minister has been repeatedly clear that we stand up against Scottish independence. We stand against an independent independence referendum, and we will continue to make the case for the Union, and that responsibility will be held very, very, very highly and very importantly and very closely. But my right hon. Friend the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations. Madam.

13:33

Catherine Fookes MP (Monmouthshire, Labour)

- -

Deputy Speaker, and I also welcome the First Secretary to her place, particularly as she smashed place, particularly as she smashed another glass ceiling, being the first woman to to do this role. And I know in her statement that she talked about wildfires. There was one in Monmouthshire per se, but all around the edge of Monmouthshire, and there was a lot of smoke in households in Abergavenny. So I really look forward to the summit that you're going to be holding on wildfires. But one of the things you did mention, I'd really like to draw your attention to is civil service pensions.

And I've got a huge number of constituents waiting, and I know that is under your department, so I'd really like your support on that support. First Secretary.

13:33

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Very grateful. Madam Deputy Speaker, can I be absolutely clear that the service levels following that the service levels following the move to capita on the Civil Service Pension Scheme have been completely unacceptable? Our immediate priority is to stabilise the service and give current and former civil servants the service they deserve. We're using all commercial levers, including withholding payments, to hold capita to account for their failure, and will continue to do so until service levels are fully restored. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North will be updating the House shortly on further progress.

13:34

Adrian Ramsay MP (Waveney Valley, Green Party)

- -

Adrian Ramsay thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This summer we have seen extreme heat and prolonged seen extreme heat and prolonged drought, with far too many people losing their lives in heatwaves, huge pressures on farming and many huge pressures on farming and many wildfires. We are unlikely to have another cooler summer than this year, and we need to be prepared for an ever warming world. And this requires a cross-government approach. So while there's been lots of talk of a number ten for the North and devolution is welcome.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that we could have a number ten for the future in the form of a climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office, which is needed to drive the cross-government approach that we have to have to keep people safe.

13:35

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I am grateful to the hon. Member, and he's absolutely right. We have to learn to live with this We have to learn to live with this new normal that we've experienced over the summer. Cobra is absolutely the right team within absolutely the right team within the department to coordinate activity across government, and we work. We have worked closely with the Environment Agency, Defra, the Met Office and others in response to the extreme heat that we've seen and preparing for future summers.

13:35

Jonathan Davies MP (Mid Derbyshire, Labour)

- -

Jonathan Davies thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcomed what the First Secretary of State had to say about using number ten North to drive a pro-business culture and empower communities and deliver growth in every postcode. And we have one of the best projects in Mid Derbyshire the best projects in Mid Derbyshire to help her and the government meet that aspiration. It is the regeneration of the Belper Mills. It will bring 130 new homes to the Derwent Valley and also a visitor centre where we have a Unesco World Heritage Site.

We are so close to securing an investment from the East Midlands County Combined Authority to make this happen. So can she help me by offering a meeting at number ten North with its staff, to make sure that we get that investment over the line, build the homes we need and deliver growth in Mid Derbyshire AEA.

13:36

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

I'm very grateful to the hon. >> I'm very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he's absolutely right to champion this important development. I'd be delighted to facilitate a meeting for him in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

number ten. Doctor Andrew Murrison. Deputy Speaker. Will the. First Minister's First

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Minister's First Secretary's exercise. In. Delivering democracy, local. Accountability and empowering.

13:36

Rt Hon Dr Andrew Murrison MP (South West Wiltshire, Conservative)

- -

Local people. >> That can't be. quangos. >> But nevertheless. >> Exist firmly within the public domain. Serving the public and on which the public have a direct interest and are established by statute, and are large and big employers, such as the National Trust, which is ripe for review as it is meant to be reviewed periodically and would certainly fall, in my view, within the scope of the work that she's been talking about today. Perfect.

13:37

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I'll take that away, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we've already Deputy Speaker, but we've already made significant progress on our review closing or merging arm's length bodies, including NHS England and Acoba. We know we need to go further and we'll close or merge those that are justified as part of our plans to rewire Whitehall. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the particular issue he raises.

13:37

Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)

- -

Peter Swallow thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> Is this government works at pace to move power out of Westminster and into our communities. I'm keen for Bracknell to get a share of for Bracknell to get a share of that and that's why I support devolution for the Thames Valley. She will know that leaders across She will know that leaders across Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Swindon have written to her setting out their ambition for a mayoral strategic authority. That's excellent progress, but we've been here before and I don't want to see us lose the momentum.

So will she set up a meeting with herself and her number ten North team, with leaders and MPs across the region, so we can sign on the dotted line, get this agreed and finally get the devolution that Thames Valley so badly needs.

13:38

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Yeah. >> Well, fantastic to hear my hon. Friends enthusiasm. That's exactly why we have set ourselves such a tight deadline in order to ensure tight deadline in order to ensure that we fill in the map of the whole of England, and that we do not lose the momentum at this moment. I'd be delighted to meet with him and his colleagues from Thames Valley to sign on the dotted line.

13:38

Manuela Perteghella MP (Stratford-on-Avon, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Manuela Perteghella thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. First Secretary of State Workplace. Last month, my constituents experienced wildfires, including the major incident in the parish of the major incident in the parish of Salford Priors, where Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Service worked through extremely challenging through extremely challenging conditions to protect homes and save lives. And I pay tribute to all the firefighters, ambulance crew and local community who assisted. As we heard, given the increasing frequency of heat waves, drought and severity of wildfires, particularly in rural areas where access to water is challenging and also access to burning fields is difficult.

Can the First Secretary of State tell the House what urgent actions are being taken to better protect rural communities, farmland and natural habitats from future wildfire risk?

13:39

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I'm very grateful to the >> Well, I'm very grateful to the hon. Lady and again, send my thoughts and sympathies to those affected by the wildfire in her constituency. The Prime Minister has set out funding over the summer has set out funding over the summer specifically for farmers in relation to resilience. We have awarded 100 million to the fire service and will be coordinating a wildfire summit, more details of which will be announced in the near future on where we need to go further.

13:40

Dave Robertson MP (Lichfield, Labour)

- -

Dave Robertson thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I welcome my hon. Friend to her place and thank her for her comments earlier about the wildfires this summer, the wildfires this summer, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service saw more than 600 outdoor fires in July alone. That doesn't fires in July alone. That doesn't include any of the ones that came in August, and I think it's really important that in this place we recognise the bravery of those firefighters who were out day in, day out, every single human instincts will look at a wall of flame that they were faced with and tell you to run the other way with.

Those men and women went out there day after day after day and ran towards danger and kept our communities safe. So I'd like to thank them. But can I ask the the First Secretary of State to ensure that the voice of firefighters are at the heart of preparing for the changing climate, that they get what they need to protect our communities, and particularly those retained firefighters. I'm aware of retained firefighters and staff who did an 8 or 10 hour shift fighting wildfires, went home, got in the shower and went to their day job.

They are absolute heroes and they deserve all of our respect. And if we can make sure their voices are at the heart of the response, it would be a very, very, very good thing. Thank you.

13:41

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I'm extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his for his words and praise. My grandfather words and praise. My grandfather was a firefighter in Chesterfield, so I absolutely join him in sending so I absolutely join him in sending our thanks and gratitude to the heroes that kept us safe over the summer. He's right to draw attention to the fact that there were so many fires that didn't even make the news, that they were quietly fighting on our behalf, and we will absolutely ensure that their voice is central to the work we do as we prepare for future summers.

13:41

Ben Obese-Jecty MP (Huntingdon, Conservative)

- -

Ben Obese-Jecty just following >> Ben Obese-Jecty just following on from that point about firefighters, one of the wildfires and one of the major incidents that and one of the major incidents that she referred to in her statement was in Cambridgeshire at Home Fen Nature Reserve, which had up to 20 fire engines responding to it and fire engines responding to it and up to 150 firefighters from as far afield as Merseyside, Durham and Devon and Somerset. So my thanks to to all of those firefighters who assisted Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue in tackling that dangerous peat fire.

But on that point, could you just explain how the 100 million that she referred to will be allocated? Is it a one off payment or is it an uplift to the current funding formula, which does need to be updated for fire and rescue, but also, could she just give a little bit more detail on the asset refresh programme, whether those assets that firefighters crucially need will be allocated very quickly?

13:42

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Secretary equally grateful to >> Secretary equally grateful to the hon. Gentleman's support for the fire service. 100 million has already been allocated, so will already been allocated, so will have been done under the existing funding formula and future funding allocations. Allocations will be determined at the Budget.

13:42

Chris Curtis MP (Milton Keynes North, Labour)

- -

Chris Curtis thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. devolution and transport, because since we introduced Transport Work Act orders in the 1990s here we Act orders in the 1990s here we have dramatically decreased the number of new tramlines that we've been building in the UK, which we know is a big driver of local growth. France has a mass rapid transit system for every town and city, with a population of over 150,000 people, Leeds is the biggest place in Western Europe without any mass rapid transit system at all.

So can you please tell us what powers she's going to be pushing downwards to combine authorities to allow them to build new tram lines, and how she's going to make that a success? Thank you.

13:43

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

Well, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend. Makes an incredibly important point. And I've seen for important point. And I've seen for myself in places as small as Dijon in France, who have incredibly well-functioning integrated well-functioning integrated transport systems, including tram networks. And that is in large part because they are able to raise and keep revenue themselves and continue to insist it, invest it in their transport networks. We are removing the veto on decision making for transport infrastructure and devolving a number of Transport and Works Act powers that will speed up the delivery of of mass transit networks.

But he will have heard the Prime Minister's commitment to both Leeds and Bristol, and his commitment to work with their mayoral authorities in order to deliver this at pace.

14:02

Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

Richard Tice. reforms plan to rewire the state are well intentioned, but it seems that we're going from number ten plus the Cabinet Office to number ten, number ten North, the office of Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Cabinet Office, and a new one gov delivery agency. So we're going from 2 to 5. So does she understand from 2 to 5. So does she understand our concerns that actually she is increasing the size of the state, increasing the cost and slowing down decision making.

14:02

Rt Hon Louise Haigh MP, First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Sheffield Heeley, Labour)

- -

14:03

Presentation of Bill

14:04

Remaining Orders of the Day

why the Prime Minister set as his priority reducing burdens and cutting taxes for businesses, hospitality businesses in hospitality businesses in particular in the first days of his premiership. High street regeneration and breathing life into our villages, towns and cities

14:04

Legislation: Representation of People Bill: Remaining Stages

is absolutely a priority of this regime. >> Caroline Voaden thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The First Secretary talks about a broken political. Model that will cost jobs and opportunities, and I'm afraid the decision that the predecessor decision that the predecessor government has made on local government reorganisation in Devon is exactly that and is going to create a two tier Devon, leaving create a two tier Devon, leaving one area behind. It's carved out three urban growth areas and then three urban growth areas and then left all the bits that are left behind dumped them together in a vast rural local authority, which is 100 miles from north to south, a road network equivalent to that of Luxembourg's communities.

Divided and little chance of ever being sustainable, this rural local authority has no chance of the same growth opportunities that the other ones have, and it goes against everything the Prime Minister believes in about devolution from the ground up. Talk with the consent of communities not done from the top down from Whitehall. He told me that himself in July. So I urge the First Secretary and the Minister for communities to listen to me to other Devon MPs, perhaps not the Labour ones and the thousands of my constituents, and review this decision.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I will ensure her concerns are heard by CLG, and I can confirm are heard by CLG, and I can confirm that the Communities Secretary will determine next steps on local government reform by the end of October 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

October 2026. Danny Kruger. Thank you. Madam Speaker. I want to be constructive because I welcome the creation of a stronger centre and also a proper political centre in number ten, and also a corporate HQ for the non-political functions. My for the non-political functions. My question to her is, what is the residual point of the Cabinet Office in this new structure? There's 12,000 people currently employed under the Cabinet Office in all its quangos. Some of them I know will be redistributed.

But what is the point of that office in future? Likewise, what's the point of the Cabinet Secretary's post as well? How is anything going to change when the same people are working in the same buildings under the same incentives?

14:04

Florence Eshalomi MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )

- -

14:30

Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)

- -

14:46

Samantha Dixon MP (Chester North and Neston, Labour)

- -

Yes. >> Excellent. >> Thank you very much. And first of all, I'd like to welcome the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green to her her place, because she has taken on an immensely has taken on an immensely challenging role, but one that will bring you bring her great joy. I'm sure it's often said that a week is a long time in politics, and I would say a year has been an extremely long time in terms of this particular bill and the evidence of that.

We see in the hefty number of amendments that have come forward as each political event moves on, as people fall on their swords, more amendments come forward. And I know it's been of real interest to members across the House, but also to many civil society organisations that this bill should be crafted to respond to events as they happen. And I should actually pay tribute to the Bill team, who have responded incredibly well to the number of amendments that are coming forward and to the legislative challenge that this bill represents.

The bill removes barriers to voting that were put in in in electors ways. It protects our democracy. As my hon. Friend has described. And it's extremely important in terms of votes at 16 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. The Committee stage was lively, and I certainly enjoyed it, and I have to pay tribute to the hon.

Member for Hamble Valley, who I think we have struck up something of an accord together, and I have to refer him back to one particular point in Committee stage when he said, we have a groundbreaking piece of legislation. He continued 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 it is groundbreaking.

Neither he or I, our Minister or shadow Minister. But I think we agreed on those particular points, and I want to thank him for the spirit in which he and other members of the committee conducted themselves. I think what we have to remember is that any political party, any candidate, any elected representative who abides by the rules that this legislation brings forward will be able to flourish in our political system. And those who do not can expect to be held very firmly to account.

Yes, you. The final one of the points I. The only point I have to say on which I agree with the Shadow Secretary of State, and I welcome her to her place, is that I would urge my colleagues on this side of the House to continue working with other political parties constructively. It is not the case that we have not engaged as a government on this particular legislation. We have been at great pains to do so, and I would urge her to continue to do so as this bill makes its progress through this House and the other place.

But also, as we go through the secondary legislation that falls from it. And my final point that I wanted to raise was about the Rycroft review. The final recommendation from Philip Rycroft review concerned the organisation of the civil service in response to democracy and elections, and he suggested that there was a permanent Secretary appointed to look after democracy and elections. And given we've just had the statement from the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley about rewiring public services and government.

It often felt to me that many of the areas this legislation covers are not just the remit of MH CLG. They fall to DSIT, they fall to the Cabinet Office, they even fall to the Home Office. And I would urge her and the Secretary of State to consider all of this in the round and whether or not a more strategic government position could be found to actually take this legislation forward. There is sometimes a tension between the powers that MH CLG has and the powers that other government departments have, and I'm sure these will be debated as we go forward this afternoon.

But I wanted to say it was enormously a privilege for me to actually take this through Second Reading and Committee stage, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing it so in such a timely way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For report. The Liberal. Democrat spokesperson. Lisa Smart. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to move New clause 88 and the other amendments tabled in my name, but let me begin by putting on record my thanks to the Minister who I very much welcome to her place and in particular to her predecessor, who I think, with her comments who I think, with her comments there, has shown the grace and the thoughtfulness that she conducted herself with throughout the whole process. We didn't agree on process. We didn't agree on everything at Bill Committee, but I think it was indeed we didn't with all members of

14:51

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

Of the Bill committee. But I think we conducted our discussions with good grace and occasionally a hint of humour. The other members hint of humour. The other members of the Bill committee. I'm also grateful for the work they put in and in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, who led for us on all matters to do with candidate safety and candidates, particularly given a hugely relevant as a member of the speaker's conference. It would also be remiss of me not to share the gratitude of the House for Philip Rycroft efforts in conducting his review.

The recommendations from which have given this legislation more teeth than it started out with. I don't think it will surprise anyone, though. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 a by election over the summer that was entirely unnecessary. It was a waste of taxpayers money brought about by a resignation whose circumstances are under investigation by the Standards Commissioner.

Our rules should not permit a member under investigation to trigger a by election, and then walk straight back here at the public's expense. And that's precisely what new clause 79 in my name would prevent. But I don't believe it's selectable, so I'll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move on. The whole saga. You're not. Bitter was yet another example of how big money is infiltrating our politics. Millions of pounds paid to politicians, uncapped paid to politicians, uncapped donations, direct payments for inflammatory social media posts. It inflammatory social media posts. It is totally, totally disfiguring our politics. We have to tackle big politics. We have to tackle big money wherever it comes from. And this is a major omission in 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 to consider whether existing limits on campaign expenditure and the period over which they bite are still fit for purpose.

It requires these proposals to cover terms of reference, membership and funding, and it requires the commission to report within 12 months. This 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's 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. Now, I want to be fair to the government here, because over the summer things have moved in a positive direction, and I welcome the Prime Minister's words about the Defending Democracy task Force 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. Because the threat is real. The threat is now an urgent action is vital. We have tabled further amendments on money in politics. New clauses nine and ten introduce barriers on who can donate, preventing those who are or who have been members of all political advisers to foreign administrations and those convicted of promoting or inciting political violence.

New clauses 11 and 12 require candidates and parties to declare and mitigate the risk of foreign donations, and taken together, these are a natural extension of the Know Your donor scheme. This bill enhances. We should know exactly who funds us, and the and the public have that right as well. Money, though, 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 this bill does not meet the moment. The government chose to reject sensible amendments on deepfakes, on AI generated content and on 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. And I ask the government, even now to commit to 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.

And this would be more important as we extend the franchise. We lib-dems warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16. Indeed, we've 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 this bill enables, implemented in time for the next general election. So I'd welcome when she's winding up hearing from the Minister some reassurance for the House that this will be in place for the next general election.

And I come to my final point. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's one 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 there is one thing that I know is shared by dozens and dozens of members across this House, and that's 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're told to have faith in the result. And that's why I tabled a new clause to bring in proportional representation for elections across the United Kingdom. New clause eight. It details the way in which a fairer voting system could be implemented, and it is disappointing that this government has not taken the opportunity this Bill presents to rise to the occasion.

First past the post is unfair, it is unrepresentative, and it 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 its 2024 manifesto, this government has 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or Order. Before we delve into a rabbit. Hole about proportional Hole about proportional representation, it might be helpful if I reminded all members that it is out of scope of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is out of scope of the bill. Lisa Smart thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for confirming that the government is putting forward a piece of legislation written in such a way that prohibits proportional representation and fairer votes from being discussed 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 this bill as a step forwards.

