Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her comments. We have seen this over the last couple of elections in ’19 and ’24, and we are going to see it again in local and national elections: our regulatory framework is not keeping pace. As far as I am aware, there is no electoral framework—I would love to hear from the Minister on this—for anyone to systematically map the risks posed by deepfakes and associated online issues. Voters deserve to make free, informed choices, not tainted by some of the things that are seen online. I hope that the Government will take this forward.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Government do not believe that the new clause is the right or effective way to address these concerns, although we acknowledge the seriousness of the issue that our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) is raising.

The new clause would risk blurring regulatory boundaries between two rightly independent regulators. The Electoral Commission and Ofcom have distinct statutory roles, with Ofcom responsible for regulation and enforcement of online safety duties on services. Requiring the Electoral Commission to make proposals for amending the Online Safety Act 2023 would cut across that, and risk duplication in an area where clarity is essential.

Secondly, the Electoral Commission already has the power under section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to produce and publish reports on matters relating to elections where it considers that appropriate. We therefore do not consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate a further statutory report.

I would also note the risk of duplication with the recent Speaker’s Conference report, which examined these issues and included evidence from the Electoral Commission. The Government welcomed the conference’s findings, and our response was published on 5 March. Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom is the independent regulator responsible for overseeing the risk-based framework, including publishing codes of practice and requiring the largest services to provide transparency reports about their systems and processes for addressing online harms. That framework provides an appropriate basis for regulatory oversight and platform accountability.

The Online Safety Act also places clear duties on services that host user-generated content to tackle illegal content online, including illegal abuse, threats and incitement of violence. Ofcom is now implementing and enforcing that framework, and the Government will work closely with Ofcom, the Electoral Commission and law enforcement through existing arrangements. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

Repository of digital political advertising

“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) After section 61 insert—

‘Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising

61A. Establishing a repository of digital political advertising

(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.

(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;

(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;

(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and

(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.

(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Electoral Commission;

(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and

(c) OFCOM.

(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.’” —(Paul Holmes.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the Government to establish and publish a transparent protocol for responding to election information incidents and place that protocol on a statutory footing. That is important, because there is currently no clear, publicly accountable mechanism in the UK for informing voters about serious information incidents during election periods, such as co-ordinated disinformation campaigns or foreign interference.

Although there may be internal processes, under the radar, in Government, those are not transparent, they lack clear triggers for action and they are not subject to democratic oversight. Their absence creates uncertainty about how and when the public would be notified if there were such attacks or threats to the integrity of an election. That potentially undermines trust, and leaves voters without information and potentially exposed to unchallenged misinformation at critical moments during an election. We can all recognise that that is a growing threat.

The new clause would address that gap. It would establish a clear, publicly accessible protocol that would set out how, why and when election information incidents would be identified, assessed and communicated to the general public. The rise of disinformation has shown that co-ordinated online campaigns, bot campaigns and so forth can spread very rapidly during election periods, and can influence public perception before corrective action is taken. I will not name particular electoral processes, but we can all call examples to mind. It is a problem that we lack a transparent framework for dealing with public notification when such incidents occur.

Other democracies have taken steps in this regard; most notably, Canada has already introduced a formal mechanism to respond to these risks. That highlights the gap in the UK. We should look at international best practice on this issue. We should be trying to stay ahead of—or at least catch up with—the threats that our democracy faces, as fast as possible.

The new clause is clearly directly related to the Bill, so I would welcome the Minister’s response. To clarify, I do not intend to press it to a vote—I should have mentioned that it was tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central—but I move it because it raises an important issue that is crucial to the safety of our elections.

[Samantha Dixon]

These are important issues, and I thank the hon. Member for raising them.

Earlier today, I described the work of the Joint Elections Security and Preparedness Unit, which exists as an enduring function to protect our elections and our democracy; that includes monitoring for mis and disinformation. The JESP election cell brings together Whitehall Departments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as key stakeholders to agree monitoring thresholds and response options where necessary. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is a core member of JESP’s election cell, as is the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

Together, these proposals for a cap on donations, lower limits on expenditure and limits applying year round—or at the very least for the Electoral Commission to do a review, as per my new clause—would be critical safeguards for our democracy. They would go some way towards recognising the reality that currently, big money has a huge, damaging, distorting and anti-democratic effect on our politics.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 30 seeks to place a cap on the amount a person can donate to registered political parties in a calendar year. The Government aim to strike the right balance in relation to political donations to protect against foreign interference and improve transparency, while also ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigning.

This new clause goes a step too far in restricting legitimate donations and could significantly limit parties’ ability to raise sufficient funds to communicate their views to the electorate—an essential part of a healthy democracy and effective election process.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Samantha Dixon]

I would prefer to press on; the hon. Lady will be able to respond later.

To better protect against those who seek to covertly undermine UK elections, we are instead strengthening rules and closing loopholes at all stages of the political donations process. I have described the measures in some detail earlier today: “know your donor”, the three steps for foreign companies, and the consideration we are giving to the Rycroft review.

A cap is not being placed across all donations because currently the majority of funding for political parties in the UK comes from private, corporate or other organisational sources. State funding accounts for around 10% of the total income of UK political parties. There is no public or political appetite to increase the level of state funding. I urge hon. Members of this Committee to reject this new clause.

New clause 54 proposes that the Secretary of State shares plans for establishing a royal commission to consider the effectiveness and merits of political expenditure controls and, in particular, a cap on political donations. A public inquiry is an extremely costly and lengthy process. Instead, we have already sought to ensure that our democracy is strengthened by considering recommendations from authorities and expert bodies in this area, including the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency.

Those risks and recommended solutions were taken forward and set out in our strategy for modern and secure elections, published on 17 July last year. Those commitments are now set out in full in this Bill. To ensure no stone was left unturned, the Secretary of State commissioned the independent Rycroft review to see where we could strengthen our laws and what could be recommended to protect against covert funding and foreign interference. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will withdraw new clause 54.

The purpose of new clause 58 is to require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of the feasibility of a cap on annual expenditure by political parties, candidates and third parties, and then for the Government to issue a response containing proposals informed by that review. The Government agree that transparency and fairness are vital principles to be upheld in elections. Further, it is of the utmost importance to limit the risk of foreign interference.

We are committed to ensuring that we have robust systems to protect the UK from foreign interference, and this Bill reinforces electoral legislation against foreign interference. The commitment of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to fairness and transparency in elections has been clear throughout the parliamentary process, and I share that commitment. The Government note the recommendations of the Rycroft review and will respond to those measures in due course.

New clause 65 would substantially cut national spending limits for political parties and would, for the first time, bring most campaign staff costs within scope. National spending limits were intended to strike a careful balance, allowing parties to communicate effectively with voters across the country while preventing money from dominating elections. In practice, parties generally campaign within the cap, which operates as a ceiling rather than a target. Those limits were set by Parliament in 2000 and have been uprated over time to maintain their real-world value.

Periodic uprating helps avoid eroding parties’ ability to communicate effectively with the electorate, so is consistent with the original policy intent that Parliament approved. The proposal to include campaign staff costs would represent a significant change to the regulatory framework, introducing additional complexity in how parties define roles and apportion costs. There is not currently clear evidence of a problem with this arrangement.

The Government note the issues raised about the level of the spending limits, including those highlighted by the independent Rycroft review. As Members know, we are considering those very carefully and will respond in due course. On that basis—and to allow that work to be completed first—I invite the hon. Member to seek to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Chowns]

I have three quick points. First, the Minister implied that any limit on donations is unacceptable to her. That seems a very extreme position for the Government to take. Is that really the Government’s position in responding to new clause 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon? The Minister seems to be taking that position, yet that new clause does not specify a particular level but that a cap should be set after a review, which is itself regularly reviewed. That seems a very reasonable approach. Does the Minister not recognise at all even the theoretical possibility that large donations can skew our politics? I would find that an extraordinary position for the Government to take.

Secondly, this seems to be completely inconsistent with the fact that last year the UK and at least 59 other countries co-sponsored a resolution passed at the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption that calls on states parties to consider limitations on donations

“with a view to combating corruption”.

The Government have already recognised that large donations into the political system carry a risk of corruption.

I do not expect the Minister to put a number on the table today, but to be consistent, would the Minister please take this away for consideration alongside the other issues that have come out of the Rycroft review? It is clear through this Bill Committee process that we need amendments to come forward that are not just driven by Rycroft, but also by some of the issues that Rycroft himself has highlighted as relevant yet outwith the specific terms of reference of his report—certainly including caps on political donations, expansion of the regulated period and reform of political advertising.

Thirdly, there is the point about how politics in the UK is largely funded through private company and trade union donations—I tried to pre-empt this, but the Minister did come back with it as well. I have not at any point argued for more state funding of politics—that could be a separate debate, but I am not arguing that. By discussing the arguments in favour of a cap on donations, together with the arguments for stronger limits on expenditure, I am arguing for a politics in which money skews politics less overall.

We can surely recognise that if one person can contribute—for the sake of argument—£9 million to an organisation or political actor then that will inevitably have a hugely skewing impact on our politics. Do the Government really not recognise that? Will the Government really not take any steps to limit political donations and that skewing and pollution of our politics?

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to respond further?

[Samantha Dixon]

No. I simply stand by my previous comments.

[Zöe Franklin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I absolutely do—indeed, that is what the next two amendments are specifically about. That clearly should be the next step; the provision was put in place in the Equality Act, so it is just about commencing something already there under section 106 that would apply to reporting on diversity with a range of protected characteristics, not just in relation to disability.

I completely agree that our politics should be representative of our population as a whole; we should all be challenging ourselves constantly, as individuals and as parties, to ensure that we are doing everything possible to address under-representation of certain groups. The lack of representation of women is particularly brought into focus by the fact that it is now nearly 100 years since the franchise was fully extended, yet women are still seriously under-represented in this House—and even more under-represented in local politics nationally. But there are many other dimensions of under-representation; while the first amendment relates specifically to support for disabled candidates, the next two amendments relate to that much wider spectrum. That is crucially important.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 31 would require the Electoral Commission to establish a fund to provide financial assistance to disabled candidates standing for election in England. It is the Government’s ambition to see more disabled people in public office, and we know that some disabled people still face additional financial barriers when contesting elected office. To address that, we are currently developing a new fund to support disabled election candidates with the disability-related extra costs they can experience, to enable participation on an equal basis.

We put the lived experience of disabled people and lessons learned from previous funds at the heart of our work to develop that new fund. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, including MPs and disabled local councillors. We have heard how ensuring ongoing support is important to providing the reassurance people need to plan for the long term, as it can take a number of attempts to get elected. The Government are able to provide that type of support without this amendment, as they have done in the past, with the access to elected office fund from 2012 to 2015 and the EnAble fund from 2018 to 2020.

As part of our work to develop the new fund, we are considering how design elements might better support longevity, retaining the flexibility needed to ensure that the fund provided is fit for purpose. Given the ongoing work that the Government are doing in this area to establish a fund, I gently ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.

I now turn to new clause 34. The Government are committed to improving representation in politics. We encourage increased diversity in Government and political candidates, and have taken action to address that. Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 is an uncommenced provision that would require registered political parties to publish anonymised data about the diversity of their candidate selections, in accordance with regulations. The Government are committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act. However, careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the supporting regulations and whether any phasing might be needed in implementation. Officials will consult with stakeholders, including political parties, in due course.

[David Simmonds]

One of the issues that this proposal creates is that if we are seeking to assess the accessibility of politics for candidates from a range of backgrounds, we need to know not only about those who make it through and are nominated as candidates, but about the broader range of the public from whom those candidates are drawn. It is fairly standard, in terms of equalities impact, to understand from that data who is not making it through that process.

Has the Minister given any consideration to how that concern might be addressed, beyond simply gathering the data? That may not tell us who was simply not able to make it through the process and get to the point of being nominated as a candidate in the elections covered by section 106.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman highlights exactly why further consultation is needed. This is a complex issue, and it needs to be discussed with all the major and minor political parties to explore how candidates are encouraged to come forward and the ways in which we can support political parties to become more diverse. I hope he accepts that response.

I turn to new clause 35. The Government really are committed to better representation, and we have taken a variety of actions to address that. As I have mentioned, section 106 is uncommenced, and we are committed to commencing it with careful consideration and at the appropriate time. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clauses, as that process is already in progress.

[Zöe Franklin]

I hear what the Minister is saying, and I am really pleased that the Government are undertaking that process, but what concerns me is that we go through sets of elections again and again without consistency across the nations. Some in our nations are supported to stand so that have a more representative democracy, while others—here in England—are not.

I am willing to withdraw my new clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister committed to sharing a timeline. More importantly, will she commit to making information more available publicly—certainly to organisations working in this space and MPs—about what is happening about a fund to support candidates with disabilities? The same applies to my new clauses about section 106 of the Equalities Act.

One of the reasons why the new clauses had to be tabled is that, although the Government have said things on the public record, they have not shared what is happening behind the scenes. This is a matter of public interest. I will not press the new clauses to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister came back on those queries.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will write to the hon. Lady and provide as much information as I can.

[Zöe Franklin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 33

Impact of the Act on trust in elections

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act’s provisions on trust in elections.

(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “trust in elections” includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results.

(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Electoral Commission;

(b) the Scottish Ministers;

(c) the Welsh Ministers;

(d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Zöe Franklin.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak against new clause 33, which we contend is overly restrictive. While the hon. Member frames the new clause as a shield for democracy, in reality it is a recipe for bureaucratic paralysis and a dangerous encroachment on the natural administration of our elections. I refer to the reporting mandate mechanism in new clause 33, which demands that the Secretary of State publishes a report on “trust in elections” within just 12 months. That is a purely subjective academic exercise masquerading as policy.

Trust is not a metric that we can legislate into existence; it is a subjective measure. By forcing the Government to constantly review public confidence, we are effectively inviting the Secretary of State or Ministers to politicise the very foundations of our voting system. That may be the intention of the hon. Lady, but I contend that it is just another mechanism for parties who disagree with our voting system to carp on about it every year. I say to the Liberal Democrats and to other parties that might want new clause 33 to go ahead that we have tested public opinion on new voting mechanisms. As I have said on other Bills, it should be for the Government of the day to put forward changes to the voting system and electoral law in this country.

New clause 33 mandates consultation with Ministers across all devolved nations and the Electoral Commission before a report can even be published. While I respect our devolved partners, we have to accept that it is the policy of Governments in at least two jurisdictions to have different voting systems. In fact, we have different voting systems in those devolved Administrations. It seems to me that the hon. Lady is trying to propose a veto by committee structure. If we try to measure trust in politics, First Ministers and Governments will each put forward different views on whether trust has been measured. How do we measure trust? We can poll, and look at local and national election outcomes.

[Samantha Dixon]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that voting is an act of trust?

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is absolutely right. I am a democrat. I believe that every hon. Member on the Committee has the backing of their constituents, albeit not by a margin that the Liberal Democrats, Greens, or other parties, might favour because they want to change the voting system. Each and every member of the Committee won more votes than each of their competitors. That is an act of trust: our constituents elected us under the system that was provided to them. That is the greatest measure of trust that can be portrayed in a result: securing a number of votes to win that election under the guidelines.

I think we are opening something of a Pandora’s box and, if I may say so, entering cloud cuckoo land if we get to a stage where this Parliament is mandating to measure public trust. There are organisations that do that. We have polling companies: in my view too many of them, and too many opinion polls—and that view is not just because the Conservative party are not in front in those polls at the moment. I find it difficult to support a requirement on the statute book for a report on the impact of the Act on trust in elections.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I honestly believe that the new clause does not add any value. It does the reverse. Indeed, the report that would be published within 12 months of the Bill passing could reduce trust in politics. Trust is subjective. We all have different opinions. Let us say that the Bill passes with this new clause and, 12 months after the next local elections or general election, there is a report on trust in elections. There are so many different opinions on the criteria outlined in the new clause that the Government would be reporting on, that there will be many people who disagree with the Secretary of State’s report, thereby undermining trust in the democratic process, whichever side of the coin they are on—on proportional representation, on first past the post, on the Electoral Commission, on the way in which parties were funded and on the way in which they campaigned. A general election itself is the ultimate arbiter of trust in politics.

This is one of the stranger new clauses that we have seen. I do not say that personally to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Guildford, but we should be rolling back legislation. All the way through our consideration of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats and I have called on the Electoral Commission to do more, but we have also called for the Electoral Commission to have the right resourcing to operate the mechanisms for which both we and the Government, in different respects, have been calling. The new clause will add more bureaucracy and more reporting, and it will undermine trust in the electoral system, which is already—I absolutely accept—in a very delicate state.

However, the Minister is absolutely correct. The elections, as undertaken, and the results of the elections, as determined by the democratic will of the people of this country, are the result of trust. There are many organisations that can measure trust; I do not think that it is up to the Government to measure it. It is up to Governments to lose elections if they are not trusted, and it is up to Governments, or the Opposition, to win them if they are trusted. That is the way that things should stay.

[Samantha Dixon]

This Bill is about building trust and confidence in our electoral system. Regarding many of the reforms in the Bill, within a year of Royal Assent—the timescale within which the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause, has suggested the report should come—they either will not have come into force or might not have had sufficient time to bed in and achieve their aims. Therefore, any assessment of impact at that stage could be premature, could risk producing misleading conclusions, and—as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley so eloquently put it—could reduce trust. For these reasons, we do not believe that there would be sufficient benefit in drafting and publishing such a report.

However, I would like to reassure Members that the Government are committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and we anticipate that that will show us whether the policies that are being introduced have achieved their aims, including—where relevant—relating to trust.

We earn trust and I will reiterate my point that voting is an act of trust. None the less, the Government are working hard to generate more confidence in our already trusted electoral system with this Bill.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I think that I have made my point. Let us consider what the greatest threat to the integrity of our democracy is. I am concerned about the ways that concerns such as those articulated in these amendments have been weaponised by some political actors, so I will abstain if they are pressed to a vote.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 36 and amendment 25 would place a new legal duty on the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for returning officers on how to enforce the offences introduced by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. I stress at the outset how seriously the Government take all forms of electoral fraud or coercion, including family voting. It is illegal and unacceptable, and polling staff should feel confident to challenge and report any incidents.

However, I have serious concerns about these amendments. It is essential to point out that the commission can already issue guidance, and it already provides extensive guidance for returning officers. Putting the requirement into legislation would set a new precedent, allowing Parliament to direct how the commission produces its guidance in the future. The Commission’s independence, as we discussed earlier, is central to public confidence in how elections are run. Because the amendments would require Ministers and Parliament to approve or even change the guidance, there is a real risk that people would see that as political interference and involvement in something that should remain an operational matter for the commission.

The extra approval steps could also delay clear guidance for returning officers. If Parliament rejected the draft guidance, the commission would have to start again, creating uncertainty for those responsible for enforcing ballot secrecy. For those reasons—concerns about independence, ministerial involvement, added complexity and the precedent they set—the Government cannot support the amendments.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made some comments that, I think, questioned my integrity in making my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I am going to rise above the party political aspects of the shadow Minister’s comments, but I want to engage with his extraordinary claim that communicating with people in their mother tongue is, in some way, exploitation. He expressed concern about the inclusion of diverse communities in our country. He talked about social cohesion, but what he is proposing is essentially a nativist policy. As was highlighted by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Gaelic speakers are accepted but Urdu speakers are not. I fundamentally disagree.

Of course, as a country we should provide support to assist people to learn English, but we should not force them, as the shadow Minister argued. If they are not yet fluent, it seems perfectly reasonable—in fact, clearly helpful for inclusion and participation—to provide election materials in the language in which they can be best understood. Indeed, that is what returning officers do. Election officers provide information in multiple languages, so why should parties and candidates not also be free to do so?

Let me quote from the guidance for returning officers on the Electoral Commission’s website:

“Some voters may need assistance in another language because of their limited English (or English or Welsh) language skills. You should consider what support you are able to provide to those voters in your area, such as providing translations of the polling station notices.”

In Gorton and Denton, the polling station provided information in multiple other languages. The effect of the new clause would be exclusionary and discriminatory, and I strongly oppose it.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 37 would ban the use of foreign languages in campaign material during the regulated period—it would make it a criminal offence. A primary purpose of the Bill is to encourage more people across society to engage and participate in our democracy. The new clause would not serve that purpose. It is not for the Government to prescribe the languages that campaigners are permitted to use to engage voters who come from a wide range of diverse backgrounds across the constituencies we represent. It is certainly not for the Government to criminalise the use of certain languages.

Various electoral and non-electoral offences protect against malicious forms of campaign material, which is, in essence, what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was talking about. For example, it is an offence to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting material that is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. It is also an offence to improperly influence someone to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. That would include, for example, a leaflet that threatened to make use of force or place undue spiritual pressure on a person in order to induce them to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. Those offences apply regardless of the language used in the campaign material.

The Government have no plans to regulate the use of foreign languages in campaign material. We are seeking to minimise barriers to participation while safeguarding the integrity and security of elections. The measures in the Bill are intended to restore faith in our politics and ensure that the UK continues to be a thriving and diverse democracy. The new clause is entirely incompatible with those intentions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I wholly accept the Minister’s comments; I did not expect that she would be looking into this. I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, too. She used the example of returning officers. They are filling things in and conducting a process; they are not using foreign languages to exploit a section of our society against a policy or a party in this country with which they happen to disagree. That is the clear and distinct difference, and that is the example that I used in moving the new clause. Her example is about the process; my example is about using foreign language to exploit a political message in an advantageous way. That is why I tabled the new clause, and I wish to press it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very next new clause on the selection list, which engages with precisely that question.

In addition to New Zealand, there are similar rules about the regulation of political advertising in Australia. On the question of who will adjudicate, there is currently no independent body with the power to adjudicate on the truthfulness or accuracy of non-broadcast political advertising. That is an issue. Provision has been made in the new clauses for a separation: the code of practice would be established by the Electoral Commission and the oversight of the decision making—the adjudication—would be done by a different body.

The 2020 report by the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, “Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust”, called for a regulatory committee on political advertising that would involve relevant experts from the Advertising Standards Authority, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the UK Statistics Authority, who would co-operate through a regulatory committee on political advertising. Political parties would then work with those regulators to develop a code of practice, along with appropriate sanctions, that restricts fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election or referendum. The Lords Committee recommends that that regulatory committee should adjudicate breaches of the code, and that is effectively what new clause 63 would put in place.

“What then would happen about sanctions?” I hear hon. Members ask. Well, that takes us on to new clause 64, which again creates a separation. It would establish an enforcement framework and enable the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions for breaches of the advertising code, basically according to a ladder of increasing seriousness.

I warmly recommend the new clauses to the Government and the Committee. Despite the rapidity of my speech, given the shortness of time, the way that advertising can distort our politics is a crucial issue. I very much hope that the Government will warmly consider the issues, alongside all the other ones that they will hopefully come back to us on at a later stage.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 59 would create a new offence of misleading the public in a parliamentary election campaign, which could be committed by candidates in election campaigns. Unfortunately, that approach risks turning the courts into political fact checkers. It risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary and would create significant freedom of expression concerns. In line with the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference, we will work with the Conference, the Electoral Commission and political parties to develop a campaigning code of conduct that is fit for purpose and reflects the need of candidates across the political spectrum.

I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which makes it an illegal practice to make or publish a false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate the effect of which impacts the election result.

I will speak to new clauses 61, 62, 63 and 64 together. These new clauses would amount to a significant expansion of the regulatory framework governing political campaigning and electoral advertising. They would introduce a statutory code of conduct for political campaigning, a statutory electoral advertising code and a new electoral advertising code committee to oversee, adjudicate and enforce compliance with the advertising code, funded through a levy on political parties.

We welcomed the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference to develop a code of conduct for campaigning. We are working with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties on an approach that is fit for purpose, and that works across the broad range of candidates and campaigners.

That work is already under way. Ahead of the May 2026 elections, the Electoral Commission has published a first set of advisory principles for campaigning respectfully and safely. The published principles already address key issues that these new clauses try to address. The Electoral Commission has also made it clear that these principles are the start of that work, rather than the end of it, and, after the May elections it will assess how the principles operated in practice, and use that assessment to inform development of a fuller code of conduct.