But 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.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mike Reader thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for calling me so early without wanting to upset you. I was going to talk about new Clause 31, but I will keep my comments to a minimum on that for fear of upsetting you. I want to say I think the government actually, first of all, for the actually, first of all, for the work that's happened to bring the bill to the state is now, I think, the improvements brought through new clause and amendments

15:00

Mike Reader MP (Northampton South, Labour)

- -

new clause and amendments strengthened the bill, and I feel very positive that we're moving in the right direction now. On what should be a piece of legislation that is a once in a generation change to fix some of the inequality and unfair influence on our electoral system. But I would want to put on record my concerns that there are very experienced members of the House, including on this side of the House, who are still raising concerns over donations, over foreign influence, and I hope the Minister can confirm that as the Bill passes into the Lords, we will see the government working with those who brought forward amendments to further strengthen the protections we have in our democracy.

Being a delegate to the UK, to the Council of Europe on behalf of the UK, we have seen across Europe how Russia's influence has changed elections, not just in eastern, even in France and Germany and others, and we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to take that threat seriously. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But this bill is about fairness, representation for people, about fairness. And I am frustrated that even though this Third Reading, this Report stage was delayed till after the summer, we haven't been able to move forward on new clause able to move forward on new clause 31. It has been ruled out of scope. And I think it has been misrepresented. And I'd like to put misrepresented. And I'd like to put on record that this isn't about forcing proportional representation, isn't about forcing change, as perhaps suggested by the shadow Secretary of State.

This is about bringing forward a commission to look at electoral reform. We have so many different forms of electoral process in the UK. If you're in Scotland, you elect a MP differently to your to your other representatives in Wales. In London, if you've got a mayor, your electoral system will be different for different elections. It is confusing, it puts people off and it makes it harder to get buy into our electoral system. We are opening up the people through this piece of legislation, through votes for under 16 and 17 year olds and automatic voter registration.

And I feel concerned that the Prime Minister recognises that there will need to be a manifesto commitment to make the final change, but a commission now will help to shape that thinking. So, Madam Speaker, I did plan to speak in depth on clause 31, and I won't do for fear of upsetting you and your favour of letting me speak early. Is about to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pop downstairs now to speak at the Portacabin reception. If anyone wants to come down and. Join me.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Join me. But I just put on the record on record those concerns that, yes, I, I feel that we can still go further I feel that we can still go further on protecting installations on foreign interference, particularly as we see Russia's threat. And I would ask the government again to would ask the government again to look at whether we can bring forward this National Commission on Electoral Reform to make sure we Electoral Reform to make sure we can give a clear answer on how we go forward, on how we make sure country.

15:02

Rt Hon Esther McVey MP (Tatton, Conservative)

- -

15:14

Joe Morris MP (Hexham, Labour)

- -

emphasise and wind up just what more can be done and how they're going to work constructively as the bill progresses through the Other bill progresses through the Other place to tighten the tighten the safeguards that were already in the bill, because I do sense the amount bill, because I do sense the amount of disquiet in my inbox from people who do think that there needs to be more done within this bill to guard more done within this bill to guard against the influence of money in our democracy, to guard against, particularly the role of international social media, social media platform owners that are poisoning the very lifeblood of democracy itself.

And we all see the conspiratorial narratives that are often put into our inboxes. I do also briefly want to touch on New Clause 31, which I know is not in scope, so I won't major on it too much, but suffice to say that it is those people who are losing faith with politics, who feel disenfranchised the most. We do owe it to them to have a national conversation about how we can reform our voting. But I won't go any more into detail on that.

I just want to plead again with the Minister to to bring forward, again clarity on the pace that we can see in terms of tackling the influence of money in politics and, again, further further welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to electoral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform earlier this week. Zoe Franklin. It was an absolute. Privilege to serve on the Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Privilege to serve on the Bill committee for this legislation and prior to that speaker's conference, Where many, many of the recommendations by the conference recommendations by the conference have appeared in the bill. And I am particularly pleased to see the government taking forward the long held Liberal Democrat policy held Liberal Democrat policy extending the right to vote for 16 and 17 year olds, giving young people a say on the decisions that people a say on the decisions that shape their lives and their futures is long overdue.

And I'm glad to see that we get it become reality. And I would actually agree with many colleagues who I've spoken with on this, that I see so much awareness when I speak to young people about politics, so much desire to be able to contribute to

15:16

Zöe Franklin MP (Guildford, Liberal Democrat)

- -

the political debate and to have agency over their vote and their future. So I'm very pleased to see it come to reality. And before I it come to reality. And before I focus on some key amendments, I'm very pleased to move NC two and all of the others in my name, and I of the others in my name, and I want to thank the organisations who've worked with me on the people focussed amendments I have tabled, focussed amendments I have tabled, particularly centenary action, and elect her.

So moving to my amendments, I'm really disappointed amendments, I'm really disappointed that the government has continued to fail to act on the access to elected office fund, or some of the concerns around personal safety. I've sought to raise through a range of amendments to this bill and on the access to elected office fund. I really do have to ask the government, what are we waiting for? Back in June last year, the government announced a working group to develop a new fund. When we debated this issue in committee before recess, we were told that work was ongoing.

And when I met the previous Minister for this bill, I was again assured that the new fund was being developed. But we are not reinventing the wheel here, and access to elected office fund has existed in England before. An equivalent schemes are operating in both Wales and Scotland right now. Why does England need an entirely new fund rewritten from scratch, one that is taking over a year to We support is for. We know the difference that it continue to face additional costs simply to participate equally in our democracy.

And this bill is precisely the vehicle, Madam Deputy Speaker, to put that right. So rather than another working group, another review or another reassurance that something will eventually happen in due course, I urge the government to support my amendment NC 37 to reinstate the fund in statutory form. Through this bill. Warm words do not pay for accessible transport, personal assistance or an interpreter. Disabled candidates need practical support and certainty, and we want our electoral, our elected representatives to truly be representative of our communities and.

The same frustration applies for me on the issue of personal safety for those who participate in our democracy. We heard before the summer recess, in a conversation in this chamber after the tragic murder of Ann Widdecombe and the Home Secretary addressed the issue with great seriousness, and I was very grateful that she assured the House that she would consider amendments to this bill with colleagues across government, and look at what further action was needed to protect those in our democracy. Sadly, at the moment I have not been able to spot those things being delivered in this bill, and it's particularly disappointing that we did not hear more from the Minister on this aspect of this of the bill from the Minister in her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opening statement. I will give way. The honourable. Lady for giving way and speaking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady for giving way and speaking about the security of candidates. That's the motivation behind my own amendment, NC 81, which would amendment, NC 81, which would automatically make addresses anonymous for all candidates, and I anonymous for all candidates, and I wondered if she also supported that. We need to do further steps to ensure that all candidates feel ensure that all candidates feel secure and able to stand for public office at all levels. I thank my hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Friend the Member for Shipley for her intervention, and I for her intervention, and I couldn't agree more. We've seen the difference it has made at a local government level. We're actually councillors. Home addresses are no councillors. Home addresses are no longer in the public domain, and I certainly think it should be the certainly think it should be the same for for candidates. So going returning to my point around candidate safety and those in candidate safety and those in elected office, that is why I have tabled amendments one and NC six to extend the existing protections beyond the candidates themselves to their staff and their families as well.

Threats and intimidation do not stop. Sadly, at the candidate. Campaign staff are on the doorstep with us running our campaign offices, often late into the evening, and our families can find that as well can find themselves targeted simply because the public role that we are choosing to take on, we must do everything we possibly can to protect candidates and all those who serve in our democracy at every level. And I really want to urge the government, if they are taking these issues seriously, they will both support my amendments, but also commit to continually review the threat to candidates to work with people like the Local Government Association, 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 of attacks on their homes.

We have to address these issues, and because we must ensure that candidates are kept safe, but also our democracy is kept safe and it is rapidly changing political environment and we all have a responsibility to

15:21

address it. So to close, I really hope that the government and the new Cabinet will act on these new Cabinet will act on these issues as the bill progresses, and it would be deeply disappointing if this opportunity for change on the this opportunity for change on the access to elected office fund or something of a different name that does the same thing, were not put into the bill. But I would say to the government, if you will not act the government, if you will not act in this chamber on these issues, we will continue with our colleagues.

In the other place, the Liberal Democrat colleagues and others, to ensure that these important protections for equality and safety become a reality. Thank you.

15:22

Rushanara Ali MP (Bethnal Green and Stepney, Labour)

- -

15:41

community. Madam Deputy Speaker, having rightly expanded the overseas franchise in recent years, Parliament has a moral obligation to provide the administrative infrastructure that makes that right meaningful. It is deeply regrettable that the government has failed to incorporate these failed to incorporate these practical solutions into the core text of this bill, but we will continue to champion these measures to ensure that every British citizen, wherever they live, work or serve, can make their voice

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard at the ballot box. Thank you. Stella Creasy thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I start by paying tribute to the new Minister for all the work? She's on the committee on these issues. I know committee on these issues. I know she's going to be brilliant person in this role, and I also want to pay tribute to everyone who's been part of this bill today, because for all of our ambitions, for the things we'd like to change in the world, if the process by which we world, if the process by which we do it isn't a fair and free one, we can't achieve anything.

And we all know and understand that. And like everybody else, I recognise that new clause 31 is out of scope. But may I add my support and just gently suggest to the shadow Minister that there are many versions of proportional representation and electoral reform. For those of us who've nerded out on this for years, we know that we'll welcome her to having that conversation, which might be a more illuminating one than whether she's concerned about Zac Goldsmith leaflets. And can I also add my support to my colleagues amendments about domestic abuse? My colleague, all my colleagues from East London, many of us.

Maybe that says something about politics in our part of town, my colleagues, about abuse of candidates. I know well what she's been through, and it's a testament to her character that she's here fighting change. And also to my colleagues from Birmingham on crypto. I don't really understand the technology, but I know it's something that he does, and I understand and share his fear accordingly. And we come here today and we're doing this bill because we all know that trust

15:43

Ms Stella Creasy MP (Walthamstow, Labour )

- -

is a bygone issue in our politics. It takes quite something for us in this House to be lectured by Ipsa this House to be lectured by Ipsa on it. But we are being lectured like turkeys being told that Christmas is a good idea. It's Christmas is a good idea. It's pointed out to us that only 28% of the public think that MPs care about their local community at all. about their local community at all. Two thirds of your constituents think that you are here out of your own self-interest, and only 4% think you're doing anything good for the country.

So the difficult question we all have to take on the chin is, in whose interests do they think we are acting from today, if we do not take a stand in this bill to tackle the way in which money has infiltrated our politics, the risk is they will think we are acting for our back pockets. We've had a lot of quotes today, so let me bring in William Blake. William Blake said hindsight is a wonderful thing, but foresight is better because we have all seen it.

We know that money is coming in and we know it's something different, but we know enough to know it is a problem. I want to start by recognising that people giving money to causes that they care about is a noble and honourable thing. We don't have state funding in this country. We do have many ways that we support our politics, and I recognise and value the contribution that people have made, however big to that process. The problem is when the cause becomes themselves, and that is the fear that we are seeing echoed across every community in this country, because we know that the next election will be like one we have never seen before.

And that's not just because of the AI deepfakers, it's because of the amount of money that is now swilling around, seeking to determine the outcome of the next election. This is a relatively new trend. The share of private political donations coming from individuals and countries, companies rather giving £1 million or more has surged from just 1% in 2015 to over a third of donations in under a decade now. That also matches the fact that we have an election spending arms race that we've never seen before.

The last election, we spent £90 million the most in modern history, nearly 80% more than in 2015. Which is why I also support my colleagues call for a reduction in the spending cap. Now, I want to absolutely back all the changes that are being made on overseas donations and the work that Philip Rycroft did. We can all see the influence of foreign money and activity in our communities. I've seen it in my own constituency, where there was targeting of local mosques by Russian agents on telegram, and we see it in our local social media.

But we have to admit that when it comes to money and mega donors, we have a home-grown problem too. And if we don't deal with this now, in this legislation ahead of the next general election, we'll just be playing whack a mole as a result, because the data shows how quickly things are changing. For some. In 2024, the Reform Party had just four donors. In 2020, the reform donor reform had four donors who made a donation, compared to 77 in 2025.

A quarter of all their funding comes from people donating more than £100,000. How quickly that process is happening. This year alone, the Reform Party took £9.9 million more than the government and opposition parties put together. £8 million of that came from just three people, all of whom have a UK postcode. So nothing in this bill as it stands will affect that. That's £3 million more from Christopher Harben, who helped trigger the the the Clacton by election. And there are more of these people with UK passports waiting in the wings.

Sir Paul Marshall owns the spectator and GB news. He has a personal fortune of £875 million, and he's previously donated to political leadership campaigns. At present, he funds what most people might think of as a pack the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, which has been organising conferences and research events to promote western and conservative values. It doesn't stop there. Reform again will tell you about Bendelow again, somebody with a UK citizenship has a personal fortune of £1 billion, and he's already given them £4 million this year alone, and has said explicitly that he's moving back from Hong Kong to ensure that he can donate in time for the next general election.

It's not just reform. We know that restore has taken half £1 million in the last 24 hours alone and £2.5 million to set up. But frankly, who are we to judge? Because the honest truth is, in every political party, every political party, people are chasing the millionaire's labour together, donated more than £2.5 million to Labour ahead of the 2024 election, amalgamating millionaire donors. We took money from Quadrature Capital £4 million, the largest single donation in our party's history.

The opposition party is up to it too. The IT billionaire Basim Haider gave more than £700,000 to the Conservatives and has since donated half £1 million to reform. That's the same amount they've had from JK Bedford. And then, of course, there's Jeremy Sam, who is a British video game entrepreneur, and gave them £3 million in 2025. If we do not recognise in of itself how distorting these sums are, we are locked into an arms race that, frankly, none of us want to pay the price to win and every party will face it.

So yes, I welcome talk of a lower spending limit, but it has to go hand in hand with a cap that covers all of this, because otherwise it is only retrospective. And we know that political parties will simply become pre-paid. Obscene wealth is increasingly dictating who is heard, whether we like it or not, what issues are being prioritised, and whose interests shape policy decisions. That was the outcome of the Rycroft review. Now the Rycroft Review was asked to look at foreign interference, but the arguments it makes about the sums of money do not have a postcode.

The point is about the volume, not the location. The public will not forgive us if we do not recognise that and the impact it's having. Indeed, 84% of them believe that wealthy individuals use political donations to advance their personal interests, and there is widespread public support for a cap on all donations. And frankly, the donations cap the public think of is much lower than anything in new clause 120 because for the public, indeed, for most people, the sums we are talking about are astronomical.

Christopher Harbin's gift of £9 million to reform in 2025 would take the average person 3000 years to match, even if they donated all of their savings. At this point, I want to talk to my Labour benches and colleagues direct because I have huge amounts of respect for all of you and the challenges that we are facing with this. I go back to our manifesto. Our manifesto did not specify foreign donations. Our manifesto recognised that all donations were having a distorting effect and therefore needed to be reviewed.

That is why we should welcome the fact that this bill offers us a vehicle to do that, and indeed formats for doing that. I know there are those who are implacably opposed. They will not even speak to me about these issues at all. I hope it's not because they are thinking that when their career in Westminster ends, the comfortable world of an expense account and lobbying their mates awaits. There are also those worried, understandably so, because in the past this conversation has come up that it opens a Pandora's box on trade union funding one of the cleanest ways we know to fund our politics and a way of funding.

I will personally always defend and speak up for. And I know there are others in other political parties who may not have looked at the litany of legislation regulation that already guides trade union legislation. That is why New Clause 120 completely exempts trade unions, because they are already well regulated in how they donate, and that is why it is clean money. But there is something fundamental here about why we should be backing these changes in a UK cap for our trade unions, because the unions are the voice of the people against the interests of capital.

6 million voices will be drowned out by a single daily donation of £6 million. If we do not act that voice, that balance in our political system is at risk. If we don't address this distortion, we cannot ignore what impact that could have on our trade union movement and on our ability to ensure that everybody is heard in our political system. Since 1913, the political fund of trade unions has been well regulated. We know what the rules are.

Goodness knows, many of us have spent hours in deathly boring meetings going through them to make sure that they're being upheld. And we also know the role of trade unions in our political movement is evolving when it comes to funding. But I, for one, want to make sure that it is heard loudly and clearly, because I recognise that our trade unions regularly, because of the law, poll their members about how they want to spend their money. You cannot say the same about the crypto millionaires.

I say to those people who claim that addressing this issue will slow this bill down. This issue is already in this bill, and the Lords are already here and clear that they can see the damage and the distortion of the money on this House. So it is going to happen. That debate is going to happen, and I hope that our colleagues in the other place will hear those concerns. But I think we will all regret if our union brothers and sisters are blamed for opening the door so that what is out there clawing its way in with its chequebooks into British politics can enter.

The Phillips review in 2007 collapsed over this dilemma despite the support from major donors, including David Sainsbury, for a cap on donations. With hindsight, we can now see that that has opened the door to the crisis that we face, so we know why the unions give to represent their members interests. The real question I keep coming back to is why do the millionaires give so much? And perhaps we should take a lesson from that well-known source, President Trump, because Trump said, I gave to many people before he became president.

Before two months ago, I was a businessman. I gave to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are always there. For me, that is a broken system. We are all by association if we do not close this loophole. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Foresight is better. I don't often say this, but I agree with President Trump. A system that can create those kind of relationships is broken and it damages all who touch it.

So we need to act now to protect the next general election. Nothing less than action before it for a proper cap will do. And that is what NC 120 does. It gives a process. Let me reassure you in that process that trade unions can be heard, that non-party campaign organisations like Hope Not Hate can be heard, but it does mean that we can look at our constituents in the eye with the difficult choices that we face ahead and say, we can be confident.

We didn't act for cash, we acted for our communities and our country. Surely everybody in this country deserves that confidence in their elected representatives.

15:56

Luke Taylor MP (Sutton and Cheam, Liberal Democrat)

- -

And I'll be starting with an immediate five minute time limit. immediate five minute time limit. >> Luke Taylor thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to speak particularly in favour of new clause 88 from the Liberal Democrats, which would require the government to establish a Royal Commission on Political Donations and Campaign expenditure, would examine the case for donations. Cap review whether existing campaign spending limits remain effective and report back within 12 months and, crucially, would take account of the modern flavours of old challenges.

Because money can now shape political debate through social media platforms, algorithm, algorithmic amplification, third party campaigning and political advertising that can reach millions of voters almost immediately. When we knock on our doors in our constituencies, or even when they're only our prospective constituencies, we're 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, 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, 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. Those snappy little pamphlets we leave behind in our wake something the Liberal Democrats on these benches are particularly passionate about. And at this point, I'd like to 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 local language so that they could read the information about our political party. For those who did not have particularly strong English skills, they travelled here. They'd escaped the Communist regime to take part in a democratic process, escaping the crackdown on those democratic rights that was happening in Hong Kong. And I would invite an intervention from the benches next to me to explain to me why that communication in a language that was understood by those who hadn't been in our country and did not have the language skills to understand the English leaflets is such a bad thing and come.

There is none. When our election laws were written, donations to political parties would have probably been covered by the existing laws. Maybe a big local donor would pay for an advertising board, or pay for posters and loudspeaker on the roof rack of a clapped out old Volvo, as my dad used to circle his prospective constituency in the 90s. But our citizens still held the levers of power relatively directly. But today, the spending in our politics, and therefore the influence and power of money and donors has shifted so dramatically.

The question is about how we rise to the difficulty of constantly having to patch the cracks and the potholes in our outdated election law. And 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. And if we 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.

So for that reason, 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 see how members of two parties in this chamber have received more than £56,000, through a company owned by the very model of a modern fascist oligarch, and with an algorithm that he designed.

And therefore the payments decided and funnelled directly to those political actors. Now, look, there's always going to 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, effectively philanthropic or ideological reasons. And the hon. Member for Walthamstow has given a passionate explanation of why political donations 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.

But where 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 where democratic institutions are just shopfronts for a nefarious state captured by the rich and powerful, we cannot stand idly by. And it's why New Clause 88 is so important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I call Emily Thornberry. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I applaud the government's ambitions in this bill and the fact that they want to fix politics, and that they want to fix politics, and they want it to be fair and free from foreign interference. There is much to be enthusiastic about in this bill, but in the five minutes this bill, but in the five minutes I've been given to speak, I am not able to go through it all. But this may be the only legislation that we have before the next general election, and I do believe that it is entirely incumbent upon us to prepare ourselves and our Constitution for the possibility, God forbid, that a populist party might take control of our country, and we are allowing ourselves to be wide open to all kinds of things.

16:01

Rt Hon Emily Thornberry MP (Islington South and Finsbury, Labour)

- -

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee did a report into foreign influence across Europe, and we saw influence across Europe, and we saw a number of very shocking things, and I recommend the report to and I recommend the report to members, if they are in any doubt of the ways in which malign influence malign actors, either influence malign actors, either state or non-state, are trying to influence and undermine democracies influence and undermine democracies across Europe. But if we think that we're free of it because we're on the other side of the channel, we've got another thing coming.

We are so complacent. We are so complacent about the things that can happen and have happened and 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 don't. For example, when it comes to disinformation, disinformation from other countries trying to influence our democracy. Do you know how many Ministers we have responsible for disinformation in this country? We have seven.

If we have seven Ministers for disinformation, we have no Minister for disinformation. But disinformation is the sort of thing that undermines our democracy right now. And it will get worse coming up to the next general election. And there is not enough in this bill to be able to deal with that. But the points that I have put forward in the in the amendments that I put my ought to speak in the time I have available just to that it's there supported by the TUC.

They're welcomed by by Transparency International 85, a complete ban on overseas voters donating to political parties. I mean, why not? You know, I don't understand why not. Rycroft says that foreign money is more difficult to trace. It's more difficult to make sure that it's clean. That's why he puts 100,000 cap on it. Well, why don't we go further? We're the politicians. Why don't we just ban it? Like, just come to this country, live here, pay your taxes, get involved in our democracy, then you can make donations.

If you live somewhere else in a tax haven. Tough. You can't. Yes. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is she suggesting is she suggesting that all 3.5 million overseas electors shouldn't be able

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overseas electors shouldn't be able Yeah. I am, I'm saying I'm saying that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am, I'm saying I'm saying that if you live abroad, then there are arguments why I'm not getting into all of that. Whether you can vote, whether you can't. But why? No, no, whether you can't. But why? No, no, I need I've only got two minutes. Come on. So, so so just pay your Come on. So, so so just pay your taxes, get involved. And and this that 86 is you've got to be a total citizen. So you can kind of like it isn't enough to kind of come back to Britain and go, oh, well, I'm here now.

I'm going to pay a little bit tax because there are various tax dodgers and I can do that. No, no, no, no, you've got to be here paying your full whack of taxes, and then you can make donations to political parties. If you care so much about Britain, if you care so much about a democracy, come and be a full citizen, in my opinion. And, and I, I mean, I have to say my other two are that in, in, in instead of 84, which is instead of descriptions being allowed on, on ballot papers, we should simply have at the moment you can have instead of just like the Labour Party, you can have the Labour Party, the party of equality and fairness.

Fair enough. But what you can't have is what has what, what what is happening? The it happened at the last local elections was that on the ballot paper and the Greens did this. They registered with the Electoral Commission parties that were that were first choice candidates or lead candidates. So when you had an election with three votes, there was an instruction on the ballot paper as to who it was that you voted for. Now that is an abuse and it should be stopped.

And that's what that that amendment is about. And 87 is about. Why are we why don't why are election? Why are ballot papers always in alphabetical order? I speak as a t. My constituents had to look very hard to find me. Fortunately, they did and they did. But when we used to vote in in in alphabetical order, me and the T's at the far end of the alphabet, there were hardly any of us. It is definitely an advantage to be at the beginning of the alphabet.

Why don't we do the Australian system and just randomise it? It seems to me that these things are the ways in which. But this is. But there is so much more that we could do. And my concern is that although there are rumours that there may be a group that may discuss further how much more that we could do, is there really going to be, in the time available, enough legislative time to be able to bring forward another bill that will actually be able to deal with so many of the issues that we that we are that we have as problems? My predecessor, 180 years ago was the MP for Finsbury, Thomas Slingsby Duncan.

He brought in the massive charter petition, which was 3.3 million people wanting to be allowed to vote. There were so many people who'd signed it, they had to take the doors off the chamber in order to be able to get all the all the bits of paper through, presumably didn't go into the into the bag at the behind the chamber. But there was that much enthusiasm. That was what democracy was about. I don't want to be who sits back complacently and allows our democracy to be undermined.

We have to fight back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Danny Kruger. So this bill contains a lot of useful tightening of electoral law. And of course, it's a very important debate that we're having here this afternoon. It's very important that we think about how important that we think about how we police donations from abroad and from home. And indeed, I want to pay tribute to the remarks made by pay tribute to the remarks made by the Member for Hexham and also by the hon. Lady for Bethnal Green, about the impact of algorithms and about the impact of algorithms and social media deepfakes.

There are clearly threats to our democracy from technology which have not been addressed closely in the Bill. But let's face it, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill isn't concerned with those questions. There is a the point is made. The claim is made that this bill will defend democracy, but actually it's a flagrantly partisan attempt to kneecap reform UK. And I'm grateful to the hon. Lady who spoke just before me, the Member for Islington South and also the hon. Lady for Walthamstow, always reliable, who made clear exactly what this Bill is about and who it's aimed at.

And I'm grateful to her, too, for pointing out that this bill exempts from any suggestion of a restriction on donations. The trade unions, which have given £17 million to the Labour Party in the last five years, £10 million of it at the last election. They're delighted. They welcome it. Of course, they're happy with that sort of support. So it is a wrong it is it is a partisan, highly partial legislation. And I just want to put on record my resentment and my my outrage on behalf of the people who have generously given to reform UK, called by the Minister malign actors.

I wonder who she's referring to. She's talking about individuals, British citizens who made money, who are choosing to donate their money in support of political causes that they believe in, as is their right, as is their right. I'm not going to no, I'm not going to give away as is their right to support the political cause in their own country, where they are registered to vote, of which they are citizens. Absolutely wrong to introduce them in that way. So the attempt is, or the suggestion is made that this bill will restore trust in politics.

And that is exactly what is needed, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what they all mean is to restore trust in the

16:09

Danny Kruger MP (East Wiltshire, Reform UK)

- -

class of politicians and in the political parties that have got us into the mess that we are in. That into the mess that we are in. That is what including including the party, including, I'm afraid to say, the party that I was part of, which the party that I was part of, which is why I left it. We need change, and I'm glad to say that our democracy is actually working. A new force is arising, which is going to put the interests of the going to put the interests of the British people first, not the class of politicians and parties that have got us into this mess.

So that is what the populist revolt is doing, demonstrating the effectiveness and the vibrancy of have we do have a real threat to our to our democracy. And let me make these points as seriously and and as soberly as I can. But our democracy is under wired by a series of principles and practices that were traditionally historically implicit in the system, and therefore didn't need to be stated. They they didn't 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.

So let me go through the changes that I think need to be made to, to, to, to make explicit, formerly implicit principles. The first one is this that voters belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country with the allegiance and the commitment that that brings. Now, there was historically exceptions made for small numbers of Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens who are in this country. That now needs to change. There's still a number of Irish citizens are still very low, but there are now 2.5 million Commonwealth citizens, residents in this country entitled to vote in our elections who are not citizens of the United Kingdom.

I feel that is wrong. I think it is time to correct that that that anomaly. The second, no, I'm not going to give away 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 in the other native languages of the British Isles. It is, I'm afraid it might. This might feel 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 don't do our democracy in the same language? Right? The third principle quickly implicit before is that you vote in person. So we now have a quarter of all votes in the last general election being cast by proxy. That is flagrantly open to flagrant abuse, and we will restrict that. And lastly, lastly, the system depends on the principle that you vote individually on your own. It's a secret choice.

Now, that principle is not clearly fully understood or honoured, as we've seen in the abuse of voting in recent elections, so-called family voting. It's already illegal. So we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to ensure order. Order doesn't happen. Darren Paffey. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I begin by congratulating the new Minister and wishing her well? In her role, I share the well? In her role, I share the confidence of the House that has been expressed in her excellent role as the chair of the Select role as the chair of the Select Committee, and I know she will do her best in this role, too. Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill and the amendments that we're discussing amendments that we're discussing today matter because they go to the very heart of something that we all hear on the doorsteps, and that is that people simply do not trust in politics or in many of the people who are in it anymore.

Trust and turnout, regrettably, are at record lows. Now, that's not an abstract complaint. That's not just something that would be nicer if we had a bit more of it. That's something which is corrosive to democracy itself. So this bill is a significant and welcome step forward to do things like 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 our elections. But in addition, a number of the amendments that are before us today, taken together, are a genuine opportunity to further build rebuild that trust by making our voting system fairer, getting big money and dodgy money out of politics, and by making sure that everyone can safely, confidently, independently, secretly.

And you know, who knows one day enthusiastically be able to cast their vote. I just want to start with a broader point. Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge and accept that there is a new clause that cannot be named that is no longer in this, but I do just wish to express my regret that it is not in there. This bill is an opportunity to go as far as possible in restoring that trust. Many of us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

believe that is now missing. I will give way. Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Would he agree with me that the objective that was in the that the objective that was in the clause that we that we're not talking about because it's not in the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman needs to sit down. Can I just remind members that discussion of an amendment that discussion of an amendment that's not in scope and has not been selected has not been Darren Paffey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My my point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that in addressing, as Speaker, is that in addressing, as I intend to. Amendment 69, 70, 81, 20, 72 and 48, there is a context. 20, 72 and 48, there is a context. And many of us believe that, you know the world that no longer exists of. Two party politics exists of. Two party politics really needs a political system that supports what every other amendment and every other part of amendment and every other part of this bill is seeking to do.

I will address then new clause 80. And there are others similar to this 69, 7120 all about capping donations. Trust in politics is not only about how we vote, it is about who politics works for. That's why I support a number of those amendments. And as has been really eloquently expressed by some of my colleagues, when a small number of individuals can hand over hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds to a single party, is it any wonder people conclude that politics has a price tag, a sensible, proportionate cap, with an independent review set to the right level, is a basic common sense safeguard against undue influence from any direction.

Again, it comes back to trust, and the hon. Gentleman from the Reform Party makes the point about millions of pounds coming from trade unions. Well, they represent millions of people across this country. That is very different to millions coming from single individuals. That is a bit of a fallacious point, but if we're serious about restoring trust, we can't dodge the question of money

16:16

Darren Paffey MP (Southampton Itchen, Labour)

- -

in politics. That's why I welcome the government's new clause 72, the government's new clause 72, dealing with the flood of money beyond what is reasonable for election costs. And I say this as election costs. And I say this as someone who's never been on the receiving end of that, those amounts of money. But it's not just amounts of money. But it's not just out of jealousy. It is about how that money gets to the candidate. And I, I would associate myself And I, I would associate myself with the words of my right hon.

Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, who pointed out, the only benefit of crypto is that you can hide. There is simply no reason for it other than that the source can be hidden again, corrosion to trust in. In democracy, our elections have to be fought, not bought. And to a brief comment on new clause 48. In the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, I hope the House will. The Minister's Lewes will address this and support it.

The right to a secret ballot has existed since 1872, and yet today many are mostly blind and partially sighted. Voters still can't vote, cast their vote independently and in secret. So that's a basic democratic gap, I believe. So minimum accessibility standards for polling stations are long overdue, and I hope that Ministers will will back that change. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, none of these measures alone, we know, will fix the trust deficit in our politics. But hopefully the the weight, the might of the bill as it stands and so many of the amendments that are being put forward today, a fairer voting system or lack of it at the moment, a cap on donations and truly accessible elections.

They say something important that this House is serious about a democracy that works for everyone, not not just those with the safest seats, not just those with the deepest pockets. And so I commend many of these amendments and would ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to accept them. Manuela Perteghella thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill gives us a real chance to defend and strengthen our democracy. And although not in the scope of this although not in the scope of this bill, I hope the government will look in future legislation to electoral reform and proportional electoral reform and proportional representation. I've tabled new clause 20 and New clause 21 and supported many amendments, because supported many amendments, because I think this bill, as it stands, does not go far enough.

New clause 21 enshrines in the Bill the principle of a cap on political donation. It's time to kick big money, foreign or domestic, out of British politics and restore public trust in our political system. As I said previously, it is the people of this country, not the deep

16:18

Manuela Perteghella MP (Stratford-on-Avon, Liberal Democrat)

- -

pockets of billionaires, foreign or otherwise, or corporate interests, who should decide our country's who should decide our country's future in elections and referenda. I welcome the government's amendment on the donations by overseas electors, but at present there is no limit at all on how there is no limit at all on how much a single individual here in the UK can give to a political party. New clause 21 would require party. New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on political donations, informed by an independent review, so that it can ensure the cap is sustainable.

The Bill is titled representation of the people. New clause 20 would extend the parliamentary franchise that representation to qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with the right to enter or remain in the UK, and would extend the local government franchise in England on the 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 now we have different franchises in relation to EU citizens living in the UK following Brexit.

This means that millions of residents have no right to vote at all. I represent a constituency, as many of us do, 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 the 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 all British society. I want to set out what else. I think this bill needs to go further, because the argument runs the same way throughout. Open up participation and representation, close down improper and 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 APPG citizens Rights, we heard from British electors living abroad the challenges, the barriers that they face just to exercise their right. Yes, I also want to see government. I mean, I support government extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. This is really, really brilliant news for our young people and for representation. And 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 this bill still has the furthest to travel.

The same logic that drives new clause 21 applies with even more force. The loopholes that currently let donations flow from foreign administrations, from those linked to political violence, from undeclared foreign income, from corporate interests like those of 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 tightening the rules on cryptoasset donations, which 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. And finally, on standards and the word we now campaign candidates deserve proper safety guidance. A generated campaign material must be honestly labelled, and I want the Electoral Commission to have real strong powers over online harms and disinformation, along with proper measures against foreign interference. Madam Deputy Speaker, our democracy should be open to everyone who lives under its laws and close to the money, undue influence and manipulation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then nobody voted for. Jodie Gosling. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and may I start by welcoming the and may I start by welcoming the Minister to her new seat. It will be truly brilliant to work with her, and this is a transformational bill and this is a transformational bill to start on. I think it will take British politics through huge British politics through huge strides to restore the trust that has been lost in our political system and protect our democracy from being sold off for profit.

I personally have set up and host an inspiring youth Parliament, and hearing the voice of 16 year olds and under is truly humbling experience, and to hear their dedication and education is always an awe inspiring experience. The amendments I have tabled in this bill I had hoped would improve it even further, and to return integrity and British politics, and I am reassured that the government

16:23

Jodie Gosling MP (Nuneaton, Labour)

- -

is seeking other ways to strengthen our democracy and transparency. I would like to pay tribute to my would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, the member from Ellesmere Port and Sorry and Bromborough, and congratulate him Bromborough, and congratulate him on his promotion and thank him for the work that he has done, bringing these amendments forward. As to to my other colleagues who have brought forward very valuable amendments today, especially what amendments today, especially what the member from Walthamstow Islington South and Finsbury and Milton Keynes.

Our election law was written in an analogue age and has not kept pace with the legislation, which dictates how safe or unsafe it is. Modern campaigns now reach voters in the palms of their hand. 24 over seven election campaign, with highly targeted content delivered directly in social media feeds, distributing at speed, and some of it only seen by the members. It is designed to influence legislation rightly restricts commercial advertisers from making false claims about shampoo, broadband deals, financial products, sausages food producers face a wealth of legislation to restrict what they allow to say about their products, and make sure it is rightly, factually accurate.

Pork sausages cannot tell pork pies, pie manufacturers cannot tell lies. It is ridiculous that our political adverts hold no such restrictions. The present. This presents a serious risk to our democracy and undermines any attempts to improve our integrity and trust in our political system. When AI generated campaigns which look so convincing, look produce misinformation spread at scale and speed, while elections are increasingly being based on wafer thin margins, with more and more candidates on the election papers in elections that close and with increased budgets of 80% in 2023, misleading electoral advertising can make a real material difference to our politics and to our futures.

New clauses 49 and 51 in my name present practical solutions to this issue. They deal with the narrow, clearly defined categories of factual claims in paid materials. Crucially, they do not regulate political opinion, arguments, satire, pledges, speeches, interviews or ordinary democratic debate. They simply apply to statements of fact that can be tested against data. And this 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 information to build their opinions on.

Research by Opinium found that 76% of residents agree. Sorry of people agree alongside a backing from this House. I also bring forward new clause 52, which again builds on the excellent work of my colleagues to strengthen a code of conduct into a statutory footing and make sure that harassment, intimidation and standards are on a statutory footing to ensure that people have the right and the safety to stand for election and represent their views. I accept that this government's decision on these issues and look forward to further debate, but do wish that this government would push some of the other amendments been mentioned today to make sure this bill achieves the enormous potential it creates, and to make sure that our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

democracy is protected in the future. Thank you. Brendan O'Hara thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brendan O'Hara thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the Second Reading of this bill back in March, I said that we generally welcomed I said that we generally welcomed its introduction, particularly extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds. And we in these 17 year olds. And we in these benches still do. And evidence is always helpful. And unfortunately, the hon. Member for Tatton is no longer in her place, but Scotland has had this in place for 12 years and it has been an unqualified success, and no serious person is planning to backtrack on it.

That said, we do still have serious concerns about the bill because what's currently on offer is a far cry from what the Labour Party promised at the passing of the 2022 Elections Act, because back then we all recognised that that 2022 act was an appalling piece of legislation. It was nakedly partisan and quite rightly when opposing it, the Labour Party promised to shred that legislation and I fear now in power, they have chosen to tinker rather than shred.