A non-statutory approach offers the best opportunity for the code to be developed collaboratively, with strong cross-party engagement and sufficient flexibility to ensure that it remains meaningful, and can be refined in the light of experience and developments in campaigning practice over time. It would be better to allow that work to continue and to be evaluated in practice, rather than to prescribe the content and process for an evolving set of codes in the Bill.

New clauses 62, 63 and 64 would place regulators in the position of adjudicating factual claims made in the course of political campaigning, an area that is inherently contested and closely connected to political opinion. Although safeguards are included, there remains a real risk of regulatory creep, drawing independent regulators into disputes around policy or political arguments, which can be rebutted by rival campaigners and scrutinised by the press as part of the normal course of political debate.

Any reforms in this space must be considered carefully and developed in consultation, in order to ensure that changes to the regulation of political advertising are proportionate, protect freedom of expression and maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of regulatory bodies.

Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 59.

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission’s instituting criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—a capacity that the Electoral Commission previously had, which was removed by the Elections Act 2022. We currently have a bizarre situation where any individual or organisation other than the Electoral Commission can make a private prosecution against breaches of political finance law but the Electoral Commission cannot. That gives rise to a criminal enforcement gap, which is not helped by a lack of investigatory and prosecutorial lead capacity, especially for UK-wide offences. Other similar regulators in the UK can bring criminal proceedings in areas under their auspices, so there is a real question: why not the Electoral Commission?

I note that Philip Rycroft dealt with that question in his report and recommended an alternative approach. I have tabled the new clause as a probing amendment to ask the Government to provide more clarification. If we are not going to give these powers to the Electoral Commission, who should take the lead? The status quo is clearly not working. There is an alarming lack of prosecution in this space, going back quite a number of years. The net effect is essentially that people can escape from prosecution. If it is not going to be the Electoral Commission, we need much more investment in the capacities and powers of the police. I understand that we have a situation where the police might not feel that investigations are necessarily in their interest, because the fines that can be charged are not proportionate to the huge amount of police time that might be required to investigate the issues.

I would like to hear from the Government how they will address the clear gap in the capacity of the system overall to initiate criminal proceedings on breaches of electoral law. An obvious solution would be to put it through the Electoral Commission. I recognise that Philip Rycroft has a somewhat different view. Will the Government please explain their view?

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 66 would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission bringing criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that was introduced in the Elections Act 2022. To be clear, the Electoral Commission has never brought criminal prosecutions, even prior to the changes introduced by the Act. It has a wide range of investigatory powers and is able to impose a variety of civil sanctions for certain offences. The Bill already extends and strengthens those powers to promote more robust and proportionate enforcement.

Where criminal investigation and prosecution is required or thought appropriate for certain offences, the Commission refers those cases to the police and the relevant prosecuting authority, who are experts in this domain. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that electoral law is enforced effectively, and that there is there is public confidence in the system of regulation governing political finance. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review.

As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire pointed out, the review looked specifically at criminal enforcement arrangements and concluded it entirely appropriate that criminal investigations are handled by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. The review noted that it would be unnecessary and potentially counterproductive for the Electoral Commission to have a prosecutorial role; it would require significant investment in specialist expertise that might be deployed only sporadically.

Furthermore, although the Electoral Commission must enforce electoral law without fear or favour, it must also engage constructively with campaigners to help them to comply with the rules. Rycroft noted that it would be difficult for the Electoral Commission to maintain that constructive regulatory role with political parties if it were also pursuing criminal prosecutions.

Given the review’s findings on this issue, we do not think that any changes are needed to the Electoral Commission’s role. We will respond fully to the Rycroft review in due course and consider whether any other legislative changes are necessary in line with its findings. I request that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 75

Power to make consequential provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 76 to 81 stand part.

Government amendment 21.

[Samantha Dixon]

I turn to the final clauses in the Bill, which make general provisions and are standard practice for a Bill. Given the hour, I do not intend to go through each of the remaining clauses individually and will move them formally. As I have stated, they are standard practice and necessary provisions. We have also already debated and accepted new clause 14, which Government amendment 21 relates to. I therefore urge Members to accept all of these general provisions, as well as the consequential Government amendment 21.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 76 to 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80

Commencement

Amendment proposed: 33, in clause 80, page 100, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Part 1 does not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament that reviews why the age at which it would become legal to vote in parliamentary general elections should differ from the following—

(a) the age of majority in the Family Law Act 1969;

(b) any minimum ages specified in law which the Secretary of State considers appropriate to review.”—(Paul Holmes.)

This amendment would prevent Part 1 of the Act coming into force until the Secretary of State had undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in this Act.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 38, in clause 71, page 92, line 35, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.

This amendment would, with NC55, include family members and staff of candidates as people towards whom hostility would be treated as an aggravating factor.

Clauses 71 to 74 stand part.

New clause 55—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.

“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—

‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates

(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—

(a) a relative; or

(b) a member of staff;

of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”

This new clause would, with Amendment 38, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to clauses 70 to 74 first, and we will come to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats later.

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on the UK’s democratic processes. We know that electoral staff faced unacceptable abuse and intimidation during the 2024 general election. That is why we are extending the scope of the disqualification order to ensure that electoral staff are provided with the same protection as candidates, campaigners and elective office holders.

Clause 70 will enhance the disqualification order’s ability to protect those who participate in public life, and those who play a crucial part in the administration and delivery of elections. It will also act as a deterrent, signalling that intimidatory behaviour is a serious matter that must not be allowed to damage our democracy.

It is clear that more must be done to tackle the abuse and intimidation directed at those who participate in elections and political debate. While disqualification orders are a key part of tackling the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of those in public life, they do nothing to prevent those who have no interest in standing as a candidate from engaging in intimidatory or abusive behaviour. Clause 71 introduces a new statutory aggravating factor, which will empower courts to apply an uplift when passing sentence for an offence linked to intimidation. This is where the offender was motivated by hostility towards candidates, campaigners, elective office holders and electoral officials and their staff.

Clause 72 introduces this new statutory aggravating factor in Northern Ireland, and amends the location of the pre-existing Scottish aggravating factor. This is a significant new deterrent for those who seek to damage the UK’s democracy or intimidate those who uphold it, and will ensure that anyone who does so will be subject to appropriate criminal justice penalties.

Let us turn to clause 73. Disqualification orders were introduced in the Elections Act 2022, to be imposed on offenders throughout the UK who commit crimes of hostility against electoral candidates, campaigners and officer holders. Scotland introduced Scottish disqualification orders in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, which gave similar protection to a fourth category: Scottish electoral officials. The Bill extends the scope of the disqualification order in the Elections Act 2022 to protect electoral officials throughout the UK, but Scottish electoral officials will continue to be covered by the Scottish legislation.

To ensure that there is a fully reciprocal relationship between disqualification orders in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the Bill also applies the effect of Scottish disqualification orders to relevant elective offices throughout the UK. That ensures that if someone is disqualified from standing for or holding office in Scotland, they will also be unable to stand for or hold office in the rest of the UK, and vice versa.

That will ensure a consistent approach throughout the UK for intimidatory behaviour towards those who participate in public life. If a person is convicted of specific criminal offences, motivated by hostility towards candidates, future candidates, substitutes, nominees, campaigners, holders of relevant elective office or electoral officials, they will be prohibited from standing for or holding office for five years across the UK. Clause 74 builds on the measures introduced in clause73, and makes amendments to various pieces of legislation to apply the Scottish disqualification order to relevant elected offices across the UK.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Dame Siobhain; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for the information about a photographer being present; had I known, I would have had a shave this morning. Normally, we can only be heard in audio and, as my mother says, I have a face that only a mother could love.

We welcome the Minister outlining the parameters of the clauses, and welcome the fact that the Government are taking the safety of election staff seriously. They are public facing, and work with us on an equal basis to ensure that democracy works. We therefore strongly welcome the fact that the Government are extending these protections to election staff. Officer teams across the whole country are very busy at the moment; we know that from our various involvements with election returning officers, and the election staff who are making sure that everybody who is entitled to vote can do so via different methods.

When an officer reads out the results on television, and faces an inquiry from somebody who they do not satisfy, that can spur on the kind of attacks and threats that we receive as publicly elected officials. It is therefore absolutely right that such officers should enjoy the same protections that we do. As I say, the Government should be congratulated on taking this matter seriously.

It therefore makes perfect sense to amend the sentencing code for England and Wales in clause 71 regarding offences that have been committed under the Elections Act 2022, so that going forward this can be treated as an aggravating factor. Of course, it is also perfectly sensible that the provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.

We strongly welcome the Government’s action on this; it should be supported by everybody. I wanted to put it on the record that the Minister should be congratulated for it.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I rise briefly to say that I fully support these measures, which are clearly welcomed across all parties. I also support the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford in relation to extending the measures further, because by definition, anybody who is essentially associated with the political process is potentially subject to the hostility that we have discussed. Extending those protections is clearly important.

[Samantha Dixon]

Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. As I have set out, the Bill will also introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.

Amendment 38 and new clause 55 would extend the list of relevant persons to include candidates’ staff and their relatives. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the regime already covers those circumstances. The application of the existing disqualification order and new aggravating factor is based on the motivation behind the offence committed, regardless of precisely who the offence was committed against. For example, if it were found that a relevant offence was committed against a candidate’s relative for the purpose of intimidating the candidate, ultimately the offence was motivated by hostility towards the candidate, and thus a disqualification order or aggravating factor could be applied.

Regarding employees of candidates specifically, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Guildford to the fact that campaigners employed by candidates are already directly protected under the regime by section 34 of the Elections Act 2022. Other employees would be covered indirectly in the same way that I have outlined for a candidate’s relatives. I hope the hon. Member is reassured by that and will consider not pressing the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

On new clause 55 and amendment 38, I understand why the hon. Member for Guildford, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is attempting to change the legislation.

The Minister may remember that we had a back-and-forth in relation to the security briefings being offered to candidates through Operation Ford, and the Government’s amendments. Has she given any more thought to a statutory timeline, and guidance on making sure that candidates are offered those briefings in a reasonable timeframe so that nobody slips through the net because the police force has not got around to it? That may inform the decision of the hon. Member for Guildford regarding whether to press the new clause and amendment to a vote.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that the Electoral Commission is working hard, and that to prescribe timetables would place a restriction on it that we do not feel is required. Given the good, proactive work that it already does in this area, with the Government working alongside it, we do not feel it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Electoral Commission. With JESP, the Department and the Electoral Commission working hard across the electoral landscape, we do not feel that the amendment and the new clause are necessary, so I respectfully ask the hon. Member not to push them to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 14

Removal of strategy and policy statement

“(1) In Part 1 of PPERA 2000 (the Electoral Commission) omit—

(a) sections 4A to 4E and the italic heading before those sections (strategy and policy statement);

(b) section 13ZA and the italic heading before that section (examination by the Speaker’s Committee of the Electoral Commission’s performance of duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).

(2) Omit sections 16 and 17(1) of the Elections Act 2022 (which inserted the sections repealed by subsection (1)).

(3) The Electoral Commission is not required to publish a report under section 4B(4) of PPERA 2000 in relation to any 12-month period ending on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This new clause removes provision about the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Samantha Dixon]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause removes provisions allowing the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. For the health of our democracy, it is essential that the Electoral Commission is fearlessly independent, commands trust across the political spectrum and the public, and is seen to operate free from political influence. We have listened to stakeholders and recognise that re-establishing the principle of independence for our elections regulator is vital for public confidence in our electoral system.

That move is a response to the recommendations of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, parliamentary Committees, the Electoral Commission itself as well as civil society organisations such as Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption, all of whom emphasised that Government powers to designate a statement are incompatible with the commission’s independence.

That is why we have taken clear action by tabling this new clause. Ministers will no longer have the power to designate a strategy and policy statement, and the Electoral Commission will no longer be required to have regard to one. The Electoral Commission will rightly remain accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. The new clause would reinforce the foundational principles of the Electoral Commission’s independence, and it would restore confidence in its ability to oversee elections and regulate political finance, without fear or favour, into the future. For that reason, I urge Members to accept the new clause.

[The Chair]

Does anyone wish to make a contribution?

[Dr Chowns]

I just want to say, well done to the Government.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Lady very much.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 60

Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000

“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—

(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—

(a) ’;

(b) at the end insert

‘, or

(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration

“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual is, or has been—

(a) a member of, or

(b) a politically-appointed adviser to

a foreign administration.’