I think we can see for ourselves the levels of frustration that exists on the benches opposite, because they know this was an opportunity to undo great democratic harms that were caused by that 2022 act, and an opportunity to introduce an entirely new system, one that would have fairness, equality, transparency, and accountability at its heart. And I fear that the bill as it currently stands, squanders that opportunity. I think the clearest manifestation of that frustration is the number of proposed amendments that the bill has and have originated from the government's own back benches.

There are scores of amendments, 215 pages worth of amendments. I want to highlight a few, which I believe would have significantly improved the bill had the government taken them on. New clause 34 from the member from Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North to tighten up cryptocurrency. He explained earlier on in an intervention that the government's position, as in the bill, does not go nearly far enough and we agree. The Member for Hayes and Harlington new clause 35 would extend the franchise to those with indefinite leave to remain.

Such a system has been in place in Scotland for over six years, and it works very well and has been entirely uncontroversial. The hon. Member for Leeds East and New clause 54 proposed new rules around declaration of gifts or benefits worth over £5,000 in a year before. In the year before someone can be nominated as a candidate. It is an eminently sensible proposal, and I cannot see why the government would not take it on board. New clause 58 from the hon.

Member from Poplar and Limehouse over on Domestic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Abuse, added to the list of schedule nine offences. Again, I can see no reason why the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can see no reason why the government would not adopt that into the bill. And as we've heard, there are multiple amendments on there are multiple amendments on cleaning up the amount of dirty money circulating around UK politics about curtailing foreign politics about curtailing foreign donations and examining how the reins can be pulled in on campaign spending. And I applaud the Member for Leeds Central for his new clause 69. The hon. Member for Oxford East, New clause 70. And the right hon.

Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, with new clauses 85 and 86 and the member from Walthamstow for new clause 20. Every single one of those amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and many, many others in the Order Paper, would have made this bill significantly better. And it is hugely disappointing that the government have chosen not to take on more of them. And may I say, purely in passing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just wish that on that Order Paper, there had been a vote on proportional representation to bring this Parliament into line with every other parliament on these islands.

Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, of course we will support this bill, but I cannot help but feel this has been something of a missed opportunity, an opportunity to right a great wrong. And I am sure I was not alone in hoping that the new Prime Minister and his team. When the. When this was pulled before recess, would take an opportunity to look at those amendments, many of which originated from his own backbenches, and thereby adopt and make this legislation far more radical, far more ambitious, and much, much more democratic.

And I sincerely hope that this is not a signal that the great radical reformer is becoming yet another timid, conservative.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chris Curtis Deputy Speaker Before I turn to the substance of the bill. May I take a moment to the bill. May I take a moment to put on record how much I enjoyed serving on the Select Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend, the Member for Vauxhall and Campbell Green, and I'm proud of the work we did together on that the work we did together on that committee, including on tackling rough sleeping and confronting Britain's housing crisis. And I

16:33

Brendan O'Hara MP (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber, Scottish National Party)

- -

know she will take that into her work in the government as she takes on her new role. Now, clause 56 standing in my name on the implementation of voter registration, automatic voter registration, hopefully slightly less controversial than some of the other topics we've covered today, and also something I'm hoping the Minister will support, given it stood in her name until just a few

16:33

Chris Curtis MP (Milton Keynes North, Labour)

- -

weeks ago. Fundamentally, we want high participation in our elections. We should make it as frictionless 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 little under 60%, the lowest since 2001. But that figure still doesn't tell us the whole story, because tell us the whole story, because the turnout figure is the percentage of registered voters who go out to vote in the election.

It excludes the estimated. According to the Electoral Commission, 8 million people across the country who are eligible to vote but do not go out to vote because they're not on the electoral registered. It could be because they are registered incorrectly. They've moved home or they didn't 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. And this problem isn't evenly distributed across our constituency 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've operated a slightly absurd system where the British state can know where you live. It can know your age, your demographics. It can know whether you're eligible to vote, and yet you still have to fill out a separate form in order to be registered to vote. This bill creates a new process through which electoral registration offers. Offices can register eligible voters without requiring to make 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 data sharing and piloting framework needed to move towards a genuinely modern system of electoral registration. This is all a brilliant things that really move automatic voter registration in the right direction. The purpose of this clause is simply to make sure that we now turn that legislative framework into 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. And it would be good to hear from the Minister something on that timetable in her closing remarks today. I think we should have a clear pathway to delivering substantial change within this Parliament, something that the Electoral Commission says is possible. A new clause 56 asks just for 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 it expects regulations for the registration pilot to be laid before Parliament, and how many additional people it expects to be registered by the 15th of August 20, 2029.

As a result of implementing part two. And I would just make one very quick point on the pilots of this, because I mentioned this at Second Reading, and I still think it's something that we need a response to. There is a fear when you're piloting projects to do with automatic voter registration, that if you're piloting them on local authority boundaries, as you would because they're responsible for voter registration, you may have Constituency Box and Camberwell Green being a perfect example, given it's in Lambeth and Southwark, where part of your constituency stands under the new scheme that is being piloted, and part of it does not stand under that scheme, and that can create a problem if part of one party's vote comes from a system where that registration has gone up and another part doesn't, so can we please get a commitment from the government or from the electoral Commission that when they're running these pilots, they're going to consider that and preferably not run them in places where those constituency boundaries don't line up.

Finally, I'll just say I completely understand the government's arguments that reform cannot happen overnight. And we need to do this securely, accurately and carefully, especially when it comes to ensuring that only those who are eligible to vote go out and vote. The government has made the right decision to put legislative framework in place for automatic and direct voter registration in this bill. We just need to know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

when it's going to be implemented. Thank you. Doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'd like to speak to amendment 15, a new clause 30, tabled in my name and clause is tabled by other colleagues across the House, too. But first of all, I'd like to welcome the new Minister to her welcome the new Minister to her place, and I welcome this bill. I always like to start with where there is common ground, and it's there is common ground, and it's certainly true that there are steps forward in this bill.

Implementation of the Rycroft recommendations to tackle foreign influence in our politics, movements towards automatic voter registration, dealing with crypto to some extent, but not enough. These are all positive step

16:38

Dr Ellie Chowns MP (North Herefordshire, Green Party)

- -

forwards. And of course, I warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16, a longstanding Green Party policy two. But there is a big but policy two. But there is a big but I'm afraid, Minister, because this bill could and really should do far, bill could and really should do far, far more to clean up our politics. There are three big things that we need to do. We need to get rid of need to do. We need to get rid of the influence of dirty and big money in our politics.

We need to eliminate the poison of disinformation in our politics, and we need to fix the fundamental structures of our politics that disenfranchise so many people. And so I'm afraid it is 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 about 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.

Now, of course, the government doesn't need to legislate on a national commission on electoral reform. The government could kick start one anyway. And so 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's serious about problem solving, then

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he needs to work to solve the problems in our democracy. Order, please. Please take your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, please. Please take your seat. Will the hon. Member please remember to speak into scope of what's in front of us at the moment? Doctor Ellie Chowns.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was speaking to the title of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill and oh. Please take my comments as as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Please take my comments as as said and stick to the scope of the bill. Doctor Ellie Chowns. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. So to move on to my amendments. Amendment 15 seeks to ban all corporate donations, donations from companies as they do, in fact, in France and Canada, as many other countries. Research by Syntex has found that around a quarter of donor companies are so opaque it's not possible to identify who controls them. And almost £1 in every ten given by companies comes indirectly from people who could not donate 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 in the electoral register. So it makes sense to complete the step and ban corporate donations altogether. And if the House isn't willing to go as far as a ban, it can still strengthen the bill by strengthening clause 60. I've also tabled a new clause 30 for a review on how limits on campaign expenditure could apply on an annual basis.

Again, this is a huge loophole. We recognise that money skews politics. That's why there are spending limits during the short campaign. But we know that politics doesn't just happen in that short period before an election. Politics happens year round, and especially now that the online world is such a big part of our politics. So long gone are the days where elections were only fought in those short weeks. Political campaigning happens year round, not just on doorsteps, but also online. And so it is imperative to put limits on annual campaign expenditure to prevent our politics being skewed out of all proportion by big money.

And this is also why I support the amendment tabled by the new clause 70, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford East, to lower limits for campaign spending all together. Moving on to other amendments tabled by hon. Members. New clause 120 from the hon. Member for Walthamstow. She makes a very clear case for this. We have to have a cap on all donations. Big money's been allowed to skew our politics for far too long. I'd like to see it much lower, perhaps 500 £0 per year.

That's the position supported by the majority of the British people. But any move in this direction is an improvement. And frankly, some donations simply shouldn't be allowed. I welcome new clause 22 from the hon. Member for Leeds East. There's no place for fossil fuels in a sustainable future, and no place for dirty fossil money in our politics. The amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, particularly amendment 43 on a repository for political advertising, absolutely crucial, and we have to guard against the way that AI is being used to fuel disinformation.

We have to get big money out of politics, get disinformation, poison out of politics, and fix our political

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system once and for all. Yes, Alex Sobel. Thank you, speaker. As chair of the Fair Elections

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As chair of the Fair Elections APPG, the largest APPG in Parliament, I'm delighted to welcome this bill a significant cultural shift for our democracy and a generational step towards a fairer politics. I also welcome the Minister to a place, a trusted friend, an ally and fair elections. The APPGs loss is certainly the The APPGs loss is certainly the government's gain. It is fitting that the Representation of the People Bill is the new government's first piece of legislation to bring to the House Prime Minister's long

16:43

Alex Sobel MP (Leeds Central and Headingley, Labour )

- -

16:48

Freddie van Mierlo MP (Henley and Thame, Liberal Democrat)

- -

previously reside. The UK is lagging on the international stage. In France, voting is allowed at In France, voting is allowed at overseas embassies. In the Netherlands, constituents can print their own secure ballot, as I have their own secure ballot, as I have previously done. Estonia permits the use of electronic voting, and New Zealand's voters can download New Zealand's voters can download and return ballot papers online. Any change to our voting arrangements would, of course, need arrangements would, of course, need to be secure and adapted to the UK context.

But if your other other countries can improve their participation of overseas electors, so can we. However, the government has so far refused to act. In a recent meeting with the former Minister for democracy, I was disappointed by the lack of ambition. I was told it is not possible to make printing of ballots secure, yet other European and Commonwealth countries do it. So I asked the Minister what is so unique about either the UK electoral system or the British states. That means we are either incapable or incompetent to enfranchise our own overseas voters under a bill that is supposed to represent the people, the government have only made negligible changes to support the 3.5 million eligible voters abroad, but but made limited changes.

The minister's response, if there is one, will refer to some minor changes made to the timeline for registering to postal votes and the mailing of ballots, but this will not be enough. Half of all overseas voters were registered before the last election and still suffered from delayed ballots, so we know already 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.

She received her ballot in the post the day after polling day. If this is the experience of France, what hope is there for Australia? I wonder now if, under the new leadership, the previous Prime Minister's incrementalism can be dropped in favour of a solution that meets the size of the problem? As we've heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill has interests across the House and not all amendments will be voted on, but I do hope this new clause or similar will be pursued in the Lords and in the spirit of cross-party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cooperation expressed by the Prime Minister. Get a fair hearing. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. And I'd like to speak to my own amendment. New clause 22 to stop amendment. New clause 22 to stop oil and gas companies from donating oil and gas companies from donating to political parties. The context, the extreme heat, the tens of thousands of heat related deaths in Europe alone this summer, the

16:51

Richard Burgon MP (Leeds East, Labour)

- -

dangerous wildfires, the droughts, all of 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 action needed to tackle it. The reality is that climate breakdown will shape our country for decades. will shape our country for decades. It will affect food prices. It will affect whether people can live and work safely, and it will impact 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. But if we are to have a fighting chance of preventing the worst of it, we need to rapidly cut fossil fuel use, and that will mean breaking the vast power that oil and gas companies have in our politics. And that's where my new clause 22 comes in. Fossil fuel giants have not only driven us towards climate disaster, they did so knowing of the consequences.

They did their best to cover up the science, and they used their vast wealth and power to distract and delay action. They did so in order to 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 amendment is clear those profiting from and helping to drive this crisis should not be using their wealth to pollute our politics, to spread misinformation, to delay the action needed so my amendment would stop and put a stop to any donations from oil and gas companies to political parties and candidates at elections.

Now, of course, the problem goes way beyond direct donations, but my amendment 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 D smog and the Guardian found that when the previous conservative government was 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 over £2 million donated to the Conservative Party by fossil fuel interests between 2019 and 2024. General elections and Desmog research has also highlighted what it describes as reform links to oil and gas interests. But beyond party donations, there's 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.

And those interests, as we've seen, have had huge success in shaping US politics. We need to avoid that scale of influence ever happening here. So to conclude. For decades, oil and gas money across the globe has sought to buy influence to help delay the action we desperately need. My amendment is one step towards ending that, and I want to thank the cross-party group of MPs who 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

interest, not fossil fuel interests. Emily Darlington thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker And in the five minutes you've allotted me, I will try and speak to my new clauses 41 through 47, the clause 82 and 83 that I are now in my name. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, On behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Education Secretary, and clause 82, which I'm also tabling in my 82, which I'm also tabling in my name on behalf of my hon.

Friend who is now the Minister at the Home Office. I want to thank the previous Ministers from Bethnal Green and Stepney and from Chester

16:55

Emily Darlington MP (Milton Keynes Central, Labour)

- -

North and Neston for their constant engagement on this with me over the engagement on this with me over the past year and a bit, as well as the online Safety Minister. And I want to welcome the new Minister to her to welcome the new Minister to her place. She is a fantastic appointment. I also want to thank appointment. I also want to thank the Electoral Commission Philip Rycroft members of the Online Safety Network, in particular demos, Adobe and British broadcasters and colleagues from across this House for working with me to lay these crucial amendments.

Our democracy is under attack by foreign actors that want to destabilise our country and individuals in our own country that want to create chaos and division. They use the online space to create and spread disinformation, create deepfakes, use algorithms to amplify bots pretending to be British citizens. These distort the debate and negate the facts, and take our right to free choice in a free election away. AI generated material can be fun, like 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 a million users, they have followers and have published thousands of deepfakes of government Ministers supposedly announcing controversial policies using real BBC footage in the first week of December 2025 alone, they had nearly a million viewers. That translates to the doorstep. I spoke to a voter in December 20th, 2025, that was convinced the then Prime Minister was imposing a Christmas tax because she saw a video of him announcing it.

These accounts have have just made. It made us less sure of who and what we can trust. And when it happens, you still vote and make a choice. But the crown beneath your judgement shifts. Therefore, NC 47 would ensure all material that is AI generated is clearly labelled. Doesn't stop any party or candidate from creating crowds at their speeches, or wearing a superhero outfit to lead Elizabeth Tower, but it would bring transparency to the public. And as often has been said, democracy does not require us to agree, but it does require us to live in the same reality.

Therefore, NC 82 would create a liability for false statements, and NC 41 will ensure that the law offline is applied online, mainly section 106 and 114 A from the Representation of People's Act of 1983, this needs to be made. Priority offences under the Online Safety Act, and I want to thank my hon. Friend, the Minister for Online Safety, for his engagement and so that we can work together to make sure this happens and ensure Ofcom understand the importance of respecting, protecting democracy.

And the algorithms are powerful because they don't look dramatic. It looks ordinary. It's just content in our feed. No single message changes our mind. But scale does. Volume does, emotion does. The cumulative effect does. And online social media bosses can use their control of algorithms to promote their political views without reporting to the public. Which is why I've laid NC 42. I will skip the NC 44 giving the Electoral Commission just wanted to raise particularly NC 43. That requires a repository for political advertising so any voter can see what a party is advertising in different parts of the country and on different platforms.

And it also ensures that all political advertising and the money spent can be audited and properly declared. Finally, everyone in this House knows that the harmful activity is not limited to election periods. It is happening all the time and spreading disinformation or new defying or humiliating female candidates and politicians. NC 46 and NC 83, which looks to introduce the broadcast code to online platforms, would deal with this. And finally, in my last seconds, I just wanted to say that we need we need an emergency election protocol that is appropriate, apparent, transparent, and holds public confidence.

And that's what NC 45 is about. None of my amendments have been selected for decision, so they will be relayed in the Lords. I want to thank the Minister, Minister for Online Safety Number ten and the Secretary of State for their engagement with me working together, I am sure that we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

find a way to protect our democracy. Liam Byrne thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me start with a word of thanks to the hon. Member for Chester, who's not in her place. She said, quite rightly, that an She said, quite rightly, that an awful lot has changed since this bill was first introduced to this House, and indeed, a lot has been revealed over the course of this revealed over the course of this summer. In fact, the reporting in the times, the Sunday Times, the Financial Times, The Guardian and Financial Times, The Guardian and By-line Times has now revealed 37 different questions around the finances of the Reform Party.

And no doubt we will find, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there's been an innocent explanation for all of it. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for why Mr. George

17:01

Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, Labour)

- -

Cotterill passed $2 million through US based crypto exchanges just a US based crypto exchanges just a day or two before he moved the money to his mother, and she then went to make big donations to went to make big donations to reform. No doubt we will learn that Mr. Cotterill was in fact on the electoral register when that money electoral register when that money was passed. No doubt we will discover that, his mother, Fiona Cotterill, declared, and did not Cotterill, 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 wasn't told about that. No doubt there will be an innocent explanation for why the hon. Member for Clacton, who is surprise, surprise, 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 crypto currency allies.

No doubt it is a complete coincidence that the man who was given reform half of its fortune over £25 million, made his fortune in the crypto industry. No doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of this, and I very much hope that absolutely no offences have been committed. No doubt, no doubt, no doubt there is an innocent explanation for all of it. And no doubt to the British public it will stink to high heaven. I very much hope that all of this 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. You have got to be above suspicion. And right now, the conduct of political finance in this country is not above suspicion. And that is why the measures in this bill are needed. And that is why it would be madness if we do not use this bill to eliminate once and for all, not just cryptocurrency donations, but the cryptocurrency system from British politics. Now, I welcome the moves that the Minister has made. I very much welcome the commitment that she has made at the despatch box this afternoon to continue to listen to this debate and ensure that the rules are as tight as possible and in this bill.

But the kind of revelations that we have seen in the newspapers over the summer underline why we have got to be as hard as possible and as tough as possible. And the truth is, right now, the amendments that the government has brought forward to the bill are full of holes. It would still be possible, under the rules on the table today, to move money through digital tokens. It would still be possible to move money through mean coins like the Dollar Britain token. It would still be possible to aggregate it, to convert it into conventional currency, and then to donate it, for example, to restore Britain.

And 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 radon. Now I've got nothing against radon. They are clearly wholly committed to transparency, which is why they've admitted why they have moved their domicile from Poland to that beacon of transparency, the Cook Islands. So with risks like this multiplying, why on earth? Why on earth would we leave loopholes open? So the effect of new clause 34 would ban on ramping, off ramping.

It would ban new forms of digital currency transactions. It would ban mean coins. And these are exactly the kind of measures that I think Ministers now need to bring forward, because if we want to take out the crypto system from political finance, then this is what we need to do. The final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I want to make is 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.

And if Elon Musk decided to write a check 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, then it would be allowed. We've 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 that there is a problem with foreigners, but there is not a problem with foreign money.

And frankly, it is time that we eliminated that kind of politics, that kind of argument, that kind of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system from our country. Joe Powell thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I join the others in warmly welcoming the democracy Minister to her place? I know the Select Committee will miss her excellent chairing, but it's great to have such a strong ally on these issues in government. We've returned to this place after a summer when debt barely a day, has gone by without barely a day, has gone by without another political funding scandal on the front pages, as the previous

17:05

Joe Powell MP (Kensington and Bayswater, Labour)

- -

speaker referred to accusations of impermissible foreign donations, undeclared donations, undeclared gifts, conflict of interest, undeclared assets, foreign interference and more. So I doubt 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 ensure that dodgy money is kept out of our politics and that sufficient transparency is in place so the public can judge whether a public can judge whether a politician is acting in their interests or in the interests of foreign based billionaires, and that's why this bill is so important, and why so many of the measures in it are welcome.

And I'm delighted that, following the Rycroft review, there are strong amendments to strengthen the bill, the cap on donations from overseas electors and this new residency test to close that potential loophole of people coming back to meddle in our politics. The moratorium on crypto, ensuring companies can only donate up to the value of their post-tax profits, and the swift recent action we've 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 limit the influence of big money and kerb foreign influence.

We have to be alive, though, to the constantly evolving nature of this threat, and to make sure that our electoral traditions are not open to abuse. And in that spirit, just a couple of suggestions. I do hope, in the Electoral Commission's review of spending limits, per the government amendment, they 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 till February 4th, 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 the reality of modern politics is campaigning never switches off. I'm really glad in this country we. We've avoided the money pit of TV advertising that the United States has.

But social media does mean that vast sums of hard to trace money can be spent promoting a candidate or a party outside of these regulated periods, so I'm fully supportive of the government's intention to bring down the spending cap, and I think a thorough look at these regulated periods would help deliver that goal and make sure that capping spending works permanently, not just in those limited periods. I'm also glad that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and the Minister have been clear that this bill is the start of a 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. So to avoid that risk, I think the Electoral Commission could also look at donation levels currently uncapped to ensure a further check on big money interests. And I welcome the democracy's minister's positive engagement on this topic, and I hope there may be a way to use this bill to review this issue and build consensus, while ensuring we don't have to wait for a further legislative route in this Parliament, which we all know would be challenging.

And in that spirit, of course, we don't need legislation to talk about the National Commission. We could do that immediately. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope this bill, as I said, is the start of a political reform effort of the new administration and not the end. We all know the context, the plummeting trust, the big money influence, the fact that many of our voters feel that their politicians are not serving them, but they're serving other interests. I know that this Minister is absolutely committed to going as far as possible.

This bill is in really good shape and it's been strengthened, and I hope that the Dispatch Box in summing up, we might hear some of the next steps. Just to take that little bit further. Thank you.

17:10

Jim Allister KC MP (North Antrim, Traditional Unionist Voice)

- -

17:18

Rt Hon Anneliese Dodds MP (Oxford East, Labour )

- -

has been getting 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 were asked whether they wanted this, and the Electoral Commission said at the time 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. Their opaque crypto interests spent $189 million just between January and the end of June this year.

That's with four months to go before the midterm elections. And of course, we've seen huge donations from crypto interests in our own country, but they were given in pounds. My amendment, new clause 70, would set a limit on campaign spending of £24.4 million. That's what the previous limit of £19 million would be now, allowing for inflation -15%, as per the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I do understand that the government is keen to avoid additional legislation at this stage, given time pressure for ensuring votes at 16 are delivered, and I acknowledge the letter urging the Electoral Commission to examine this matter that was published last night, coming from the Secretary of State for housing, Communities and Local Government and the First Secretary of State.

That letter makes explicit that, in their words, spending limits on parties and candidates are too high and ought to be reduced, and asks the commission to provide recommendations to the government by July 2027. By the latest. I am pleased that the government has heard the call from members from right across this House, from many different parties represented here and I support who have supported my amendment. I'm really grateful to members who've supported it. As the government has made that request to the Electoral Commission clear.

I will not push for a vote on my amendment, but I really want to see progress on this. The Electoral Commission has got to work now speedily on a lowered limit for campaign spend, to stop this arms race. That message has come clearly from this House. They need to act on it now. In my remaining remarks, I want Madam Deputy Speaker to urge the government to move at pace on the further risks to UK democracy that so many speakers in this House have referred to during this debate, many of which are covered by the amendments that have been tabled by my friend for Nuneaton and for Milton Keynes Central.

As others have said, we've got to ensure greater transparency on targeted online political advertising, including that facilitated through artificial intelligence and additional measures on third party campaigning and political funding. The stakes here are, so many have said really couldn't be higher. The UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre recently showed 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, which accepts political violence over 1 in 10 people in our country now saying they could accept political violence.

It's also led to an increase in those who reject at least some democratic norms, with almost a third of people saying we should ignore democratic institutions and rules if they get in the way of change. And the Centre's words, hostile states and domestic extremists are deliberately accelerating fractures to further destabilise Britain. So while this bill, including the government's amendments to it, will help. They don't yet meet the full scale of this challenge. The government has got to engage in the kind of protection and promotion of democracy that it successfully urged many other nations to do under the threat of foreign interference.

Extremist narratives have to be contested and online platforms regulated and reformed. So while welcoming this bill overall, I'll continue to push for change so we really can ensure what is the right of every citizen in elections.

17:22

Rt Hon John McDonnell MP (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)

- -

Thank you. >> Thank you. >> John McDonnell. >> Listening to the throughout the debate, I think part of the problem that we have is that the bill is being brought forward now in an enormous transitional period, where maybe some of the original objectives of the bill are being met within the legislation itself that we're proposing. But since then, the debate has moved on. The debate has moved on. We have to admit, within the Labour Party, because the change of leadership as well.

So in some instances, we might not be talking to this bill. We might be debating what we want to contain in the next bill, which I think needs to be brought forward with some urgency, particularly because I think the general tenor of the debate is a recognition that we are in a dangerous political moment within our country at the moment, and we have to address the we have to address the threats that are making this dangerous political moment. There are a number of amendments here.

I can understand the government not willing to accept today, and it might not be time enough when it goes in the other place, to ensure that those amendments are shaped in such a way that can be legislated for quickly. But I would urge that there is a rethink now about the next bill that should be brought forward, certainly before the end of the year, to take into account this whole range of measures, and particularly those that have been excluded from the debate overall because of the title of the bill itself.

It is, to be frank, a bit shaming for the debate, the political debate within the House itself. I have two amendments I put down, which are very straightforward, and I thought they were I thought they were in the the tenure of the original bill. And I was surprised when when they weren't included. In fact, the current Lord Chancellor moved similar amendments to this in 2022. And what they relate to is the bill aims to bring England and Northern Ireland in line with the reforms that were taking place in Scotland, both in terms of the age of 16, but also I thought what was going to happen is that we'd also ensure that the franchise was the same.

And as people know, in Scotland and Wales, they lowered the age of voting, but they also extended the franchise to all residents. And the at the moment, because we base it on purely on citizenship, there are 4.4 million people, residents who cannot vote in a general election. Within our country, there are 1.2 million in England and Northern Ireland who cannot vote at all in any election in my constituency. That means there are 16,300 people who have no vote whatsoever, and people who people who live here, they work here.

Most pay their taxes. They fund our public services, but they're locked out of the democratic system itself. So what these amendments do, basically, is to argue the case, as has happened in both Scotland and Wales, that voting should be based on residence rather than citizenship. And if there is to be a debate about, well, there should be some investment of time, well, there are other there are other countries where that's that timescale of residency can be can be designated in New Zealand, for example, 12 months residency, then you're able to vote itself.

So article 36 deals with local elections and it gives permission to vote in elections for those who have permission to enter or stay in the UK. An article 35 extends it to general elections for those with settled status, an acceptance in. In many of our pieces of legislation that we have at the moment. So a settled status indefinitely to remain. And again, as I say, it's an amendment that we've supported in the past. It means there'll be a simpler system. With regard to registration, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually do think it will increase voter participation. But Above all else. For me, it will bring about a greater sense of bring about a greater sense of social cohesion, where those people who are living within our society who are living within our society yet have no say within our society, will be brought into the political system effectively. I know, I know, system effectively. I know, I know, we've had the debate about different languages and all the. I wish we'd never got rid of the wish we'd never got rid of the Latin Mass, to be honest.

But that's another thing that might offend the other side on that particular issue. But all my amendments are trying to do is to recognise the reality of our society. The reality is, our society is we are a diverse community. And what this legislation could do is ensure we recognise that diversity, but make sure everyone has a stake in our society and has a democratic right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to vote. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I express my delight at the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green and make it onto the front Green and make it onto the front bench? I know she's gonna do a fantastic job. It is. It's I'm very grateful for the opportunity to grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. 14 years in local government. I was very involved in electoral administration within my area. And when it came to the Elections Act, which so much of what we're talking

17:27

Peter Lamb MP (Crawley, Labour)

- -

about today involves, really. I was appointed to chair the working Group of the Government Association going through it. It was a cross going through it. It was a cross party group. By the end of it, we came up with a consensus, viewpoints and very, very little of that bill that was thought to that bill that was thought to actually make much sense. Based on the evidence and the expert testimony we received. I won't insult the members opposite by insult the members opposite by saying that it was a nakedly political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit.

electoral system to their benefit. But if you were going to set up a naked political attempt to rig the electoral system to their benefit, it would have looked exactly like the Elections Act. The Personation was was the basis on which they were arguing the case at the time. Vanishingly rare that people actually turn up and try and pretend to be anyone else at a polling station. I'll deal with that more in just a second. But since the remarks of the shadow Secretary of State at the start of this debate, we knew that they would say something to try and excuse why widening the franchise or making it easier for people to register to vote was a bad idea.

But I wasn't expecting, frankly. I mean, it was a good thing we had sort of free hearing tests here just before recess, but I didn't need to because the dog whistle there was so loud coming across the chamber that it was apparent to all of us. And when reform eventually turned up to say something, it was the exact same talking points. And I have to say on this, you will not. The members opposite will not rebuild their party by just aping the Reform Party.

You know, we've had this and we do this with parties time and time again. It might play well within their own ranks, but it will not rebuild the country. And while I've never voted for the Conservative Party, I do know that there are many moderate conservatives out there who must feel a great deal of shame at what is happening to their parties today. Driving towards the right and away from common sense positions in our system, personation is vanishingly rare in our system. The reality is you need to know a seat was on an absolute knife edge to make it work at all.

You couldn't do it as a single person going around all the parking stations. You need hundreds of people to go around with you. The idea you could you could rig this in a way that wouldn't leak out, that you wouldn't run into someone in the process. You need decades of registers, which are only available to purchase for six months after an election. If you're going to do this, you're going to need so many people, so well organised a campaign, and even then you could just get unlucky in the process.

Personation, I can confidently say, has never changed any national seat ever elected and it's very unlikely it's affected a legacy otherwise. But what has caused a real problem in this, because this is not a real world problem Personation it's foreign interference in our political system. And we know that there are people who we may very soon be at war with, who are directly trying to intervene in our election. We know questionable money is a problem. And frankly, Russia was pretty happy to give the Conservatives money at one point.

We know that there are tens of thousands of people who, since the introduction of ID, have been turned away from polling stations. We know that millions of people are not registered. 1 in 7 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 enfranchising them when it comes to voter ID, you know, looking at the actual report of that, and I've got to say, people involved in drafting that bill didn't look at the actual evidence base around how many people had voter ID.

But if you look at the one study cited, they state in the study, it is not a reliable figure on how many people have ID. And even in that study, it was a much wider range of ID that they used than is currently permissible, widening the range of ID, as the government is proposing to do, is making it far more likely that everyone will be able to vote in an election. The possibility of automatic voter registration pilots will also re-enfranchise many of those who have been lost from this system in the course of it, and giving people confidence back in our system through electoral commission independence and greater controls over campaign finance.

And I should just say on campaign finance, people bring up the trade unions, the trade unions don't finance the Labour Party. The trade unions are part of the Labour Party. Their members are a part of our movement, and we are proud of the support that we received from the millions of people, ordinary people, who make up this system. And when it comes down to 16 and 17 year old voting, you know, frankly, so many of them when we go on school visits have such good questions.

I would say I think we get dangerously close in this debate sometimes to seem to argue there has to be a mental capacity test for voting. We do not test people in our system on the intellectual ability. The franchise is there because people who do not have a say do not get represented in terms of their needs and their issues, and that's why it's vital we do. We enfranchise 1617 year olds. This act gives people back. That was taken away from Elections Act. And my last few seconds, just briefly to say, council officers run so many elections, they do a fantastic job.

Too often they are given sorry, few more seconds. Too often they are not given the financial support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

things. Order. Lloyd Hatton thank you, Deputy Speaker. Now. As it has been mentioned already,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As it has been mentioned already, it is common knowledge that too many voters think that money talks many voters think that money talks louder than their ballot paper does, and that those with the deepest pockets have far too easy access to pockets have far too easy access to power. In short, increasingly, the British public do not trust their elected politicians or their elected politicians or their democratic institutions. If we truly are serious about rebuilding that trust, then we must tackle this problem head on.

That is why the Representation of the People Bill really does matter, as the Minister rightly noted, and 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 safeguard our democracy from interference and harm. Each of

17:33

Lloyd Hatton MP (South Dorset, Labour)

- -

these measures is essential. Madam Deputy Speaker. It will help to rebuild trust in our politics, and rebuild trust in our politics, and each of these measures sends an unambiguous message that this Labour government takes the health Labour government takes the health of our democracy far more seriously than its predecessor. Many of the than its predecessor. Many of the safeguards needed against democracy, against corruption, undue influence, dirty money and foreign interference are already built into this bill, and I welcome the changes that have been made already.

But as we explored in some considerable detail at the Bill committee, effectively defending our democracy requires addressing a number of remaining gaps. It is clear to me that closing these loopholes is fundamental, and building on those constructive conversations, I have tabled an amendment, New clause 61, which seeks to close one such loophole with the 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 in this place will recall that when the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth launched a new political party, Restore Britain, that there was no such checks in place prior to the launch. Restore Britain was, though, a political movement that may or may not have received substantial contributions from questionable sources before it was formally registered as a political party. This is, as things stand, entirely legitimate. Parties do not need to demonstrate that funds or assets accumulated before registration originate from permissible donors, and there is nothing, as it stands in this bill to prevent brand new political parties 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 origins of major political donations.

My amendment seeks to do just that, meaning that any new party would have to subject any funds. It holds over 250 zero zero £0 to post registration permissibility checks. Having already raised these proposals at the Bill committee, I know that Ministers are keen to ensure that there are no loopholes of this kind remaining in the Bill, so I hope that in winding up, the Minister will consider introducing some level of vetting on any significant funds that parties hold upon registration. This will help us to crack down on new parties accepting major donations, but not facing full and meaningful scrutiny.

As we look ahead, I certainly hope that the Minister will hear not only the enthusiastic support for this bill, but also the strength of feeling on all sides of the House that this bill must be ambitious enough to tackle the scale of the threat that 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. And this landmark bill, with the right changes, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our opportunity to do just that. Euan Stainbank. Our democracy is precious, but it faces significant precious, but it faces significant challenges. If we want to protect our system, it must change with the times. The 2024 general election, times. The 2024 general election, the turnout is still far too low, but turnout in the poorest areas below 50%, property ownership still below 50%, property ownership still dictating representation, with renters voting at a rate of 38% and owner occupiers at a rate of 71%, owner occupiers at a rate of 71%, the delta between younger and older voters is still too high.

Expanding participation in trust in politics is an issue of equality, but also of social, economic and generational fairness. I am proud of the efforts the government has shown in this bill to address this November, and those speaking today is under any illusion that trust in

17:37

Euan Stainbank MP (Falkirk, Labour)

- -

our political system and the bandwidth of our current system to enable that meaningful democratic enable that meaningful democratic participation, especially amongst those who need it the most, is limited. MPs being elected on increasingly fractured minority votes, and a parliament that sometimes is unrepresentative of the voting intentions of the the voting intentions of the country, repels 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 who we talk about stepping up to participate, seeing their vote reflected in this place.

When MPs and governments are enabled with a low share and turn out the vote, that means that there is an increasingly lower amount of people that see the ballot, meaning anything in this place, and if that is their first experience of the vote, they are far less likely to come back and vote again. Now, I believe that the government can come back with giving us a route that starts from the first principles of enabling our system to become fairer, more representative, and one that sustains public confidence in an independent national commission.

I know that this is something the government is not going to do today, but it's something that the government ought to do in the future so that the next Parliament is not starting from scratch on long overdue reform to our electoral system. NC 60 in the name of my hon. Friend from Glasgow West, which I added my signature to, signature two requires registration officers to accept postal proxy vote applications received after the deadline where there is proof of timely reporting. I think this is a meaningful effort and step to prevent people losing their vote over having made reasonable steps in order to submit it.

It is not reasonable to have voters lose their say in the election because of the potential and quite common unreliability of the postal system, and this would empower returning officers to count the votes of people who are making a good faith effort to do so. From the other side. Sadly, though, we see amendments that would conversely limit postal voting, such as reforms NC 108 to which would create serious issues and would have created serious issues, especially in Scotland. When the general election was called.

The last Tory Prime Minister called it for the first Thursday of the Scottish school holidays. Thousands of people under this amendment would have lost their vote and been made ineligible to vote, through no fault of their own if it had been updated in this manner. There have also been amendments in the last week's parliamentary effort to stop votes at 16 and 17 go through, and I have to thank the Conservative Party because their arguments have only compounded my belief that this is the right step for our party to make the amendments six and subsequent amendments to link voting to the age that you can buy alcohol.

In a way of getting around the government's manifesto commitment to this bill to extend the franchise is ludicrous. Perhaps members would have been persuaded to support the amendment if we allowed 16 and 17 year olds to vote, if they vote and then go to a licensed restaurant and go for a sit down meal accompanied by an adult. But this sadly seems to have been omitted by this amendment. If members serious concern is about where we draw the line at capacity, I will make the principal point that because we allow 16 year olds to vote, they should have their Democratic say in how the taxes that they contribute are spent and how the conditions of their labour are regulated.