(3) After subsection (8) insert—

‘(9) In subsection (2A)—

“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;

“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”—(Lisa Smart.)

This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

At the moment, we see a blindingly obvious loophole in identification, and we want to ensure that all organisations have a level playing field and a statutory ability to communicate with each other, so that we can highlight any potential or ongoing attempt at foreign influence in our political process. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those concerns.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government fully recognise the seriousness of the threat posed by foreign interference in our democracy. Protecting the integrity of UK elections is essential, which is why it is a criminal offence to accept or facilitate donations from foreign sources, and why the Bill seeks to strengthen the system further. However, while I can understand and appreciate the intention behind new clause 2, we do not believe that it is the right way to address this threat.

First, new clause 2 takes a broad and untargeted approach that would permanently bar any individual who

“is, or has been…a member of, or…adviser to a foreign administration”

from making political donations, regardless of how long ago that role was held, its nature or whether there is any ongoing connection to a foreign state. That risks excluding individuals who are entitled to participate in UK political life, and who pose no credible risk of foreign interference.

Secondly, there would be issues of enforceability. I will not spend much time on this particular point, because it is important that I set out our arguments on the principle, and what I think the right answer to this is, but following the approach of new clause 2 would mean relying on definitions of persons that are difficult to get right and can be unenforceable in practice. The amendment relies on concepts such as a “politically-appointed adviser”, which is opaque, legally speaking, and risks creating legal uncertainty for campaigners and regulators.

Thirdly, and more fundamentally, where the concern is hostile activity by, or on behalf of, foreign states, we already have robust and targeted tools in our national security legislation, which is complemented by safeguards in electoral law that we are seeking to enhance through the Bill. The National Security Act 2023 provides a clear criminal framework for tackling hostile state activity, including the foreign interference offence, which is specifically designed to capture conduct carried out on behalf of a foreign power to influence the UK’s political system.

Existing electoral law is designed to ensure that money can only come from permissible sources and criminalises the acceptance or facilitation of donations from impermissible foreign sources. The Bill significantly strengthens the existing rules so that in future even donations that are potentially risky are identified earlier, scrutinised more closely, and returned where necessary.

By introducing robust “know your donor” checks and requiring all donors to declare any benefits they have received in connection with their donation, we are reducing the space in which individuals who pose a real risk, or their proxies, can operate under the radar. Our new measures directly respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, as well as those of other key stakeholders, such as the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency. With that, I hope she feels she can withdraw her amendment.

New clause 3 seeks to prevent those convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence from making political donations. Currently, if an individual is convicted of such an offence, that conduct rightly affects their democratic rights, including their ability to stand for election or to hold elected office. This helps to deter those who would undermine the democratic rights of others, such as candidates contesting an election.

The Government are absolutely aligned with the intention behind this proposal. Political violence and its promotion or incitement have no place in our democracy, and we are clear that those who seek to undermine democratic participation through violence or intimidation should face serious consequences. The question, however, is not whether this behaviour is unacceptable—it plainly is—but whether this is the right legal mechanism to address it.

If this amendment were to be accepted, it would represent a significant shift in the purpose of political finance law, which is about ensuring only those individuals who have a legitimate interest in our elections can support candidates and campaigns through their vote, volunteering their time or offering financial support. Although I share the hon. Member’s concern, the Government believe that this amendment does not address a regulatory gap and would not further our shared aim of reducing harassment and intimidation in politics.

The harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democracy. That is why we are taking forward several interventions in the Bill to tackle this issue, which we have already discussed in great detail, and are doing so through criminal law, electoral offences and disqualification, rather than through political finance rules, which are not designed to address conduct. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

[Lisa Smart]

I listened closely to what the Minister said, and I understand the thrust of her view that existing rules would cover the conduct that we are seeking to avoid. Will the Minister think of the specific case of Elon Musk, the owner of X? He spoke at a rally via video link and incited violence. He has also talked, at separate times, about donating to a UK political party. UK companies are part of his group; there would be a way for him to channel funding through a UK company. Will the Minister let me know what I am missing that would stop Elon Musk doing that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I have said this before and I will say it again: the Bill is not designed to prevent specific individuals from participating in or undermining elections. It is about the general regulatory framework and criminal law that we intend to implement, uphold and shore up to prevent certain behaviours in the future. It is not about specific individuals, so I decline to respond the hon. Member’s comments, except to say simply that the legislation, in its entirety, aims to root out political violence, harassment and intimidation.

New clause 15 proposes to require candidates at UK parliamentary elections, in order to be validly nominated, to complete a declaration on whether they have received any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities. A registered political party would be responsible for ensuring that such a declaration had been completed before allowing a candidate to be nominated as a candidate for that party. The Government are strengthening the rules around political finance to protect against foreign interference and have introduced several measures, which we have discussed, that will apply to candidates. The reforms will make it significantly more difficult for malign actors to interfere in our elections.

As hon. Members know, and as I have said many times, the Rycroft review has recommended that the Government look further at enhancing rules for candidates to ensure that money received previously and then used in campaigns comes from permitted sources. The Government are carefully—and I underline that point—considering that recommendation, among all the others. The Government share the concern of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove but, in light of that ongoing work, I ask her not to move new clause 15.

New clause 16 seeks to require registered parties to produce an annual risk mitigation statement relating to donations originating from foreign nations, and to commission an annual independent investigation into donations that they receive from foreign-owned UK entities. Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system. We recognise the hon. Member’s concerns that the nature of foreign interference is evolving, with threats becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a package of measures that work together to close potential loopholes and address vulnerabilities to foreign interference.

Via secondary legislation we will require donors to declare any benefits linked to their donations and we will strengthen donation rules to ensure that companies must demonstrate a genuine and substantive UK connection. Those changes will help to ensure that political donations genuinely reflect UK-based interests and will prevent the use of shell companies to channel impermissible donations. In practice, where behaviour is not already criminal, the new “know your donor” regime already addresses much of the issue that new clause 16 seeks to tackle. However, the new clause’s approach of annual risk mitigation statements and retrospective investigations of foreign nation donations is less proactive than the risk-based duty that the Bill introduces.

As a reminder, rather than relying on parties to report annually about what they consider appropriate, the “know your donor” regime introduces risk-based due diligence on significant donations across the electoral regime. For the first time, recipients of donations will be required to adopt a risk-based framework for assessing the permissibility of donors, supported by Electoral Commission guidance, which will set out how donees can mitigate potential risks. That means that anyone receiving significant donations, not just parties, must carry out risk assessments, ensuring that the system as a whole is strengthened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I understand why the Minister is concerned about some of the new clauses, and as I said before, she is right that the Government are trying to tighten up the regime. On her argument that the Electoral Commission does not currently have the responsibilities she outlined, however, does she not agree that there is still a problem with two-way information sharing?

The Minister is absolutely correct to say that the Electoral Commission has the power to access Companies House information and powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. However, if we look at past examples of registered Chinese Communist party spies giving money to political parties in this House, does she not think it would have been useful if the Labour party, in that case, had known about that via the security services and could have refused the donation? I am not sure whether the Government are filling the hole of two-way information sharing, and that concerns me.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a breather. As he knows, the Rycroft review considered this matter and—I mean this sincerely; it is not simply a form of words for the Committee —the Government are carefully considering those recommendations and will respond in due course. To give him that assurance: this is part of that consideration.

Alongside the measures I mentioned, enhanced company permissibility tests ensure that only organisations with a genuine and substantive UK connection can donate, closing off key vulnerabilities in our electoral framework. The Government are also committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and anticipate that this will include an impact evaluation assessing whether the policies introduced have achieved their intended aims.

We have discussed the Rycroft review, and I sincerely mean it when I say that we will respond fully in due course to all the measures in it, including on improved co-ordination between the Electoral Commission, the Government, the security services and the police. For those reasons, while I fully understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington to strengthening our defences against foreign interference, the Government do not consider this amendment to be the right mechanism to achieve that end.

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to all who have contributed. I plan to press to a vote all the new clauses that I have spoken to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I thank both hon. Members. Who would have thought that I could get some agreement from the Liberal Democrats and the Green party? I entirely welcome it: they are absolutely correct. This is not a party political matter; it is a genuine attempt to fill the void that the Government have created through the lack of a timetable for ensuring that we tackle this issue.

The Minister is correct to say that this is a really complicated issue, so we must get it right in this legislation. Electoral reform legislation usually comes before the House only every decade and if we do not get it right, we will allow malign influences into the political process. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously. We stand ready, between stages of the Bill, to have a meeting on a cross-party basis, perhaps through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The Opposition think that a moratorium is better than a ban, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place. We stand ready to assist.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 4 seeks to make donations made to a registered political party, candidate or agent impermissible if the donation is made wholly or in part with cryptoassets.

New clause 12 purports to take a power so that the Secretary of State may make regulations, drafted by the Electoral Commission, mandating various requirements relating to the political donation of cryptoassets. It seeks to establish that political donations made via cryptoassets would be deemed impermissible unless those regulations were met. It intends to create an effective moratorium on cryptoasset donations until those regulations would be in force. On 25 March, the Secretary of State published the report of the independent review by Sir Philip Rycroft—sorry, I keep knighting him.

[The Chair]

I am sure he won’t mind.

[Samantha Dixon]

It is only a matter of time.

As Members know, we have accepted the review’s recommendation for a moratorium on the use of cryptoassets as political donations in order to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference, and we have been clear that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on this important matter in due course. In doing so, we will work closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that our proposals are robust and provide sufficient protection for our democracy.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked when the moratorium would end. We intend for it to end once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are confident that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference. I have noted her comment about the FCA. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her new clause.

New clause 20 would require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing donations received by the party made in cryptoassets for the last five years. We agree that cryptoassets present a significant risk, different from other forms of donation. In line with the recommendations from Rycroft, the Secretary of State has announced the moratorium, which we will bring forward in an amendment to the Bill. I recognise that that amendment would result in the Electoral Commission examining donations already made via cryptoassets before the moratorium was in place.

We are reducing the risk going forward, but I should highlight that there have already been some safeguards in place with regards to donations made with cryptoassets before the moratorium. Both existing law and guidance from the Electoral Commission are clear that that the rules and regulations for political donations made in fiat currency also apply to donations made via cryptoassets. It is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or facilitating an impermissible donation. It would be an offence to cash in cryptocurrency and then use the resulting funds to make a donation, if that were knowingly done to conceal or disguise a donation from an impermissible donor. As such, it is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations.

Guidance from the Electoral Commission also makes it clear that recipients must be alert to donors appearing to circumvent permissibility rules, such as by making multiple donations beneath reporting thresholds. I also highlight the fact that the Electoral Commission already has existing investigatory and enforcement powers when there are grounds to suspect illegal activity, including the power to request information or required documentation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I don’t think I have had any.

[Samantha Dixon]

He did. I invited him to come and talk to me about the Bill; other Members received their letters and came.

Putting that to one side—I am being slightly flippant—this has been a very fast-moving environment, and policy has been formulated very quickly in response to Rycroft. I undertake to work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Members of all parties as we go forward with the Bill—this is not the end of its passage.

I note the comment made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about having a longer Committee stage, but I am mindful that the implementation of other areas of policy needs to continue—so that we can, for example, introduce votes at 16 in time for the next general election. Although we want to go longer, we also want to go quicker. We will work collaboratively as we go forward.

[Paul Holmes]

I think the Minister is being slightly sneaky, dare I suggest: she did write to me about having meetings, but there were no proposals in the Bill on cryptocurrency and there still are not. Therefore, that issue was perhaps not within the remit of the legislation. When it came to other aspects of the Bill, I presumed that we would have gone through the usual channels and passages in Committee. The Minister is absolutely right that we did not meet, but that did not include the issue of cryptocurrency in this legislation.

[Samantha Dixon]

However, had the hon. Gentleman come along, he would have had the opportunity to raise anything he wanted to discuss, as other Members did— I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Given the assurances I have provided, particularly that the Government intend to table an amendment on the moratorium period for cryptocurrencies, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will consider withdrawing her new clause.