And there is a far more rational place to tie that milestone than whether they would be able to have a pint at 8:00 whilst watching the Scottish Premiership this evening. I think the government's principled is right on this and I am glad to see it overcoming this milestone today. There's been a lot of references to vote rigging in the opposition towards this. I find that ludicrous, principally because when this was passed in Scotland it was passed with cross-party support, including from the Scottish Conservatives at the time, and because engagement has been increased ever since, this has been brought out from 16 and 17 year olds.

I cast my first vote at age 16 in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. I wasn't grateful to the government of the day that I went out enthusiastically and voted SNP. I. A ludicrous proposal considering how much time I spend in this place and having my career opposing many of the measures, it was because it was the right thing to do and it was recognised by the Scottish Parliament, and I am glad that we have that cross-party consensus today that even if it's a majority and not unanimity, we are in 16 is going to bring over the line conservative and reform amendments, sadly, that we have heard about today have been about restricting political participation comparatively from colleagues.

What we've heard is about expanding political participation. I think the government would go further by setting up a national commission. But look at this as the first stage of a political reform agenda.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speaker. A political. System. Even one. With regular elections, is not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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 decisions in a way that ordinary citizens will never enjoy, and this is something that new clause 25 in my name seeks to address. The my name seeks to address. The British people will never be able to trust that we are genuinely representing their interests. If those with deep pockets can wield disproportionate political power, and unless we use this bill to drain the influence of money from our politics, that doubt will continue to rot away at the

17:42

Chris Hinchliff MP (North East Hertfordshire, Labour)

- -

17:51

Lizzi Collinge MP (Morecambe and Lunesdale, Labour)

- -

Spain and I was in a minority because I actually spoke Spanish. Now, some Brits are eligible to Now, some Brits are eligible to vote in local elections in Spain, and yes, they absolutely should be able to speak Spanish. But I know able to speak Spanish. But I know from experience the difference of being able to understand a language and actually understand the and actually understand the political nuances, the history, some of the code that's used in political text is different. We political text is different.

We want to expand participation in our democracy. And so I think it's perfectly fine to have leaflets in different languages. And I'd just like to note that only 0.3% of people in Britain don't speak English. It's a tiny, tiny minority of people who don't speak English. And I think, unfortunately, yet again, this place is being used to whip up culture wars that have no basis. In reality. Thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mention. This because. All of the members. In the chamber are so highly experienced. But when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experienced. But when. Mentioning another honourable. Member in the chamber, the etiquette is to give them prior etiquette is to give them prior warning so they have an opportunity to come in and offer a rebuttal in real time. Now, I'm looking for Luke Akehurst. Well, he's not there, so he's missed his turn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

so he's missed his turn. David Burton-Sampson you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'm extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate because ultimately, at the end of the day, nothing matters more than protecting our democracy. It's the bedrock bedrock of our society, and we've got to defend it at all costs. And in that spirit, I'm delighted

17:52

David Burton-Sampson MP (Southend West and Leigh, Labour)

- -

to welcome the new Minister to her place. I know she's going to do a place. I know she's going to do a fantastic job. Madam Deputy Speaker, we need to show that intimidation has no part to play in our public life. This bill makes provision to ensure that not only candidates, campaigners and elected official campaigners and elected official office holders are given protection, but electoral staff too. I'm sure but electoral staff too. I'm sure many of and many of us in this place can point to times when we've been intimidated whilst out campaigning.

Civil and robust debate is important, but it's very different to intimidatory behaviour. We require changes in order to keep pace with the changing world we live in today, and the increasingly digital life we experience. So I note the new clause 41 to new clause 47, proposed by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central, to prevent online harms. Harassment online 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.

It 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 source the spirit of these new clauses are spot on, and I'm pleased that the government are taking these issues seriously through the works on the Online Safety Act and through the Defending Democracy Task Force. I'm also pleased to see that the government are establishing an AI labelling task force, and I hope they'll continue this work as this bill passes through the other place to tighten up further on this area for the very preservation of public life itself, proposals to mitigate these risks, both online and offline, are absolutely key, and we know this only too well in Southend West and Leigh, and our thoughts remain with the families of Sir David Amess, Jo Cox and Ann Widdecombe.

The question of cleaning up political donations to is vital. One critically important clean up is that we've heard it today is with cryptocurrency, and I've spoken in this House many times about my interest in financial regulation, and I harbour concerns about crypto world. As it stands today, rules around this sector need to be watertight before it would be safe to allow contributions to political parties from crypto assets. 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 this moving.

But for now, the anonymity that currently presents itself through the current set up is simply not acceptable within the political donations world, as it creates a risk of a significant reduction in transparency. So I believe measures in this bill to ensure the reliability of such donations are of paramount importance to safeguarding our democracy. To conclude, madam, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to confirm that, unlike others, I support bringing forward rules to update voting for 16 year olds so that they can have the opportunity.

After all 16 year olds can join the armed forces, they can pay taxes, or they have to pay taxes if they're working. And ultimately, they are the ones who'll be most exposed to good or bad decisions made by governments of the future. For the longest period of time, we've got to start crediting our young people with the ability to make up their own minds. I've met some incredible young people, both through work experience in my office and through my youth days and visits to schools.

And I've got to say, 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 these children best, were overwhelmingly positive about the move. The Bill will take us forward into a new age, when 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. These changes that we need to make to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protect our democracy for years to come are vital. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Neil Duncan-Jordan

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Neil Duncan-Jordan thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, what's clear. From this debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that the public have lost trust in politics and. The political. Process, and part of that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Process, and part of that is linked to the way in which they see money having an undue influence on money having 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.

17:57

Neil Duncan-Jordan MP (Poole, Labour)

- -

But by 2024, that figure had risen to over a third. We have seen the to over a third. We have seen the obscene amounts of money that some MPs have made doing second or even MPs have made doing second or even third and fourth jobs, whilst they are supposed to be representing are supposed to be representing their constituents equally. We know that businesses that donate to political parties are often in line political parties are often in line for government contracts. In return, this has got to stop because if it doesn't, more than half, 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. Now, New clause 26 in my name would begin to address these 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.

Now, the government is quite rightly starting to claim some of the Covid contracts back, but it would also benefit from distancing itself 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.

It must go hand in hand with redistributing power on the basis of wealth. A recent Oxfam report found 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's why I'm supporting amendments today to limit donations from harmful lobbying interests and place stronger caps on what wealthy individuals and private companies can give. We can't have money from overseas coming into our politics, and we can't have cryptocurrencies that are untraceable, flooding Westminster.

We know where that will lead. Now, associating with these super rich donors, however many suits they buy or receptions they sponsor. In the end only causes harm to the political parties they support. And we should be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, how many of our constituents could even dream of donating hundreds of thousands of pounds to a political party? Any cap needs to be much more realistic, in my view, and not still pander to those who are well connected and use their money to gain advantage.

Let's start to recognise that our democracy will only flourish when we start to redistribute not only wealth, but the power that goes alongside it. The Prime Minister has spoken about rewiring Britain. We all want to see better outcomes for our constituents, but to build a better country we need a better politics

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as well. Sam Rushworth thank you, speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sam Rushworth thank you, speaker. It's been a privilege to be on the bill committee for this bill. It's my first time. And and also my first time. And and also congratulate the new Minister and welcome her to her place. I think it's a long overdue promotion. I enjoyed the Bill committee, and I enjoyed the spirit in which we debated. I felt that there were debated. I felt that there were many occasions where amendments were being proposed by opposition parties that I thought were were sincere and done with, with good intentions.

And more than one occasion, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Chester, had to sort of take me to one side and patiently explain to me why the government position was that we couldn't do something that I felt seemed like a reasonable request. And so I think that there are some complex issues here as well. But I was listening with interest to the

18:02

Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

- -

Member for Hayes and Harlington earlier, who talked about perhaps the need, a need for a second phase the need, a need for a second phase to this. And there have been many members contributions today from people who are more expert than me in various fields, where I think in various fields, where I think there's a real sense of concern at the point that we we're at as a democracy. And I've listened to all democracy. And I've listened to all of those people with interest.

I wanted to just take a couple of wanted to just take a couple of minutes to continue my my debate with the hon. Member for Tatton, who's no longer in her place, but respond to some of the comments that she made with regards to her amendments. And this is broadly she she seems to be of the opinion that contributing a a single vote towards electing a representative for a 4 to 5 year period should be done at exactly the same age that people choose who should be their marriage partner until death.

They do part. I want to express why. I don't think that that's correct. We can play a quick game of of higher or lower compulsory school ages five. The age of criminal responsibility is ten. 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. You can 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. You can gamble by buying a lottery ticket. You could enter a housing contract. You could leave home. You could apply for legal aid and be assessed on your own means. You could consent to surgical and dental treatment. You can buy premium bonds.

You can become a pet owner, you can consent to sexual activity, and you get your National Insurance number. You have to be 17. However, to donate blood 18 you can be deployed in the armed forces. You can act as the executor of a will. You can buy fireworks and explosives, you can buy firearms, and you have to be 21. However, to adopt or to supervise a learner driver. And the point that I'm making is that the transition from childhood to adulthood is not flicking a switch.

It is a process. And the question that we're 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 about and contributing one of many, many thousands of votes in an election for who represents them? And speaking as someone who's raised three children now to the age of 16, but also someone whose career has been with children and youth, I believe that 16 is the right age. I believe that for a number of reasons.

In particular, I feel that the evidence is strong, that getting young people at that age engaged in the democratic process means that it sticks with them throughout the rest of their life. But there's another reason, too, and we've heard talk here of this being vote rigging. Now I have to wonder what it is about so many members opposite that makes them automatically assume that a 16 year old won't vote for them. They have an equal opportunity in every party in this place, has an equal opportunity to appeal to that young person for their vote.

But when they don't, when they don't have a vote, they can be ignored. And we only have to look at the conservative record cutting child trust funds, closing down surestart centres, cutting primary school budgets, cutting the educational maintenance allowance, cutting school transport, closing career 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's important that we give that generation a say in their future. And she did make that commitment in Wilmslow High School nine years ago, and I'm disappointed that she'll be going back on it today.

And and if I may just take my last 17 seconds to say that I strongly endorse the comments from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central, we need to look at this issue of deep fakes as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well, and protect our democracy, because we're all subject to it. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker and I'd like to add my congratulations to the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. It's Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. It's great to see her on the frontbench. I really welcome the representation I really welcome the representation of the people. Bill. We can go back in history and look at some amazing in history and look at some amazing enfranchisement that happened with the representation of the people bills of 1918 and 1928, when suffrage was extended to women and those with no property.

And I love when Madam Deputy Speaker, when I have visitors here, taking them and showing them the stained glass windows, where here in this place we celebrate giving more people the vote. And I hope that when this bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we too can celebrate the enfranchisement of those 16 to 18. And I'm really proud that this

18:07

Anna Dixon MP (Shipley, Labour)

- -

Labour government is extending the vote not only to them, but also vote not only to them, but also through the great measures around reversing the conservative measures reversing the conservative measures which disenfranchise people about voter ID, and also going further with automatic voter registration. with automatic voter registration. These are all really great strides forward in enabling more people to vote. There are lots of other provisions in the bill which I hugely support, which ensure that our elections are free and fair.

But Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak specifically to the clause in my name and new clause 81. One part of a free and fair democracy is that it is essential that candidates and elected officials feel safe. So my amendment 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, it's a default option for a candidate's home address to be published, and clearly in the increasingly hostile and toxic political climate that we operate in.

This is a cause for concern and I believe has a chilling effect on our democracy. I'd like to echo the Member for Southend Western Lee, in remembering our dear colleagues Jo Cox, David Amos, who obviously were both tragically murdered. And of course, we think of the family of Ann Widdecombe as her horrific murder continues to be investigated. It's 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. So 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 as a disadvantage to other candidates. By creating the impression that you don't want to be open and transparent. If this 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. So I thank the Member for Chester for her early engagement, and I look forward 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 make sure that we can put in safeguards and protections for candidates, their families and indeed others, like agents who support them.

So while I'm obviously not going to push my amendment to a vote today, I do hope that we can take measures to protect all those who put themselves forward for elected office at all levels. And I would just like to add my thanks to my hon. Friend who's no longer in his place, the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley, for his leadership of the APPG for fair elections, of which I am a member and I thank others, have commented just how unfair and unrepresentative and unsustainable our electoral system is at the moment, and so I do hope, in summing up and in her wind up comments, even though we are not considering it, that the Minister will give assurances about the steps the government might take to further protect our democracy and ensure that every vote counts by looking at further measures in the future for electoral reform, it is vital that we protect our democracy against foreign interests and others who wish to undermine our democracy, and I hope the Minister Responsible Tax, I've had the pleasure of working with colleagues from across the House on this bill seeking to drive foreign interference, dirty money and undue influence out of our democracy.

To that end, there are a number of amendments I want to wholeheartedly endorse in the brief amount of time I have. Those include new clause 34 from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North on Cryptocurrency amendments 31 to 34 from the Member for Leeds West, South West and Maldon. Strengthening Know your donor requirements. New clause 61 from the Member for South Dorset on closing the political party start up funding loophole. New clause 70

18:12

Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)

- -

from the formidable hon. Member for Oxford East on reducing campaign spending limits and new clauses 93, spending limits and new clauses 93, 94 and 95 from the Member for Warwick and Leamington on foreign sourced donations and loans and new clause 86 from the Member for Islington South on overseas donations, and I hope the Minister will respond to each of those amendments substantively in her amendments substantively in her windup. But I want to focus on my remarks on two amendments in my name on the Order Paper, namely New Clause 121 and amendment 151.

Both are ultimately about one deliverable I know the government wants to achieve, namely, restoring trust in politics as a force for good. First New clause 121. I welcome the government's move over the weekend to expedite its existing ask of the Electoral Commission to review campaign spending limits. But if the Electoral Commission concludes that spending limits should come down, we need to ensure that that decision is future proof. That is what my new clause 121 would secure. Critically, it would ensure that spending limits are set according to three key tests one the fairness of elections, two, the impact on the political parties, and three, public confidence in electoral integrity.

It would also ensure that future increases could only take place 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 Sunak government by 80%. The result was that the 2024 general election became the most expensive in British history, with parties spending £94 million between them. A 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, my amendment 151. I welcome the government's decision in July to move to a profit based cap on corporate donations.

It's a clear improvement on the previous proposals, which would have tied the cap to revenue and one which the APPG chair had been calling for for months. However, two significant loopholes remain. My amendment 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.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we have all seen growing concern about offshore wealth, murky financial funding networks and increasingly, cryptocurrency billionaires seeking political influence. Reform UK's reliance on support from offshore crypto figures has brought these questions, quite rightly, firmly into the public eye. That is a problem for all of us, regardless as to which political party or tradition we belong to. The public deserve confidence that political influence in this country cannot be bought, whether through shell companies, foreign money, cryptocurrencies or corporate loopholes.

That is why we must close the gaps that remain. Strengthen transparency and ensure that our democracy serves voters

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than vested interests. Hear hear. Hear. Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to my amendments to rise to speak to my amendments to clause 58 and clause 59 and our Deputy Speaker. For far too long, survivors of domestic abuse have been locked out of our politics, from the risks to physical safety to the threat of further exposure to the threat of further exposure to post-separation harassment and, of course, the serious toll on mental and emotional wellbeing. As mental and emotional wellbeing.

As I know too well from my own horrific experiences when my ex-husband stood against me. But I know that my experiences are not unique and there are others that have suffered. And in fact, many people who are survivors of domestic abuse cannot actually make the decision to run and stand for office because of the associated risks. New clause 58 and new clause 59 would resolve one of these issues at play by extending to survivors of domestic abuse the protections that are afforded to the victim, to the victims of other offences by enhancing disqualification orders under the Elections Act so that domestic abuse offences are adequately covered.

I am proud to say that so many leading women's rights and work 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'm very grateful for this support. The chief executive of the Electoral Commission wrote to me recently, agreeing that these amendments would, and I, quote, help strengthen candidate protection and enforcement against perpetrators.

So I'm asking members today to support C 58 and 59 and call upon the government to adopt these changes. I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement over the past few weeks on my amendments and for meeting with me, but I hope that in the closing remarks that she makes today, she may be able to confirm what the government will consider looking at secondary legislation as a mechanism of updating schedule nine of the Elections Act, looking at how they can be protections for survivors of domestic abuse, including a greater

18:18

number of relevant offences being included so that survivors can confidently and safely stand in confidently and safely stand in elections. Because our democracy cannot be said to be represented. cannot be said to be represented. Representative Madam Deputy Speaker, If we tolerate the structural barriers which block out survivors, barriers which block out survivors, and because every survivor of domestic abuse should have the same right as anyone else to stand for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right as anyone else to stand for office. Thank you. Rivera again. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend and neighbour to her place. I know she'll make a fantastic Minister now, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to start by talking about what the risks we are seeing to our democracy, and that is the emergence of AI, the use of crypto to fund parties alongside an expanding electorate and a move away from the traditional two party system.

So it's vitally important that this bill introduces a much needed refresh. But 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. That's the lowest turnout since 2001, and the picture is far worse in local and by elections. The Clacton by election, for example, saw a mere 44% turnout, although there may have been some other reasons for that. But even with this low turnout, it really is indicative of a worrisome lack of engagement in the most integral act of political participation.

And that's why I've tabled a new clause 57 requiring the government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general and local elections in England within 12 months of this Bill passing. Since the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia in 1924, they've seen consistently a minimum turnout of 90%, with only a minimum fine for non-participation. There are, of course, legitimate reasons why some cannot vote, and this amendment recognises that while also protecting the right to spoil one's ballot paper or return a blank one.

Coupled with the provision, New Clause 57 would introduce a programme of civic education, and that's important. Research from the Ippr shows that fewer than 42% of teachers in England report that their school provides regular citizenship

18:20

Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP (Clapham and Brixton Hill, Labour)

- -

lessons. And as the incredibly bright young people who participated in my activism academy this summer told me, it's not just young people who need political education through no fault of their own. Many adults also do not own. Many adults also do not understand the basics of our political system. Knowledge is power, and that is why NC 57 calls power, and that is why NC 57 calls for the production of learning materials for adults too. Now, materials for adults too. Now, alongside this new clause 57, I support a number of other new clauses that would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with the right to remain in the UK.

I've also supported amendments which address the Wild West of UK. Political donation regulations. Our democracy is seriously at risk of being by those who only have their own interests at heart. I'm also extremely proud to support my hon. Friend who has just spoken, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, with new clause 58 and 59 to protect survivors of domestic abuse in public life. Now, I don't understand why it is a question that we would even support new clauses such as this, and I don't understand why we wouldn't support them right now and today.