[Dr Chowns]

I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, and I recognise that the Government have stated their intention to bring other amendments forward. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government, not necessarily just in formal settings, on the specifics of the issues and concerns I raise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Overseas electors: postal ballots

“(1) RPA 1985 is amended as follows.

(2) After section (12) insert—

‘12A Overseas electors: postal ballots

(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision regarding the casting of postal ballots by overseas electors.

(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must provide for overseas electors to be offered the ability—

(a) to request an electronic version of their ballot paper for elections to print using the elector’s own printing facilities; and

(b) in a relevant country, to return their completed ballot paper to a United Kingdom embassy, High Commission or consulate for onward delivery to the relevant returning officer by diplomatic mail to be counted.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “a relevant country” is one where the United Kingdom maintains an embassy, Hight Commission or consulate.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.

5) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

I regret that the Government seem to have abdicated their responsibility over a vast area of people who should be voting but are not able to. I do not think that is done willingly—it may have been by mistake—but they have not done enough. In fact, I do not think they are doing anything on it in this legislation. I hope the Minister will look favourably on new clause 8 as well as new clauses 42 and 43, which would take very quick action to ensure that people near embassies are able to register their vote, so that those participation rates increase.

[Samantha Dixon]

It is not true that the Government do not have an eagerness to resolve issues for overseas voters. They are legitimate voters who should be able to exercise their right to vote without unnecessary barriers, and we recognise the difficulties that they face in trying to participate. Many choose to vote by post, and improvements are being made in the Bill to the postal voting system, which should be beneficial to overseas voters.

The purpose of new clause 6 is to allow for overseas electors to print their own ballot paper. They would then be able to deliver their completed ballot to the relevant consulate, embassy or high commission, to then be delivered to the relevant returning officers via diplomatic mail. That process could allow overseas ballot papers to be posted earlier and reduce the chance that they arrive too late to be counted.

I have already put forward a range of measures in the Bill to improve the resilience and responsiveness of the postal voting system, including changes to deadlines to allow swifter printing and delivery of postal vote packs. The Government welcome suggestions on further improvements that we could make to our postal voting system, but unfortunately we cannot support this new clause. All ballot papers must be uniformly printed and contain security markings to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and prevent fraud. It would not be possible to replicate that consistently if ballot papers were printed on home printers.

New clause 7 relates to using engagement with the UK Passport Office as a means of encouraging UK citizens living overseas to register to vote. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months of the passing of the Bill. The report would cover proposals requiring the UK Passport Office to provide UK citizens living overseas with information on voter registration for UK elections when they apply for a passport or renew their passport.

The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. We intend to explore and test a range of new, automated approaches that make better use of data and make the process easier and quicker for citizens. Separately to the Bill, we are exploring making better use of data that eligible citizens are already providing for other services, and helping to encourage people to register, vote or update their entries on the register. Our focus is on delivering on automated registration approaches, including those set out in the Bill, which allow us to improve voter registration for a greater range of electors.

The purpose of new clause 8 and amendment 3 is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing a range of options to support postal voting for overseas electors. We always welcome feedback and new ideas about how we can improve any aspect of our electoral system, and I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Guildford in this topic. As we have said, the Government recognise the challenges for those who live in remote areas overseas. However, I am afraid I do not believe that the costs of drafting and publishing this report could be justified.

Many of the proposals are frequently suggested and have been thoroughly considered already. Though it is possible that they could support the timely delivery of postal votes, they may come with considerable risks. For example, the use of online or telephone voting, or the digital transmission of ballot papers, would create unacceptable risks to the security and secrecy of those ballots. I note that the Bill already contains a number of measures specifically aimed at tackling those issues and improving the resilience and reliability of the postal voting system.

In particular, on the suggestion set out in subsection 2(e) of the new clause—that we should review deadlines and practices relating to the dispatching of postal ballots—the Government have already conducted a review on precisely that matter. The Bill will make a number of changes to improve the system, such as bringing forward the postal vote application deadline and formalising a postal vote determination date. I hope that Members will welcome and support those changes.

I now turn to new clauses 42 and 43 tabled by the Opposition. The purpose of new clause 42 is to require the Secretary of State to make a provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at UK embassies, high commissions or consulates for parliamentary elections. The Government have considered the suggestion and feel it would be a significant logistical undertaking that would not yield sufficient benefits to overseas electors.

For example, embassies could need to run polling stations covering all 650 constituencies, and every returning officer would need to oversee the activity in every embassy. Each embassy would need to be equipped with all the relevant ballot papers, registers and other materials needed—and could need up to 650 variations of these. Any benefits of embassy voting would be limited to electors living close to diplomatic premises, and it is therefore difficult to justify the additional costs that would arise from the suggestion.

We have no plans to introduce such a system of voting. Instead, we are focused on improving the current systems for overseas electors—such as postal and proxy voting—so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone. There are a number of measures on postal and proxy voting in the Bill, and I hope Members will be supportive of them.

New clause 43 would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online. The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. There are already existing powers that will allow us to explore and test a range of more automated approaches that involve integrating registering to vote with government services. They will make the process of voter registration easier and quicker for citizens. Our focus is on more automated registration methods that will benefit a greater range of electors.

[Zöe Franklin]

I thank the Minister for her comments, but I sadly remain unconvinced that we are addressing the significant problems that overseas voters are encountering when they seek to be involved with our democracy. They may live overseas, but they are still British citizens and deserve to be able to cast their vote. I will not press new clauses 6 and 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, to a Division. However, I intend to press new clause 8 to a Division, if that is feasible, Dame Siobhain.

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Hatton]

I think there is a difference between corporate and non-corporate donations. However, what would be really interesting is to see how the Bill progresses in taking forward the Rycroft review. That is a really important point, but I will not go over it again, because it has already been well articulated by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

To conclude, the Bill takes serious steps forward in addressing some of the foul play we have seen time and again with corporate donations in the past, and there is a huge body of evidence behind that. However, I would welcome any early advice or opinion the Minister can give us on how we can work on the recommendations set out by Philip Rycroft.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I will be guided by you, but I do not intend to speak to new clauses 13, 32 and 52 at this stage. However, to respond to a number of points made during the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire—

[The Chair]

Just for clarity, if you wish to speak to those new clauses, your only opportunity to do so is now.

[Samantha Dixon]

In the interests of time, I will continue.

On the other remarks made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, I hear her point about profit and revenue, and it is highlighted in the Rycroft review. As I said many times this morning, we will carefully consider the Rycroft review and respond to it appropriately.

The hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for Hazel Grove both highlighted the Government’s view that the responsibility rests with the donor. The Government strongly believe that. The onus is on the person or organisation receiving the donation to consider its origins very carefully. They can and should decline donations if they cannot satisfy themselves that those have come through the proper and legitimate channels.

Let me turn to the issue of why we should not ban donations from companies altogether. Political parties and other campaigners will remain able to raise sufficient funds because they need to communicate their views to the electorate about protecting our democracy better against those who seek to covertly undermine it. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire referenced the Canadian model. I have had the pleasure of meeting the Leader of the House from Canada. While it is tempting to suggest that there should be a ban on corporate donations, I remind the hon. Lady that 60% of their political campaigning is funded by the taxpayer—and it is a brave politician who would enter that particular plea to the British electorate at this time.

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the Minister for her engagement with my point. In UK politics, about 22% of donations into politics over the past few years have been from companies. We are not talking about requiring the Government to step in and put 60% of the funding into politics; we are talking about the risks associated with a specific form of donation.

Under the measures the Government is putting forward in clause 60, we are putting in place requirements to ensure that persons of significant control are clearly allowable donors. However, it is possible for a company to restructure so that it just goes underneath that and does not meet the 25% threshold. So that could still be a channel for illicit or foreign funding to come into British politics. Would it not be simpler to require any persons who have significant control in a company and who wish to make political donations to make them as individuals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Member has made her point. The Government believe that there is a place for company donations from UK companies. We just feel that we should be much stricter about the arrangements by which they do these things. We have set that out in the legislation, which is what we are discussing this afternoon.

Turning briefly to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, I remind all Members that these measures are not designed to prevent a specific individual or company from donating. Those who follow and meet the three tests and successfully meet the “know your donor” and section 54A requirements should be able to enrich our democracy by donating as they do. I therefore commend clause 60 to the Committee—

[Dr Chowns]

I apologise, but I have not heard the Minister respond to the point that I and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove made about donations being counted cumulatively, which is also one of the Rycroft recommendations.

[Samantha Dixon]

We will consider those points. The Rycroft recommendations are being considered very carefully. We will respond to them in due course and we will come back to Parliament with our recommendations as they come forward. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the assurance she is seeking.

[Lisa Smart]

We have had a good discussion of the amendments that I spoke to on behalf of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. I do not feel a desire in the room to move to a Division, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61

Forfeiture of certain donations to registered parties etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

This clause strengthens the electoral regime by restoring a clear, objective test for forfeiture: if an individual donor was not actually on an electoral register at the time of the donation, the donation is impermissible and liable to forfeiture. It responds directly to long-standing concerns from the Electoral Commission that the current framework is open to inconsistency. In particular, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which allowed courts to consider whether a donor was eligible, rather than actually registered, when assessing impermissible donations and their forfeiture, introduced uncertainty and risked discouraging thorough permissibility checks by campaigners.

The clause removes the ambiguity in electoral law, ensuring that permissibility of an individual is determined on actual electoral registration. It reinstates a simple and objective test that supports consistent enforcement and reinforces the integrity of the electoral regime. Campaigners already must take reasonable steps to verify donor permissibility. The clause simply removes the scope for subjective interpretation of permissibility and strengthens deterrence by ensuring that impermissible donations cannot be retained by campaigners due to ambiguity in the law. By reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics, the clause provides a clear deterrent for impermissible donations and supports compliance by political parties and campaigners.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister’s comments on the clause. It is important that when we have been discussing the nature of this legislation, particularly regarding donations, we have outlined a clear stance that if people want to participate in our political process and make donations, they should have a physical stake in it. Any removal of the ambiguity around campaigners having to look to see whether it is permissible is welcome. It is a reasonable expectation from the Government that there has to be some level of participatory engagement in the political process. We have no problem with the clause; indeed we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Unincorporated associations making political contributions

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

The clause contains the welcome measure of preventing donations from impermissible donors being made through the mechanism of unincorporated associations and reducing the level at which they have to register with the Electoral Commission and report gifts. That is very positive. The current situation really cannot continue, so I am pleased that, through these measures, the Government will try to manage and block malicious interference and ensure democratic safety.

Although unincorporated associations are used legitimately by some, they can be an opaque vehicle for funds of unknown origin, so there is potential for them to be used to introduce foreign interference in our political system. Interesting Transparency International research published last year found that, of the £40.4 million in donations made by unincorporated associations since 2010, a huge £38.6 million was unaccounted for. More than 95% of donations from unincorporated associations came from those that have not reported the source of their income, so it is clearly time for change Despite those concerning statistics, the previous Government increased reporting thresholds for unincorporated associations in the Elections Act 2022, so I am very glad that this Government are reversing that decision through the Bill.

Under normal regulations, donations to political parties must come from a permissible source if they are over £500, but if the donations are made by an unincorporated association, even with the lower threshold, the reporting requirements are not triggered until donations reach over £11,180 in a calendar year. Even with the new rules, it is possible for an unincorporated association that does not meet the threshold and is therefore not required to register to make donations without any checks. That is clearly an undesirable and unnecessary loophole, so I support the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), which aim to close this loophole, and I urge the Minister to consider reducing the permissibility threshold for unincorporated associations to £500, equal to the permissibility threshold for other sources of donation.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will speak now to clause 62 and Government amendments 79 to 87, which were tabled in my name. I will come to the other amendments later.

The clause introduces measures that have long been called for by the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission, to tighten the rules around unincorporated associations. Under the current framework, unincorporated associations are permitted to make political contributions provided their main office and activities are based in the UK, but there are no restrictions on the sources of the funds behind those contributions. Existing rules therefore do not provide sufficient transparency or assurance about who is ultimately funding the political contributions made through such bodies.

The clause introduces a strengthened framework to ensure that political contributions from unincorporated associations come from permissible sources and are subject to stricter and more consistent transparency requirements. The clause lowers the thresholds at which UAs must register with the Electoral Commission and report the gifts they receive, ensuring that significant contributors provide the same level of transparency as other regulated campaigners. It also extends transparency rules so that contributions to candidates count towards the registration threshold, and it requires UAs to appoint a responsible person, improving clarity about who stands behind such associations.