Finally, although the bill doesn't cover the issue of constituency boundaries, I would really like to see a review of how these are set. We represent a constituent, regardless of their right to vote. And when I think about the numbers in terms of the electorate that actually go on, on, on to vote, that means less and less people are involved in our political decisions. But not just that our boundaries being drawn on the electorate and not residents means that inner city constituencies like mine, with the highest level of residents relative to electorate, face disproportionately higher levels of casework and representing far more people.

So I hope the Minister will consider this when enacting part two of the bill. Now, bills of this nature do not come around. Often they offer a generational chance to refresh our democracy, and I hope the government will recognise the benefits that these amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would bring. Thank you. Sojan Joseph thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a real Deputy Speaker. It's a real pleasure to see this bill back on the floor of the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for tribute to my hon. Friend for Chester North and Neston, which came back in the chamber for the work she did on the bill until now. work she did on the bill until now. It was a pleasure to serve with her in the Committee stage, and I congratulate my hon.

Friend for congratulate my hon. Friend for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green on her appointment, as well as was acknowledged during the Bill Second Reading debate, there were significant concerns about the potential for donations made in cryptocurrency to undermine the integrity of our politics. This concerns was raised by many members in the Bill committee from this side as well, and we were reassured that there will be amendments brought in at the Committee stage. It's not, at least because it can be difficult to determine the true source of these funds.

During the bill's earlier stages, the government committed to incorporating the findings of Sir Philip Rycroft Review and ensuring that its recommendations were reflected in the legislation. I welcome the fact that Ministers took the time to do this, so that we now have a government new clause

18:24

Sojan Joseph MP (Ashford, Labour)

- -

72 before us. This new clause would prohibit UK registered political parties from accepting donations made in crypto assets. Any donation made wholly or partially in crypto made wholly or partially in crypto assets would automatically be treated as coming from an impermissible donor and could impermissible donor and could therefore not be accepted. What the government is proposing is that parties to take reasonable steps to parties to take reasonable steps to identify anyone attempting to make a crypto donation, and where such donations are received to return them to, or otherwise dispose them in accordance with the existing government.

The rules governing prohibition prohibited donations. It also introduces a statutory definition of crypto asset, and give the Secretary of State the power to update the definition through regulations. This is sensible and proportionate measure since the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act was passed at the start of this 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.

However, after listening to many of our colleagues today, I think the concerns are still not still there. So hopefully the Minister will address some of the concerns raised to to close all those loopholes that has been raised today. There are another amendment I would like to address in this group is a government new clause 116. This amendment would introduce an annual cap on 100 zero zero £0 in political donations and certain regulated transactions from overseas contributors. The cap would apply to individuals registered as overseas electors and to certain individuals who are on the UK electoral register, but have spent time living outside the United Kingdom.

It is, of course, welcome that since 2022, British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years have once again been entitled to vote in UK elections. However, as our as. As Philip Rycroft noted in this review 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. And we heard numerous concerns today in this debate as well, and I hope the Ministers will relook into those concerns and address some of those loopholes as well.

Thank you. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I call Mark Seward, but we I will extend the speaking limit because we've gathered some time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because we've gathered some time. So Mark Stewart and you now have six minutes. Thank you very much to speak. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I know many of my colleagues are keen to get in, so I'll try and keep it under five minutes. Yeah. keep it under five minutes. Yeah. And I'm going to speak very specifically about my amendments.

18:27

Mark Sewards MP (Leeds South West and Morley, Labour)

- -

specifically about my amendments. 31 and 34. Yeah, yeah. When the government brought forward this legislation, I was so pleased that they referenced enhance Know your donor checks because all political parties, before accepting donations from anyone, should know who those people are and where that money is coming from. And we do know that malign state actors are seeking to influence our politics. We know this, and they're often trying to do it through wealthy individuals who have the means to try and distort things here in the UK.

So I was pleased with the government's announcement on Know your donor checks. However, looking at the original bill as drafted, I didn't think it was strong enough and with the support of my hon. Friend, the Member for Bolton West was able to draft some amendments which I think will greatly strengthen the Know your donor checks. So, for example, on amendment 31, this states that parties must consider things like the location or the 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 as delighted when, a few months ago, the government. In a statement to this House at that Dispatch Box in response to the Rycroft Review said that location would be incorporated within the Know your donor checks. However, it is the second day back. I've had two select committees, some work on funeral regulation. I've looked through this and I haven't, other than in my amendment, been able to find that in any of the government's amendments. So I'd appreciate the Minister's comments on that and whether the government is still committed to ensuring that location is something that political parties have to check before accepting a donation.

I'd also like to ask the Minister about those other two areas as well. Why did the government not consider it was necessary to also include politically exposed people, or the source of the wealth being donated from. I ask this because recommendation five of the Rycroft Review said that Know your donor role should. And I'm quoting here 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.

So I think it's only reasonable and fair that a political party accepting millions of pounds in donations should also have to answer these questions. And I would just say to the government, if they have fully accepted the Rycroft review and yet have not incorporated these two recommendations, I would suggest that there might be a contradiction here that I would like the Minister to acknowledge, and it is just worth saying as well, the things that I'm stating today in amendment 31 are not radical.

They are not new, the Electoral Commission said as far back in 2018 that these kind of changes could prevent foreign money being used to influence UK politics. The Committee on Standards and Public in Public Life also said in 2021 that the that the introduction of these measures would be useful and that they should again rely on the money laundering regulations as the model that we should follow. And so I would just be very interested in the Minister's comments as to why those additional two things were not incorporated into the bill.

And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, just on amendment 34 and as the bill stands, the Secretary of State can rewrite these risk factors by regulation. So that means that whoever stands at that Dispatch Box in two, five, ten, 20, 30 years time will have the power to undo any of the progress made in this area without due consideration for anything else. So my amendment here simply says that those factors, those risk factors, can only be changed to give effect to a recommendation from the Independent Electoral Commission.

They should be the arbiters of what is a risk factor and what is not. Now, the government were absolutely right to withdraw the strategy and policy statement and also strengthen the Electoral Commission's independence. Absolutely support that. Well, amendment 34, my amendment follows that principle. Exactly. So I'd be keen to hear the Minister's thoughts on that, too. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, it's so important that we recognise the threat posed by these malign state actors, by these individuals who want to disrupt our politics, and we should do everything we can to erect walls, to erect safety barriers, to ensure that these individuals do not disrupt our politics for the long term.

Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. Yeah. Of course. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members whose excellent amendments I put my name to. There's dozens of them. I couldn't list them But they included electoral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But they included electoral reform, capping, political donations, crypto and preventing domestic abusers from standing for election. But today I'm speaking in support of my amendment. New support of my amendment. New clauses 32 and 33 requiring candidates in parliamentary elections and local government elections in England and Wales to 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 believe Britain's system of government needed significant improvement, and this long running

18:32

Cat Eccles MP (Stourbridge, Labour)

- -

survey, conducted since 1986, shows a marked decline in confidence in our political institutions over recent decades. And the reasons for that decline are complex. But that decline are complex. But repeated cases of misconduct by elected representatives have undoubtedly played a part. In undoubtedly played a part. In recent years, Parliament has seen a series of high profile cases 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.

And 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 and 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 being 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, and it is therefore reasonable to ask why those seeking elected office should be exempt from the equivalent requirement. But 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, and it sends a clear message to those seeking elected office that they should meet the same basic expectations that we apply on every day.

Workers and as elected representatives, we regularly interact with constituents, volunteers, parliamentary and political staff, members of the public. We visit schools, youth groups, hospitals, care settings, community organisations and in many cases we are coming into contact with children, young people, vulnerable adults and in any other role involving that level of contact. A DBS check would be regarded as the basic and proportionate requirement, and since becoming an MP, I've had schools ask me if I have DBS when I visited, and they have been very surprised to learn that we are not required to have one.

These amendments are not about restricting democracy. They're about strengthening confidence within it. They're about safeguarding the public and improving standards in public life, and helping to rebuild trust in our public and democratic institutions. My amendment would require candidates to hold a DBS prior to submitting their application to the returning officer, therefore, not placing any financial burden on government or councils. I would urge the government to consider these proposals seriously. And could the Minister set out what further steps the government intends to take to strengthen safeguarding, improving standards of public life and restoring public trust and confidence in elected representatives? Thank you.

Julie Minns thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston for for Chester North and Neston for all her work on this bill and also welcome the Minister to her place today here in the chamber. I wish today here in the chamber. I wish to speak very briefly to new Clause 48, which stands in my name. And can I thank the many members from can I thank the many members from across the House who have supported this amendment and the rniB for their assistance and support in their assistance and support in drafting it.

The bill before us takes a significant step to strengthen and protect our democracy and extend the franchise, but we must also recognise that one group of voters remains 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 Poles Apart campaign. Poles apart shone a light on the physical barriers disabled people face when exercising their right to vote, and it went on to secure changes in the law to remove secure changes in the law to remove many of those barriers.

But nearly three decades on, blind and partially sighted people still cannot reliably vote independently and in secret.

18:37

Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)

- -

On that point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank my friend for the work that she has been doing on this bill, but particularly on this bill, but particularly on trying to level the playing field to ensure that every member and to ensure that every member and every person has the ability to vote independently and in secret. And she rightly highlights that one And she rightly highlights that one group that includes myself, are unable to vote independently and in secret because we're unable to secret because we're unable to actually see clearly our ballot paper.

Does she agree with me that it's time for everyone to work together to ensure that we level the playing field and ensure that every person has the right, the ability and the right to exercise,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to vote independently and in secret? Thank you. And I thank my hon. Friend for for her contribution. She is absolutely right. This right was first enshrined by this was first enshrined by this Parliament. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said earlier in Southampton, Itchen said earlier in the debate in 1872, over 150 years later. Blind and partially sighted later. Blind and partially sighted people are still being denied that right. And it's time it was brought to an end.

People like my constituent John, who at the last general election, when he arrived at his polling station with his guide dog, found that there was no usable tactile device at the polling station. So 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. But 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 that 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 very grateful to the Minister for engaging constructively with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea regarding this amendment 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

secret. I thank the hon. Member and very much support her work to make sure that voting is accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Does and visually impaired people. Does she also agree with me that there are other groups, such as those with learning disability, who also with learning disability, who also face barriers in participating in elections, and that there should be further work in future to make sure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further work in future to make sure everybody has that ability for a free vote. I absolutely agree, and again, going back to my work in the 1997 election, I know that Mencap have looked extensively at this issue in the past in terms of accessible information for people with learning disabilities. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask that the Minister, in her concluding remarks, places on record the government's commitment to dealing with this issue once and for all when it moves to the other place, and 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.

18:41

Sean Woodcock MP (Banbury, Labour)

- -

Hear, hear. system have been steadily eroded. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow and Oxford East provided some statistics on public opinion, but I'll provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only 1 in 8 believe that we put the national

18:41

Ms Julie Minns MP (Carlisle, Labour)

- -

interest above party advantage. Now that level of disillusionment did

18:41

Sean Woodcock MP (Banbury, Labour)

- -

18:51

Florence Eshalomi MP, Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, Labour )

- -

19:05

Legislation: Representation of People Bill: Report:New Clause 65

19:18

Legislation: Representation of People Bill: Report:New Clause 65:Division.

>> >> Order. >> Order. Order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. Order! The ayes to the right 166. The nose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The nose.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the left 346. The ayes to the right. 166. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 166. The noes to the left. 346. The noes have it. the nose. Have it unlock. New clause 67 has been selected for separate decision. I call the opposition spokesperson to move new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 67 formally. I beg to move. The question is that new clause 67 be added to the Bill, as may

**** Possible New Speaker ****

67 be added to the Bill, as may that opinion say I. I know.

19:19

Legislation: Representation of People Bill: Report:New Clause 67:Division.

Colleague should be seated or out of the chamber. The question is, as on the Order Paper, as made up in, say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I II. Of the contrary, no. no. Tellers for the ayes I David Reed and Gregory Stafford Tellers Reed and Gregory Stafford Tellers for the noes Emma Foody and Jade Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 105. The noes to the left. 410.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 410. The ayes to the right. 105. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 105. The Noes to the left 410 to The noes Noes to the left 410 to The noes have it. the nose. New clause 88 has been selected for separate decision. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to move new clause 88 formally move formally. The question is that new clause 88 to be added to the bill is made that bill and say I, is the

19:35

Legislation: Representation of People Bill: Report:New Clause 88:Division

Colleagues, Colleagues, nothing Colleagues, nothing has. Colleagues, nothing has. Mr. Whittingdale, when you're ready in your own time. Sir Iain Duncan Smith, you should definitely know better. The question is as on the Order Paper Midlothian say, I of the contrary, no. no tellers for the ayes. I Will Forster and Bobby Dean and Tellers for the noes. Emma Order, order!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right. 85 the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noes to the left 427. Make it look like.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Make it look like. The eyes for I 85 the noes to the left 427. For the noes have it the left 427. For the noes have it the nose. Have it unlock. New clause 120 has been selected for separate decision. I call Stella Creasy to move new clause 120. Formally not moved. Not moved. We now come to government amendments 138 to 141, 63 to 68, 142, 69 to 84, 28, 86 to 99, 143 to 145, 100 and 146.

I call the Minister to move the amendments formally. The question is that government amendments 138 to 141, 63 to 68, 142, 69 to 84, 28, 86 to 99, one four 3 to 1, four, five, 101 four six be made of many of that opinion, say aye. Of the country. No. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government. New schedule one, two, 5 to 8. I call the Minister to move new schedules formally. The question is that new schedules one, two and 5 to 8 be added to the bill as made that business I come to no.

The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendments one four, 7 to 150 and 101 to 231. I call the Minister to move amendments formally. The question is that government amendments one, four, 7 to 150 and 101 231 be made as many of that opinion say aye. Of the contrary, no. the ayes have it,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the ayes have it. Consideration completed. Third Reading. Now. Minister to move Third Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to move Third Reading. I call the Secretary of State. Just be mindful. This whole business has be mindful. This whole business has to conclude at 803. And the shadow frontbench may wish to speak as well. I call the Secretary of State to.

19:52

to. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I beg to move that the bill now be read a third time. This bill read a third time. This bill strengthens our elections and takes a stand against hostile actors at home and abroad who seek to threaten them. It extends the

19:52

Rt Hon Angela Rayner MP, The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Ashton-under-Lyne, Labour)

- -

franchise to 16 and 17 year olds and automates voter registration. It protects candidates and officers 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, for Modern and Secure Elections, which I published as Secretary of State in July 2025. It also now delivers a much of the Rycroft review into foreign interference. It meets our manifesto commitments and sets the foundations for a new model of politics, which is both stronger and fairer.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to reassure the House and hon. Members during the bill's passage. We have committed to returning to various issues in the other place, and I look forward to a Strangford bill returning. I want to briefly pay tribute to my hon. Friends and members for Chester North and Neston Stretham and Croydon North and Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, who have carried this bill through the House, and the Member for Bethnal Green and Shipley, who delivered much of the policy which led to the bill.

I also want to thank those members across the House who have contributed to the debates in this bill and in particular, the opposition benches and those who took part in the Bill Committee. And Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. As he said at the committee, this bill is truly groundbreaking legislation, and I most certainly agree with him as well. And finally, I'd like to thank my team in the private office, all of 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.

This 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. These 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. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

19:54

Katie Lam MP (Weald of Kent, Conservative)

- -

The question is the bill be now >> The question is the bill be now read a third time, and I call the shadow Secretary of State, Katie Lam AEA.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to begin by welcoming back the right hon. Lady to her place. I very much look to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her as members on this side of the House have set out so well throughout the passage of this 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 at Report stage to see 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 and their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to be able to cast their ballots.

As I said in my remarks in Report stage, when we make changes to the way that 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, meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices which 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.

This bill fails those tests. Those of us on this side of the House 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. These 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.

Yes.

19:57

Lisa Smart MP (Hazel Grove, Liberal Democrat)

- -

As a Liberal Democrat spokesperson. Lisa Smart. spokesperson. Lisa Smart. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's been a privilege to be part of this process and listen to the impassioned contributions from impassioned contributions from members across the House, from Second Reading through to bill committee and Report stage. The contents of this legislation have contents of this legislation have been a long time coming, and I have 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, those who do the work on the ground are returning officers and those who deliver democracy on often shoestring budgets rarely get the praise they deserve, so that we can sit here and we should be strengthening what they do and how they do it. We owe them the resources to do what's needed. The Liberal Democrats will support this bill tonight, and we will do so because it extends the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, something we have argued for over many, many years, and I would be delighted to vote for this evening.

We will also support this bill because without it, corrupt practices will only entrench further. The Know your donor regime is not perfect, but it is a step we welcome and we will not obstruct it. We do not stand in the way of progress. This bill will make it easier for people to register, safer for people to stand, and harder for the wrong money to stain our politics. These are good things and we will have a long lasting effect. I really look forward to the discussions with Ministers that were promised on further work they're doing on donation and spending limits.

They outlined them earlier, but 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 this House has been supported to deliver. I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeing how our noble friends in the other place can make it even stronger. And the question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the question is that the bill be now read a third time. As many in that opinion say, I. I no.

19:59

Legislation: Representation of People Bill: Third Reading:Division

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On On a On a bench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On a bench. The On a bench. The question On a bench. The question is, On a bench. The question is, as on the Order Paper. Many of that on the Order Paper. Many of that people say, I of the contrary, no. know I Emma Foody and Jade Botterill Tellers for the noes I Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The ayes to the right 411. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noes to the left. 102. The eyes the right. 411 and the noes to the left. 102. So the ayes noes to the left. 102. So the ayes have it. The ayes have it. Unlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. The ayes have it. Unlock. A point of order. Hannah Spencer. In her opening. Remarks on the Report stage 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, I am sure, very inadvertently repeated misinformation about family voting in the Gorton and Denton byelection, despite the fact this was run within the law and saw me elected with an overwhelming majority, and that Greater Manchester Police that Greater Manchester Police found no evidence of criminality.

So I want to ask what steps can be taken to ensure that that record is taken to ensure that that record is properly corrected.

20:13

Points of Order Hannah Spencer MP (Gorton and Denton, Green Party)

- -

I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Fortunately, or fortunately for the chair, I am not responsible for the content of members or Secretary of State or Secretary of State's content of their speeches, but it's up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. I do notice that the Shadow Secretary may wish to respond that she's in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a very quick response will suffice. No, I can't understand Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No, I can't understand Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you. It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by election, which returned the hon. Member to the House. It is up to every member 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. I do not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dismiss it. I do not. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but both points have indeed been put on the record and we'll leave it there. If the front benches wish to shuffle over, I will continue with the remaining business of the day.

20:15

Remaining Orders of the Day

20:19

luggage to carry for older people and for those with mobility issues, further declares that too many people are forced to rely on a taxi, which is often more expensive and is at the mercy of the M6. The A500 and the A34 further declares that a direct connection between Stoke on Trent railway station and Manchester Airport would be good for inward investment to our communities, including for jobs for local people, and further declares that a direct train connection will also help to ensure that Keele University and all the excellent businesses based at Keele Business Park are able to remain competitive with their rivals in other parts of our United Kingdom, and further notes the decision of August 2026 to confirm the roll out of such a connection.

The petitioners, therefore request the House of Commons urges the government, the relevant trading companies and the relevant local authorities to successfully and speedily deliver the direct train line connection for passengers who live, learn and work in North Staffordshire. Between Stoke on Trent railway station and Manchester Airport.

20:20

Petitions

station and Manchester Airport.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

UA. Thank you. Petition train service between Stoke on Trent railway station and Manchester Airport.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manchester Airport. Thank you, thank you, Madam Speaker. Petition Sarah thank you, Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Petition Sarah thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I present this petition on food security following extreme summer heat that has left extreme summer heat that has left tonnes of safe, nutritious but cosmetically imperfect produce rejected at the farm gate, deepening import reliance and showing the urgent need for a good food bill. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons urges the government to take urgent action to end the waste of cosmetically imperfect fruit and vegetables by working with retailers to relax rigid cosmetic specifications and end unfair sourcing practices.

Introducing stronger powers for the Groceries Code adjudicator to guarantee farmers a fair price, and bringing forward legislation to establish a national food strategy, including creating statutory duties relating to food security and access to affordable, healthy food and the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

petitioners remain, etc. Petition, food security and cosmetically imperfect food produce.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I beg to move that this house do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now adjourn. The question is that this House do now adjourn and I call Claire do now adjourn and I call Claire Young on National Highways and the M49 Severnside junction Claire Young.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just off the. M49 in Severnside is a junction

20:21

Adjournment: National Highways and the M49 Severnside junction

>> M49 in Severnside is a junction that has never carried a single vehicle. It was built six years ago. vehicle. It was built six years ago. It cost the taxpayer £40 million. And in those six years, not a car, And in those six years, not a car, van or lorry has used it. The van or lorry has used it. The national press has dubbed it the Ghost Junction. I'm grateful for the opportunity to bring this matter before the House today, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the future of the M49 Severnside junction is one of real consequence for my constituents in Thornbury and Yate.

I'm here because I want the junction fixed and so do my constituents. I hope that the Minister listens and acts. Doing something about this kind of issue is exactly how you show people you're here to serve them and not yourself. We are all quite fed up with ineptitude. First, some housekeeping. In a response to my letter, the department refers to this as the Avonmouth Junction. It is not in Avonmouth. The Avonmouth spur lies some three miles down the motorway. This junction sits in Severnside.

I raise it because a botched junction, whose supposed name is three miles adrift to where it stands, tells you something about how far the responsible authorities are from the reality on the ground. I would be grateful if the Minister could adopt the correct description in his own dealings. So there's no confusion in the future. I would not want the hon. Member for Bristol North West to think that I'm in any way moving the boundaries of our constituencies. Let me set out the background briefly.

National Highways built this junction in 2020. As I've said, at a cost of £40 million to the taxpayer, it was designed to connect the motorway to the Severnside Enterprise area, one of the largest concentrations of industry and logistics in the west

20:23

Claire Young MP (Thornbury and Yate, Liberal Democrat)

- -

of England, and it was forecast to support some 14000 jobs. Yet in the six years since, not a single six years since, not a single vehicle has used it. There is a reason for that. Ever since it was built, the junction has stood unconnected to the local network because the short stretch of road linking it to the estate had not been built, and no one would agree been built, and no one would agree who was responsible for building it. In a letter to me, the Minister blamed a private developer for this.

Questions could be raised around Questions could be raised around whether National Highways and the previous council administration could have secured an enforceable agreement. But I will not rehearse that whole saga tonight. It is at last being resolved. South Gloucestershire Council has taken the work on itself with funding from the department. Construction is underway. The council expects it to be finished by the end of this year. I want to put on record my recognition of the councillors and council officers who stepped in to deliver what others would not.

They have done their part. However, that issue is not the reason I've sought this debate. We have now learned that the junction itself is defective. National Highways has admitted that it has identified defects at the junction, which must be repaired before it can safely open to traffic. A junction built by National Highways, completed six years ago and signed off as finished, cannot safely carry traffic until National Highways repairs it. Is the Minister as baffled as I am? National Highways has set out no programme for those repairs and no timetable for opening.

The council has been told there will be no further updates until later this autumn. And the Roads Minister echoed this to me personally in response to my recent letter. I would like to enlighten the government. The traffic that the junction would have carried has not simply vanished. It runs instead through my constituency's small country lanes, heavy goods vehicles, day and night on roads that were never built to carry them. Residents in villages and isolated homes live with the noise and the lights of lorries passing at all hours.

How can residents feel safe crossing their own roads? A parent with a pushchair should not have to weigh up whether it is safe to step out of their front door. Cyclists and runners have to tread carefully through what should be peaceful country lanes. When National Highways told me the problem, they saw businesses as stakeholders but not local residents. My constituents vehemently disagree. It is not just the smallest roads affected councillors, constituents alike tell me the A303, the B4, four, six one and others are facing misuse by HGV horse riders, agricultural vehicles and families are finding it difficult to access the roads.

If the Minister was looking for a way to apologise to my constituents for the debacle, once it is fixed, he could do worse than improving the providing permanent safety improvements on roads like the A4 oh three. One constituent has told me he recorded multiple HGVs in just 15 minutes, seemingly over seven and a half tons using the B4 461 despite environmental weight restrictions. This is a regular issue in Hallon to my constituents tell me it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

difficult to report the vehicles because the short time you see them for is not enough to grab the registration and Necessary details. They feel

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Necessary details. They feel that the company is using the roads, pay lip service, but never take concrete action. I am totally concrete action. I am totally against them breaching the weight limit in these ways, but I understand their motivation. They understand their motivation. They have no direct access to the. The businesses of Severnside continue to wait. This is a major logistics to wait. This is a major logistics centre and its operators depend on efficient access to the motorway and the docks. Every year the junction stay shut is a year of longer routes and higher costs.

The economic case for this junction was made years ago and accepted by the then government, but the delivery has lagged behind. I need not explain to the Minister Madam Deputy Speaker why getting this junction functional is so important to the economic aims of this government. There are also further costs that fall on the Council and local people. The Council spent scarce funds repairing the very roads that. This delay will now be damaging. HGVs continue to blitz through country lanes and newly repaired roads will only be subject to the same continuous pressure for longer.

The council expected the roads to be used by local people and that is why they repaired them. and the public purse. Just how much money and effort is being wasted due to the delays in opening the junction, the council will now have to find the money to mend them once again. After traffic finally arrives on the junction. I need not explain why the funds are not there. This is public money spent once and needed again to repair damage caused by a failure that was not of the local authority's making.

This government's devolution agenda will be undermined if situations like this are not put right for local communities. National Highways is not a private developer. The Minister can gesture towards. It is an organisation answerable to the minister's own department. When it builds a junction that does not work and then declines to say when it will put that right, then I must ask the Minister, just to justify their approach. My constituents and I find that approach unacceptable. I understand that there may be legal issues and investigations.

The Minister cannot reveal. The lack of communication from the department has been shocking. I want to raise one further concern, and I raise it as a question, not as a claim. I understand that this junction used a novel construction technique. One other location where this has been used has, I understand, been identified as defective. The house deserves to know whether these are isolated faults or two instances of something more systematic, more systemic. Sorry, in how these structures were built and signed off.

If it is the latter, that is a far greater matter than one junction in Severnside and one the Minister would be wise to get ahead of. He may recall that National Highways already have something of a record in my area, because we have a large amount of motorway infrastructure that was built in the 1960s, and we recently endured a three year road closure when a bridge over the M4 had to be closed for safety reasons and completely replaced. So we already have an ageing infrastructure.

It's worrying if we are adding new problems to that. Let me close with a few questions, and I would ask the Minister to answer each of them directly. First, will he require National Highways to publish a clear timetable for the repairs, rather than the open ended promise of an update at some point this autumn? Second, will he tell the House what the defects actually are? And when they were first identified, given the junction was declared complete in 2019. Third, will he commit to a firm date by which this junction will finally open to traffic? Fourth, will he establish how a newly built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault affects other national highway structures.

Fifth, who is responsible? Will this government do what is right and launch an investigation so that the public and indeed all stakeholders can properly scrutinise those responsible? And finally, sixth, will he provide additional funding for the council to repair the roads again once the junction is finally open? My constituents have waited six years. They have watched a £40 million junction sit empty above a motorway. They cannot use the junction to access, and they have carried the traffic and the disturbance.

In the meantime, they are not asking for very much. They're asking for a date and for someone at last to take responsibility. I hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister can give them both tonight. If you're ready. Minister Justin Madders.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madders. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And can I also echo the many happy And can I also echo the many happy returns to you for yesterday? I do recall in a previous life you said recall in a previous life you said across the Dispatch Box on many happy returns to me on a very special birthday, which we don't special birthday, which we don't need to remind ourselves of. But can I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by congratulating the hon. Member on securing the debate and highlighting an issue which is clearly of of real importance to

20:31

Justin Madders MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport) (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Labour)

- -

her constituents and to the wider Avon Melanie Onn Severnside area. And I welcome this opportunity to And I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the junction, update the House on the junction, one of the M49. And I would like to apologise for the department's apologise for the department's wrong description of the junction in previous correspondence, but it is correct to say that we are is correct to say that we are talking here about junction one of the M49. Now, clearly, as the hon.

Member has articulated, I recognise the strength of local feeling residents, businesses, local representatives and road users understandably want the junction to be brought into use as soon as possible. The government, of course, shares that ambition. The purpose of the junction has always been clear to improve access between the Avon Mouth Severnside enterprise area and the motorway network to support economic growth and reduce pressure on local roads. The government wants local communities, businesses and road users to realise the full benefits of this infrastructure.

The Severnside enterprise area is one of the most significant employment and logistics locations in the South West region. It is home to major industrial warehousing, distribution, energy and port related activity. Better access to the strategic road network has long been recognised as important for the area's continued growth, and for reducing the impact of traffic on surrounding local communities, as the hon. Member mentioned. However, while I understand the frustration that the junction is not yet operational, the House should be clear about the complexity of the position.

It reflects complex issues involving strategic road infrastructure, a local road connection needed to make the junction operational, developer arrangements and technical matters requiring further investigation and remediation before the junction can safely open to traffic. It is worth recalling that this was delivered as part of a wider programme intended to unlock economic development in the Severnside area, through direct connection with the junction at the Western Approach Distribution Park. This is essential if the benefits of the junction are to be realised. The strategic road junction and local link road to connect to the existing network were being progressed through different delivery arrangements and as we know, the link road connecting this junction to the existing road network was originally the responsibility of a private developer, but with planning permission sought by South Gloucestershire Council, National Highways was consulted, of course, as a statutory consultee, but had no legal power to compel the developer to develop and deliver the link road and despite continued engagement, the developer was not willing to meet its commitments.

But when it became clear that the original developer arrangements for the link road would not deliver the necessary local connection, this department National Highways Gloucestershire Council worked together to identify an alternative way forward. That work led to the current link road scheme being progressed by South Gloucestershire Council. Therefore, rather than allowing the project to stall indefinitely, the government has engaged with its partners to enable the local link road to be constructed and establish a practical, long term solution that will bring the junction on the M49 into use.

And this has, of £10 milli funding. So, as we've heard, and the House will appreciate, completing the local link road is not the only issue that needs to be resolved. As part of the monitoring and more recently detailed engineering investigations, National Highways has identified technical issues at the junction that require further assessment and remedial work before the junction can be safely opened to traffic, and I recognise this is disappointing for local communities and businesses. Junction, visible from the motorway but not yet available for use, is, of course, understandably frustrating.

Local representatives, as hon. Members have done, are right to seek clear answers about what has happened, what is being done and when the junction will open. Some may argue that the junction should simply be opened and any problems dealt with later, but that is not an approach I'm afraid the government is prepared to take. Where technical concerns have been identified, they must be understood, addressed and assured, and the public would rightly expect Ministers and National Highways to act prudently and responsibly.

Where engineering concerns have been raised, the House would expect no less in any constituency across the country. However, the hon. Member has raised a number of important questions and I would like to address each of those in turn. First, she asks well, National Highways publish a clear timetable for repairs and I will continue to press National Highways for a clear remediation plan, including the technical solution delivery route and a clear timetable. However, the technical matters do require careful assessment.

Engagement is taking place with the contractor. An appropriate solution is dependent on the shared understanding of the engineering evidence and clarity on where responsibility and liability lie. Therefore, we can only confirm timescales once the ongoing technical and commercial discussions have concluded, and it would be inappropriate for me to prejudge those discussions from the despatch box. But I have asked National Highways to update key stakeholders monthly and to publish the plans as soon as possible. Secondly, the hon. Member asks what the defects are and when they were first identified, defects were visible on the junction in 2021, including loss of topsoil and surface cracking.

These came to light as part of the standard inspections that take place across the network, and at that stage, these were not deemed significant. And so National Highways put standard operating arrangements in place to monitor the structure. However, this ongoing monitoring identified the need to undertake detailed investigations, which were commissioned in 2025, resulting in the identification of geotechnical issues. These later investigations will allow the root cause of the defects to be better understood, and this is ongoing and can only be confirmed once engagement with the contractor has concluded.

I have now discussed this with National Highways, and formed the view that the hon. Member should have been informed about this when the decision was taken to undertake detailed investigation report investigations, rather than wait for the outcome of the work. Thirdly, the hon. Member inquires whether I will commit to a firm date by which the junction will finally open to traffic and, as I remember, will probably appreciate. From what I've said so far, it is not possible to provide a definitive timeline for remedial works.

Responsibility, liability and funding matters remain subject to ongoing technical and commercial discussions, but once these are concluded, National Highways will be able to develop detailed designs for the necessary remedial works and to establish a delivery programme, it would not be possible or appropriate to announce arbitrary dates before those assessments are complete, or before a deliverable programme has been confirmed. However, I do recognise it is particularly frustrating that after a long wait, the junction still sits empty and that is why I have emphasised to National Highways the importance of looking at options to reopen the junction as soon as possible.

Safety is of the utmost importance, but I also recognise that given the remediation will take some time, we need clarity on whether the junction can be opened in any capacity. In the interim, I expect National Highways to provide a timely update on this review. I certainly give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank thank. I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just like to clarify. The Minister said that it would have been appropriate for me to be notified earlier. I think probably more importantly, South Leicestershire Council who are proceeding with the work. It would have been helpful work. It would have been helpful for them to have been aware earlier. So could you take that point back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to National Highways? Grateful for the intervention? Absolutely. Take that point. I think all stakeholders ought to be informed at the appropriate point, particularly when, as I say, there's there's connected works to do with that particular junction. The hon. Members asked how a new built junction came to need structural repair before carrying a single vehicle, and whether the same fault effects other national highway structures. So I've been assured that national Highways are undertaking a significant quality incident investigation process to look at lessons learned.

And once this has concluded, this will embed these lessons to ensure that this does not happen on other structures. I would like to highlight, though, that these occurrences do not happen often, and I believe that this is not a systemic issue, but I've. Of course, we need to look into this to be assured of that. So I've asked National Highways to update the hon. Member and other key stakeholders on the outcomes of the lessons learned process as part of their regular ongoing engagement. The fifth question the hon.

Member asked is who is responsible? Will the government do what is right and launch an investigation so that the public can scrutinise those responsible questions have understandably been raised about responsibility, liability and funding of remedial works, national highway systems, continuing confidential commercial discussions with its principal contractor. And, as I said, I will not prejudge the outcome of those discussions from Dispatch Box. But I do want to reassure the hon. Member that National Highways is pursuing the matter with the seriousness it requires.

I know that as soon as these processes conclude, National Highways will provide a clear remediation plan setting out the technical solution, delivery route and programme, as well as, I hope, a clear answer on where responsibility lies. As I've said, National Highways is conducting a significant quality incident investigation to establish what went wrong, identify lessons and prevent recurrence. I have asked National House to share the lessons learned following the conclusion of this investigation. Finally, on the question of funding, as I have explained, the government has already provided around £10 million of support to support the development of the Link Road.

Recognising its importance, and I'm sure the hon. Member understands there are limits to the funding we can provide, but we will commit to the technical issues that we've described today. But the government's approach is clear National highways must identify the right engineering solution, agree an appropriate delivery route to protect taxpayers interests and provide stakeholders with realistic, deliverable timescales. The public deserve certainty, but that certainty must be grounded in technical evidence, not speculation. Stakeholder engagement, of course, as we've touched on today, is very important.

Local communities and businesses need to understand why the junction is not opened, what is being done to resolve the issue and how progress will be communicated there. Of course, as I'm sure the lady will appreciate limits on what I can say publicly when commercial discussions are ongoing. But commercial sensitivity must not become a reason for avoidable silence. So I've asked National Highways to keep the hon. Member and key local representatives informed monthly, and updates should be provided when there is reliable information to share.

And if the hon. Member does not feel she is being kept up to date, I would ask that she let me know. There are also wider lessons to learn. The public do not distinguish between a motorway junction, a local link road, a developer obligation, a council led connection and a national highways asset. They see one road, one promise and one delayed outcome. So we must be clear as a government and delivery bodies, that managing infrastructure must be done coherently with clear accountabilities, dependencies and communications.

That is why the department will continue to work with National Highways and South Gloucestershire Council as a delivery partnership. South Gloucestershire Council is progressing. The local link road, National Highways is responsible for the strategic road asset. The department's role in this is to support the overall objective of bringing the infrastructure into beneficial use. Also, of course, ensuring safety, value for money and effective governance. So Madam Deputy Speaker, before I conclude, I want to return to the central point. Everyone involved in this wants the same outcome.

Local communities want the junction open. Businesses want better access to the strategic road network. Local authorities want their economic and transport benefits to be realised. And of course the government wants all of these things to happen. So we remain committed to seeing this junction brought into operation and to ensuring that its benefits are realised for local communities, businesses and the wider regional economy. But we will do so in a way that protects road users, maintains public confidence and reflects proper stewardship of public investment.

So I would like to thank the hon. Member once again for securing this debate for the important points that she has raised and for her continued campaign on behalf of her constituents. I assure her that I will continue to engage with her as we work to ensure that this junction is open safely and that the intended benefits are delivered for the communities and businesses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it was designed to serve. The question is that this House do now adjourn as many that opinion say I. The ayes have it. The ayes

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page