Finally, clause 62 introduces new controls to ensure that funds used for political contributions come from permissible sources. UAs will be required to verify political gifts they rely on, and they will be prohibited from using unverifiable or impermissible funds for political activity. I commend clause 62 to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 64 stand part.

New clause 10—Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament guidance on certain digital communication offences, including digital manipulation and artificially generated content in relation to candidates and elected officials.

(2) Any guidance issued under section (1) must include guidance on the following—

(a) the operation of section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;

(b) the operation of section 114A (undue influence) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;

(c) the interaction between the operations of sections 106 and 114A of the RPA 1983 and the duty of providers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including in relation to priority offences during election periods.

(3) Within 12 months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament either—

(a) a statement that no updates to the guidance are required, or

(b) an updated version of the guidance.

(4) Before issuing—

(a) any guidance under subsection (1) or subsection (3) (b), or

(b) a statement under subsection (3)(a),

the Secretary of State must consult OFCOM and such other persons as they think necessary.

(5) For the purposes of this section “priority offences” means an offence listed in Schedule 7 (priority offences) of the Online Safety Act 2023.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications as they relate to candidates and elected officials.

New clause 18—Information to be included with electronic material: generative artificial intelligence—

“(1) Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3)(b) insert—

“(c) where the electronic material consists of or includes image, audio or video content that has been generated or materially altered by means of generative artificial intelligence, a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.”

(2A) In this section, "generative artificial intelligence" means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined prompts or objectives, generate new image, audio or video content.”

This new clause amends the digital imprint rules in the Elections Act 2022 to require that any political campaigning material which contains images, audio, or video generated or materially altered by AI must include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.

New clause 24—Repository of digital political advertising—

“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) After section 61 insert—

“Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising

61A. Establishing a repository of digital political advertising

(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.

(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;

(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;

(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and

(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.

(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Electoral Commission;

(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and

(c) OFCOM.

(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.

New clause 25—Electoral Commission: powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation—

“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(2) After Schedule 12, insert—

“SCHEDULE 13: Electoral Commission powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation

1 The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to allow the Electoral Commission to issue a notice requiring certain information from a regulated user-to-user service or search service, at any time during any regulated election period.

2 Any regulations made under paragraph 1 must specify that a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph must comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.

3 Any regulations made under paragraph 2 must specify the information which may be requested by the Electoral Commission, and include the following where they relate to elections—

(a) information relating to paid-for political advertising;

(b) algorithmic systems;

(c) coordinated inauthentic behaviour; and

(d) automated or bot accounts (whether domestic or foreign).

4 Any regulations made under paragraph 2 must also provide for any safeguards considered necessary by the Secretary of State as regards data protection or commercial confidentiality.

5 Any regulations made under paragraph 2 must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.

6 For the purposes of this Schedule, “user-to-user service” has the meaning given by section 3 (“user-to-user service” and “search service”) of the Online Safety Act 2023.””

New clause 27—Government review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the adequacy of the current regulated periods for elections and referendums.

(2) The review must consider the following—

(a) the impact of campaign activity outside the relevant regulated period on elections;

(b) whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient to tackle the prevalence of—

(i) manipulated content,

(ii) misinformation,

(iii) disinformation,

and their potential influence on elections.

(3) The review may make any recommendations it feels necessary for legislative or regulatory reform as a result of its findings.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “campaign activity” includes—

(a) digital campaigning;

(b) targeted advertising; and

(c) automated content distribution.

(5) For the purposes of this section “regulated period” means any period regulated under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament, together with their response to any recommendations for legislative or regulatory reform.”

This new clause requires the government to establish a review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections which would consider whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient in relation to the prevalence of manipulated content, misinformation and disinformation.

New clause 28—Information to be included with electronic material: data provenance—

“After Section 41 (requirement to include information with electronic material) of the Elections Act 2022 insert—

“Requirement to include information with electronic material created through generative artificial intelligence

(1) This section applies to electronic material which—

(a) meets the conditions in section 42 (paid for electronic material), or

(b) meets the conditions in section 44 (other electronic material),

and has been generated wholly through generative artificial intelligence.

(2) Electronic material to which this section applies must not be published unless it includes the following information—

(a) a statement that content was wholly generated by a generative artificial intelligence system;

(b) the name of the system used to generate the content.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—

(a) additional requirements for information to be required under subsection (2);

(b) the form in which the information required under subsection (2) is to be provided.

(4) The form prescribed by regulations under subsection (3)(b) must be a form which can be detected and processed by regulated user-to-user services for the purpose of providing the required information to users of such services.

(5) Any regulations made under subsection (4) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “generative artificial intelligence” means computer system or software that—

(a) is capable of producing text, images, audio, video, or other content autonomously, wholly or substantially, based on prompts or instructions provided by a user;

(b) uses machine learning or other algorithmic techniques to generate content that mimics human-created material; and

(c) may produce content that is not pre-existing but is synthesized based on patterns learned from existing data.””

This new clause requires campaign material which has been generated by generative artificial intelligence to include a statement to that effect along with the name of the system used. It creates a power for the Government to make regulations about the information to be included.

Amendment 4, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—

“(ha) Section (Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC10.

[Samantha Dixon]

Any campaigner wishing to influence the electorate should be prepared to be transparent. Imprint rules play an important role in upholding trust in UK democratic processes by ensuring that voters can see clearly who is behind political campaigning material. Under existing rules, third-party campaigners who spend under a certain threshold are not required to include imprints on their organic digital campaigning material. That creates a loophole allows third-party campaigning groups to disseminate potentially influential content without disclosing its origin, which is concerning when such material is designed to be shared virally, especially if the material is misleading, controversial or intended to manipulate public opinion without accountability.

Clause 63 strengthens the transparency of digital imprint rules by ensuring that third-party campaigning groups spending under a certain threshold are also required to include imprints on their organic digital campaigning material. This requirement will ensure that the rules promote transparency and public trust, while protecting free expression and avoiding undue burdens on individuals simply expressing their political opinions online.

Following consultation with the Scottish Government, it was agreed that applying a single UK-wide regime uniformly will enable voters from across the UK to benefit from a level of transparency and will avoid confusion. The clause therefore also repeals part 8 of the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 consequentially upon the extension of the UK-wide digital imprint regime.

Turning to clause 64, it is important that campaigners have access to clear and up-to-date guidelines. The Electoral Commission’s guidance on digital imprints plays an important role in helping campaigners to understand and comply with the rules and supports enforcement authorities in maintaining transparency and public trust in UK democratic processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We are discussing a new clause that starts a conversation about the regulated period and would create a year’s limit on the amount of literature that can go out, outside of an election period. That seems different from what the hon. Lady is describing, which is the regulations and limits on political parties, and candidates not in a party, during an election period. Those are two very different things. I am quite happy with the fact that I have to raise the money to stand for my seat at a general election, and that national parties have to account for that.

The new clause includes provisions not just for general elections but for outside election periods. What I find concerning is that council groups—such as those of the hon. Lady’s party in Eastleigh, or my party’s in Fareham, Hampshire and all across the country—would have to be accountable for putting out communications to people who end up putting councillors in their jobs. I do not think that we should get in the habit of limiting political parties outside an election period, because I think that is an entirely different prospect, and an entirely different area from how we are governed in an election period.

I am perfectly okay to start talking about funding levels during an election period, but I do not want to do so for candidates who wish to start a campaign before the current regulatory period. As the hon. Lady will know—she is a very successful politician, both locally and nationally—we do not begin to build an election campaign just in the regulated period. Many of us started trying to get involved in politics a long time before we were elected, and I think that limit is a very dangerous thing in today’s democracy.

However, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am open to a conversation about election financing. I am looking at my Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—who is probably horrified by me saying that, but I am not against that argument or discussion. I just think that this goes a bit too far, and it does not sit well with me. After that rambling oratory, I just say to Green and Liberal Democrat Members that, if they choose to push new clauses 10 and 24 to a vote, the Opposition will support them, but we would vote against new clause 27.

The Opposition also think that the accountability in new clause 18 is very sensible. If we use AI, we should be honest about it—it is as simple as that. If any politician wants to put forward an AI-generated image, I first think there is a question about why they would want to do so anyway. We all think that our constituencies are beautiful, and we would not want to change them. We also all know that politics is acting for ugly people, so why would we want to change the way we look?

I do not understand why someone would want to use an AI-generated image, but if they do, they should actually be big enough and strong enough to own it. Therefore, it is important to have some extra regulation, particularly as some people might not be au fait with AI-generated images, as some are very believable—not the one of Donald Trump pretending to be Jesus, but the more sensible ones. People cannot necessarily pick that up, so if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove chose to push new clause 18 to a vote, the Opposition would also support it.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 18 seeks to require digital campaigning material, in scope of the digital imprint regime, that contains images, audio or video generated or materially altered to include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used. The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes, and the risks they present to democratic processes and public trust in the online information environment. We agree that helping voters understand the authenticity of digital campaigning material is an important objective.

However, AI technologies are developing at pace, and there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining when content has been generated or materially altered by AI. That would make enforcement by the Electoral Commission and the police difficult in practice, and it would risk undermining campaigners’ compliance with the rules.

The new clause, as drafted, would also create uncertainty and disproportionate legal risks for campaigners. For example, it would create a new criminal offence for failing to include a statement about AI use, even where the AI involvement may be trivial, automated or outside the campaigner’s knowledge or control. Further consideration would also be needed on how liability for offences should apply to those who republish material.

There would also be a considerable chance of the new clause quickly becoming obsolete. AI is evolving rapidly, so adopting a definition of “generative artificial intelligence” in primary legislation might struggle to keep pace with technological developments and it could quickly become outdated. Although we share the intention to strengthen transparency in digital campaigning, the Government do not believe that the new clause is currently workable or proportionate. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently announced that the Government will establish a taskforce to put forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report to be published in the autumn. I urge Members to follow the progress of that taskforce.

I turn to new clause 10 and amendment 4. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for those and for her commitment to strengthening online protections. I know Members feel strongly about that area. I share the objective of seeing the powers of the Online Safety Act 2023 being fully and effectively utilised. With that in mind, the Government have carefully considered new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications, as they relate to candidates and elected officials.

Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope service providers are already required to have effective systems and processes in place to identify and remove illegal content. That includes content that amounts to the two offences identified in new clause 10: the “false statements about candidates” offence and the offence of undue influence. Those duties apply equally to AI-generated and manipulated content where such material meets the threshold of either offence.

As the independent regulator, Ofcom issues codes of practice that provide clear guidance on what action providers should take to manage and mitigate illegal content. The codes recommend various measures across risk management, user reporting and content moderation. Ofcom has already produced guidance to assist providers in making judgments about whether certain content is illegal, and such guidance includes usage examples where possible. As the independent and expert online safety regulator, Ofcom, not the Government, is best placed to offer such guidance.

The Government have no plans to widen their role within the Online Safety Act regulatory regime by issuing guidance on matters within Ofcom’s remit. Introducing a new duty for Government to publish parallel guidance on two specific offences, and committing to regularly updating that guidance, would blur the lines between Government and the independent regulator, undermining the model for which Parliament has only recently legislated.

The Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that protections keep pace with evolving threats to democracy, and I welcome continued engagement with parliamentarians on that important issue. As Members will know, Rycroft made recommendations in his review supporting the principle of advertising libraries and suggested that the Government could use their convening power to work with social media companies to extend the practice of advert libraries to achieve consistency in how they are presented. That is not the same as setting a legal requirement for a repository of digital political advertising, as intended by new clause 10. None the less, we are carefully considering all of the recommendations in the Rycroft review and will issue a response in due course.

New clause 24 seeks to establish a repository for paid-for digital political advertising. Digital political advertising plays an important role in supporting democratic engagement. It remains one of the most accessible and cost-effective ways for political parties and campaigners to connect with the public and have their message heard. However, the Committee will be aware that the European Commission introduced similar requirements to new clause 24 in 2024, including mandatory transparency notices containing information such as spending and targeting, and the requirement for platforms to upload all political adverts to a European repository.

In response, major platforms such as Meta and Google chose to cease hosting paid political advertising entirely in the EU, citing operational complexity and uncertainty as to whether compliance by platforms and campaigners was realistically achievable. If the UK were to adopt comparable measures without fully understanding their operational impact, we could see similar unintended outcomes here.

The potential removal of political advertising from major platforms in the UK could risk reducing political pluralism online by restricting the ability of political parties, civil society organisations and candidates, many of whom rely on digital platforms to engage effectively with the public. Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates may be disproportionately impacted by such an outcome, losing an affordable channel to reach voters, while larger, well-followed parties and campaigning groups would likely be less affected. That would make campaigning more challenging for newcomers, potentially undermining the level playing field.

The Government agree that transparency in digital campaigning is important, but any reforms must be carefully balanced to protect freedom of expression and avoid placing undue burdens on campaigners and platforms. This is a complex area, and the implications need detailed consideration to avoid replicating the unintended consequences seen in other jurisdictions. In the meantime, we welcome the steps already taken by platforms such as Meta and Google, which have created publicly accessible political advert libraries. We encourage other platforms to do the same.

The measures in the Bill will extend the scope of digital imprint rules and place enforcement on a clearer and more proportionate footing, ensuring that voters can continue to make informed decisions on digital material in elections and referenda. We will continue to keep wider policy relating to electoral campaigning under review.

I turn to new clause 25. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of protecting our elections from online interference, including concerns about how algorithms, such as recommender systems, can amplify harmful or misleading content. The current legal framework to tackle online electoral mis and disinformation has the Online Safety Act 2023 as its core pillar. New clause 25 would risk creating overlap and confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act.

Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope services must take action in relation to any content that amounts to existing election offences during an election period. The Online Safety Act already provides Ofcom with extensive powers to gather information from services and scrutinise how algorithms operate as well as a mandate to require services to conduct illegal content risk assessments. That includes assessing the likelihood of users encountering illegal content through algorithms, how systems may exacerbate or mitigate those risks, and what safeguards are required. From 2027, categorised services will also be required to report information about their algorithms, including how they influence the display, promotion or recommendation of content. Creating overlap or confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act also increases the risk of regulatory uncertainty. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause.

That said, the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with the regulatory framework it is responsible for enforcing. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference.

As Members know, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose, including recommendations relating to the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

New clause 27 would require the Government to establish a review to consider the adequacy of regulated periods of elections and referendums. More specifically, it would consider whether they are of sufficient length to combat mis and disinformation, and the impact of digital campaigning outside regulated periods.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I have a lot of sympathy for what the Minister is saying. It seems to me that there is a risk of a “may contain nuts” kind of solution emerging: campaigners could simply put, “This may contain artificially generated imagery” on every item of digital campaigning and comply with the law, but that would not tell us whether what is being represented has been materially altered. In the light of her earlier comments about the autumn timeline, will she give the Committee a clear commitment to work not just with political parties but with industry, with a view to ensuring that we have effective copywriting and watermarking, which we know many of these organisation are already developing, so that anybody looking at political content can be confident that what they are seeing is genuinely what was said by that politician, candidate or party?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. As I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology announced that the Government have established a taskforce to take forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated material. With the interim report due to be published in the autumn, I think it is timely that I should write to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to outline the concerns that have been debated in the Committee—I am looking to my officials to ensure that we pick this up—because I think it will be very informative for the taskforce’s work. If the hon. Gentleman is happy for me to do that, I will do so.

Finally, the Government recognise that there are potential issues with section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned. We are reviewing how that legislation should apply in a modern electoral setting and, where necessary, we will take appropriate action to clarify the scope of the section, particularly to make sure that it captures emerging technologies such as deepfakes and other AI technologies and is future-proofed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65

Decriminalisation of certain requirements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Schedule 10.

Clause 66 stand part.

Schedule 11.

Clauses 67 to 69 stand part.

New clause 41—Electoral Commission: civil penalties and enforcement—

“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) In Schedule 19C, in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—

‘(1A) When deciding whether to impose a fixed monetary penalty under this Act, the Commission must have regard to whether the penalty will—

(a) change the behaviour of the offender;

(b) eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance;

(c) be appropriate for the particular offender and regulatory issue;

(d) be proportionate to the nature of the offence and the harm caused;

(e) restore the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance, where appropriate; and

(f) deter future non-compliance.’”

This new clause would put the ‘Macrory principles’ for regulators on to a statutory footing as regards the Electoral Commission.

New clause 46—Power of Electoral Commission to require disclosure from financial institutions—

“In Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (investigatory powers of Commission), after paragraph 1 insert—

‘Power to require disclosure from financial institutions

1A (1) The Commission may give a disclosure notice to a financial institution requiring the institution—

(a) to produce, for inspection by the Commission or a person authorised by the Commission, any documents which—

(i) relate to the income and expenditure of an organisation or individual to which paragraph 1 applies, and

(ii) are reasonably required by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out their functions; or

(b) to provide the Commission, or a person authorised by the Commission, with any information or explanation which relates to that income and expenditure and is reasonably required by the Commission for those purposes.

(2) A financial institution to whom a disclosure notice is given shall comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.

(3) In this paragraph, “financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).’”

This new clause gives the Electoral Commission the power to require information from a financial institution relating to the income and expenditure of political parties and associated individuals.

New clause 53—Electoral Commission: pre-investigation decision notices—

“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) In Schedule 19B, paragraph 3, subparagraph (5), at end insert—

‘or;

(b) relevant to determining whether to start an investigation.’”

This would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation.

New clause 57—Electoral Commission fining power—

“(1) Schedule 1, paragraph 5, to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010 is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) For ‘is £20,000’, substitute ‘is the greater of—

(a) £500,000, or

(b) 4% of the total campaign expenditure incurred by the person or organisation during the relevant regulated period.’

(3) At end of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 of Schedule 19C to PPERA 2000 insert—

‘(1A) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State may only make a supplementary order which amends the percentage of campaign expenditure incurred by the person or organisation during the relevant regulated period which can be used as a maximum monetary penalty by the Electoral Commission, if the condition in sub-paragraph (1B) has been met.

(1B) The condition in this sub-paragraph is that a recommendation for the amendment has been made to the Secretary of State by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission.’”

This new clause amends the Electoral Commission’s power to fine, increasing its maximum from £20,000 to £500,000 or 4% of campaign spending, whichever is higher. It further prevents the percentage used being changed through Order unless a recommendation has been made by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission.

[The Chair]

While it was convenient to debate those new clauses with the last group, it will not be convenient to reach a decision on them until much later in our proceedings.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will speak to clauses 65 to 69 before turning to the new clauses tabled by hon. Members.

Under the current enforcement framework, most political finance offences, regardless of their severity, are treated as possible criminal offences, even when they amount to minor administrative breaches, such as the late submission of campaign expenditure reports. While criminal investigation and prosecution for such offences is rare, key stakeholders, including the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission, have expressed concerns that the possibility of criminal prosecution for minor errors can deter participation in campaigning. Clause 65 and subsequent secondary legislation will address this by decriminalising administrative offences under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, so that they will be punishable only through civil sanctions by the Electoral Commission rather than criminal prosecution.

We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to determine which offences under PPERA should be decriminalised. Broadly, they relate to failures to comply with reporting requirements, such as failing to deliver a campaign expenditure return within the statutory time limit or failing to deliver a proper statement of accounts. Serious breaches, including intentional or reckless misreporting, will remain criminal offences and will continue to be investigated by the police and subject to criminal prosecution.

This will provide much-needed clarity that the Electoral Commission is responsible for enforcing such administrative breaches, allowing police resources to be directed towards tackling more serious criminal offences and clamping down on foreign money entering politics. In addition, by removing the threat of criminal prosecution for minor infractions, the clause will encourage participation by individuals and organisations that wish to campaign, while ensuring more proportionate enforcement of the rules.

Turning to clause 66, robust and proportionate enforcement of political finance law is essential for sustaining trust in our democracy. However, there is currently an enforcement gap in electoral regulation. Since 2010, to provide for more flexible and encompassing enforcement, the Electoral Commission has been able to impose civil sanctions for certain offences committed by political parties, third-party campaigners and referendum participants. In contrast, offences committed in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners are subject only to criminal sanctions and enforcement by the police. Practically speaking, this means that breaches of the rules can be addressed only through police investigation and criminal prosecution, even where a breach is minor or unintentional. Yet criminal prosecution for minor infractions is frequently considered disproportionate to the offence and not in the public interest, which means that breaches of the rules often go unaddressed and unsanctioned.

This enforcement gap risks undermining public trust in the integrity of the electoral system by creating the perception that the rules are not being enforced and that campaigners are not complying with them. At the same time, it can create a fear of criminal prosecution for candidates, election agents and recall petition campaigners, who could face police investigation for relatively minor breaches of the law.

Clause 66 is intended to close that gap by extending the Electoral Commission’s enforcement remit, including its investigatory and civil sanctioning powers, to cover offences in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners. Criminal prosecution will remain available for the most serious offences involving intentional or reckless breaches of the rules, but the EC will also now be able to apply its considerable knowledge and expertise to the enforcement of breaches across the political finance framework, providing for a more encompassing, proportionate and robust regime.

Clause 67 removes the statutory cap on the maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose for certain offences. Currently, where an offence is punishable on summary conviction by a fine, the penalty imposed by the EC may not exceed that which can be imposed by the court. The maximum fine that can be imposed by a court in such instances is unlimited in England and Wales, but £10,000 in Scotland and £5,000 in Northern Ireland.

The purpose of removing these restrictions is to ensure that the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine can be applied uniformly across all relevant offences around the UK. We will be increasing the maximum fine level in secondary legislation. This will ensure that the Electoral Commission’s new maximum fine provides a meaningful deterrent against violations of the rules across the UK, no matter where the offence is committed.

As the regulator, the Electoral Commission is invaluable in upholding trust in our democracy. That is why we are expanding the commission’s role and powers, including extending its enforcement remit and increasing its maximum fine. We intend for the Electoral Commission’s expanded role and powers to apply UK-wide at all elections, including parliamentary and local government elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

As I understand it, we will be setting the maximum fine in secondary legislation, but I will confirm that, because I have almost lost the thread of what I was saying.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise to the Minister for making her lose her trail. I also am at that stage in the afternoon where things are not going in as well as they probably were this morning. I asked the question because, at the moment, the courts have an unlimited maximum fine. I just got confused about whether the Minister was setting a maximum fine through secondary legislation, which she has now clarified. As we on the Committee are discussing the changes to the Electoral Commission’s responsibilities, which the Minister has been clear about throughout the day, would she give us an indication of what that maximum fine might be? Why is she waiting until secondary legislation to set the level of that fine?

[Samantha Dixon]

It is our intention to increase the maximum fine level in secondary legislation, as I stated earlier. Its level will be debated at that time. We will debate it in secondary legislation, but it needs to remain proportionate, and we need to move towards it in a considered way and debate it then.

[David Simmonds]

I think there is a high degree of political agreement that this is the right direction of travel. Could the Minister say a little bit more about the assessment that the Department will have done about the resource implications for the Electoral Commission? We are all conscious that regulatory enforcement can come at an enormous cost to the regulator, especially where bad actors have specifically structured arrangements to evade rules and enforcement.

We have seen examples in other jurisdictions where political action committees, fake political parties and short-term political parties have been set up specifically to get around the regulations set out in light terms in the Bill. Given that that is likely to be partially funded by a costs award in the event of somebody having been found to be in breach, alongside the fine, could the Minister indicate what she thinks the cost implications are for the Electoral Commission? That is especially given that we have seen regulators in multiple jurisdictions face enormous costs for the legal process required to enforce their judgments.

[Samantha Dixon]

My officials work very closely with the Electoral Commission and would not have acted without consideration and with consultation with it. I remind the Committee that decisions about the resourcing of the Electoral Commission fall to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. That is the route by which it is funded. We would not want to make regulation too burdensome, but correspondingly, the Electoral Commission reports to the Speaker’s Committee regularly about its resourcing needs. Indeed, mostly recently, it returned money to the Speaker’s Committee that it did not feel it needed. To reassure Members, officials work closely with it to ensure there is sufficient resource.

Our policy ambition is for these legislative changes to be consistent across reserved and devolved elections and to be commenced in a way that provides clarity to campaigners on how the rules will be enforced across all elections. Clause 68 provides for that, as it allows the Secretary of State to make provisions that could otherwise be made by Scottish or Welsh Ministers, but only with the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers. In practice, subject to the agreement of the devolved Governments, that will enable us to introduce a uniform set of changes to the role and power of the Electoral Commission in relation to local government elections in Scotland and Wales.

I turn to clause 69. The Electoral Commission currently lacks an explicit statutory gateway to disclose information to other regulators and law enforcement bodies. The lack of an explicit legal basis for information sharing forces the commission to rely on incidental powers or bespoke memorandums of understanding to disclose information. Those arrangements create unnecessary complexity and delays, and make information sharing more burdensome than it ought to be. They have embedded unnecessary friction into the system, slowing co-operation between regulators on important cross-cutting regulatory issues, and frustrating the very bodies charged with upholding the integrity of our democratic processes.

To underpin our wider reforms to strengthen enforcement, the clause provides a clear legal basis for information sharing, enabling the commission to disclose information to specified regulators and enforcement bodies. It will nurture an environment of collaboration between relevant bodies on cross-cutting issues such as foreign interference, data protection and digital campaigning. To ensure that the information-sharing gateway remains effective as the regulatory landscape evolves, the list of bodies can be amended by the Secretary of State, following consultation with the Electoral Commission and subject to parliamentary approval via the affirmative procedure.

The Government note that one of the recommendations of the Rycroft report is to build on this measure and make the information-sharing gateway reciprocal, to provide clarity that the Electoral Commission can also receive information from relevant bodies. We are carefully considering all the recommendations from the Rycroft review. We will issue a full Government response in due course, and, where appropriate, we will introduce new amendments to the Bill.

With those assurances, I commend clause 69 to the Committee. I will allow other Members to speak to the new clauses and I will respond to them in due course.

[The Chair]

I reinforce that this is the only opportunity that the Committee will have to debate those new clauses.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister again for—I am not being facetious—her comprehensive explanation. We have been here for most of the day. These are very complicated issues, and she has been speaking an awful lot because of the importance of this legislation. I do not envy her. I will speak to new clause 41 in my name, to be voted on at another point. We welcome clause 65, but we have some questions on clause 67.

As the Minister outlined, clause 65 and schedule 10 decriminalise certain offences in PPERA. They relate to administrative requirements for political parties and others regulated by that legislation and the commission. For example, it is currently an offence for a party treasurer to fail to deliver annual accounts or reports of election expenses to the commission. The provisions will also make the necessary consequential amendments to allow the requirements to come under the commission’s civil sanctioning regime.

Clause 66 is a fairly simple clause, which extends the Electoral Commission’s remit to be the primary enforcer of all imprint rules. I would like to pick up on a theme from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which I also brought up earlier: the impact on the Electoral Commission’s ability to do its job properly, in relation to what it currently does compared with what the Government will ask it to do after the legislation passes.

The Minister has made it clear that officials are working with representatives of the commission. I know that she works with them as well, and they have not necessarily said that they are unhappy about receiving this new responsibility. However, my general experience from working in the public sector and serving as a local authority councillor is that, in this world of organisations that are often controlled by Treasury spending budgets, or, as the Minister outlined, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, no one says no to extra responsibility if they think they are going to get some more dosh—let us put it that way.

Will the commission get enough cash to be able to manage the regulatory burdens that the Government are placing on it? I am beginning to worry that with the plethora of new responsibilities, we will have to see quite a large uplift in the commission’s budgets. I have not heard convincing defences that the Electoral Commission has verbally or formally remarked to the Government that it is content to receive that much responsibility. I am sure that the Minister will come back to talk about that.

Clause 67 will increase the maximum fine that the commission could impose in a civil sanction for some summary offences. We have concerns about the size of the proposed increase in Electoral Commission civil sanction fines. The courts already have powers to levy unlimited fines. At the very least, the Macrory principles on proportionate regulatory enforcement should be embedded in law—that is what we aim to achieve in new clause 41. The Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy statement recommends the application of the Macrory principles, including

“the use of requests for improvements before resorting to fines and the need to conduct investigations in a timely manner.”

The Electoral Commission has civil sanctioning powers that apply to national referendums and elections. More serious criminal matters can be—and are—referred to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, and are then considered by a court of law. The courts already have the power to levy unlimited fines and criminal sanctions. Unlimited fines are potentially a heavy, significant punishment. That is why it would be appropriate for a judicial check and a fair hearing in a court of law. Indeed, such massive civil fines would likely be challenged via lawyers in the courts anyway, as we have seen with the Information Commissioner and general data protection regulation fines.

In relation to the Minister’s opening remarks about setting the level of the Electoral Commission fine at secondary legislation, I am concerned that that is because of, quite frankly, the unpreparedness of the Government. They have put a lot of legislation forward without properly consulting the Electoral Commission and are rushing, as we have said all along in this legislation, to try and legislate without necessarily thinking things through.

[Samantha Dixon]

Opposition Members did ask about the level at which we would set the fine. I have now consulted my notes; we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the limit to £500,000 per offence. That will be done through secondary legislation.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that; that clarity is welcome. I still question why that needs to be done at secondary legislation. If the Minister knows the maximum fine limit for the Electoral Commission today, she could have put that in the legislation or brought forward an amendment to be discussed in Committee. She has chosen not to do that; I am interested to know why she has chosen not to do that and is waiting for secondary legislation to do so. Perhaps she will come back and tell the Committee why that is the case.

My point still stands. The fact that she is looking to set the fine at the secondary legislation stage outlines that, once again, the Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a great number of things that it currently does not do. I am not convinced, unless the Minister can reassure me in writing or come back after this Committee, that the Electoral Commission has been properly consulted. Let us not forget that it was the Electoral Commission that criticised the Government for not consulting it on trying to postpone the elections. That was a process where the Government were found to be unlawful—by the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House.

I am concerned that, as we have gone through this legislation, a huge amount has been asked of the Electoral Commission in terms of its responsibility and purview, and the Minister has not reassured me that it is happy with that. I am not convinced that the resource that it currently has would allow it to conduct its operations or, if necessary, investigations on its current physical envelope.

[Samantha Dixon]

The reality is that the Electoral Commission already imposes fines; it is just that they are not big enough. I argue that, by not setting the level in primary legislation but doing it in secondary legislation, it can be responsive should it need to be changed in the future, which it may need to be. We have talked about the revolving nature of foreign interference; in similar ways, the offences and their gravity may change over time. To be able to respond to that through secondary legislation is important, and we should not be hidebound by requiring primary legislation.

The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament, not to Government. It is a very important point to make that the consideration of its comfortableness, abilities or capacity is a discussion for Parliament. My officials work with it collaboratively, and I meet with it regularly. It is comfortable, but we must always remember that it is accountable to Parliament, not to Government.

--- Later in debate ---

I very much hope that the Minister will respond warmly to the recommendation, which, as I pointed out, was made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life—this is not a Green party proposal, although it is one that I strongly propose; it comes from a completely different body. It would ensure that the fining powers of the Electoral Commission are broadly brought into line with the fining powers of other bodies that have a numerical number or a percentage—whichever is larger—as their maximum fine.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will speak to each of the new clauses, beginning with new clause 41, which seeks to place the Macrory principles on a statutory footing in relation to the Electoral Commission’s use of civil sanctioning powers.

We fully recognise the importance of the Macrory principles and agree that regulatory enforcement should always be flexible, transparent and proportionate. These principles were designed to guide the construction of regulatory systems and sanction regimes. As such, the Macrory principles directed the development of the Electoral Commission’s regime of civil sanctions, which was introduced by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and therefore is already embedded in the commission’s regulatory practices. That includes the ability to issue fines for a wide range of offences, the use of stop notices and enforcement undertakings, and provision for representations and appeals.

The Electoral Commission is also required to publish guidance on its use of such powers, which it must have regard to when exercising its functions. It does this through its enforcement policy. Therefore, fairness and proportionality are already central to how the Electoral Commission operates. Indeed, the commission’s enforcement policy explicitly states that it will impose sanctions where appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest. For that reason, we do not consider it necessary or appropriate to apply the Macrory principles as the new clause proposes. The Electoral Commission is, and must remain, an independent regulator. It is vital that it retains the flexibility it needs to decide how best to use its enforcement powers, rather than being tied to a rigid statutory checklist for individual enforcement decisions.

The Government have been clear in our commitment to strengthening the Electoral Commission’s independence, including through the repeal of the strategy and policy statement, which the commission was previously required to consider in the exercise of its functions. Introducing further statutory requirements of this kind risks cutting across that principle and altering the balance of the commission’s operational autonomy. There is a very real risk that amending PPERA to codify these principles in this way is unnecessarily duplicative and could lead to legal uncertainty. Enforcement decisions could become a quagmire of legal challenge, which would delay action and weaken the commission’s overall effectiveness as a regulator. Having given these assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley will not press new clause 41.

I turn now to new clause 53, which seeks to provide the Electoral Commission with powers to request information from any person where such information is relevant to determining whether to open an investigation. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the right tools it needs to make informed decisions about potential breaches of political finance rules. The commission already has substantial information-gathering powers to support its regulatory functions, including the enforcement of political finance and imprint rules. That said, the Government recognise that we cannot be complacent, which is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference.

Although we do not support the amendment, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review that reinforce measures already included in the Bill to ensure political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose. There will be a full Government response to the review, and we will consider whether further amendments to the Bill are appropriate in the light of that work. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

New clause 57 seeks to increase the Electoral Commission’s maximum fine from £20,000 per offence to a new maximum of £500,000 or 4% of campaign expenditure, whichever is greater. It also requires that any order seeking to amend the suggested percentage can be made only if recommended by the Electoral Commission following consultation with the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has robust enforcement powers. A strong and proportionate civil sanctions regime is essential for securing compliance with the rules and upholding trust in our democracy.

The current maximum fine of £20,000 does not provide a meaningful deterrent against rule breaking. The Electoral Commission has argued for a long time that it risks becoming a mere cost of doing business for the largest political parties and campaigners. The Government agree that increasing the maximum fine is essential, so that sanctions reflect the scale of modern political campaigning and ensure that all campaigners, no matter how large, face significant repercussions when the rules are broken. That is why we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the commission’s maximum fine significantly to up to £500,000 per offence.

The reason why the change will be made through secondary legislation is that Parliament has already provided the Secretary of State with the power to make supplementary orders in relation to the Electoral Commission’s civil sanction regime. Any such order is subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure. It was through the exercise of that power, and through that process, that the existing maximum fine was established in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010, which is referenced in the new clause. It is therefore appropriate to follow the same process for making changes to the commission’s regime of civil sanctions where it is already provided for in legislation.

In terms of adding statutory requirements that must be met before the Secretary of State can make a supplementary order, the Government have seen no evidence that such conditions are necessary. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission through the development of the measures in the Bill, and we will continue to work collaboratively as we develop the detail of proposals for increasing the maximum fine that it can impose. Those details will be set out in secondary legislation in due course, and at that time Parliament will rightly have the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the Government’s approach and consider whether to approve the legislation. For those reasons, and with those reassurances in place, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

[Dr Chowns]

The Minister will forgive me, but I did not hear her respond to the reference in my new clause to the 4% of campaign spending. Did I briefly drop off? Will she consider that when introducing secondary legislation?

[Samantha Dixon]

We have considered it, and we have decided to opt for a fine of £500,000. However, when we introduce the secondary legislation, the debate may flesh out that argument, and the figure may change, should secondary legislation and the debate lead to that conclusion. However, at this stage, we will not accept the amendment.

New clause 46 seeks to give the Electoral Commission powers to compel financial institutions to disclose information related to income and expenditure of regulated entities, such as political parties and candidates, where it is reasonably required by the commission to carry out its functions. The Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with political finance rules. The commission already has substantial information gathering powers to support its regulatory functions, including the enforcement of political finance and imprint rules.

That said, the Government recognise that we cannot be complacent, which is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference. As Members know, we are considering the relevant recommendations of the review that could reinforce measures already in the Bill to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remains robust and fit for purpose. I note that new clause 46 draws on a recommendation from the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and covers very similar ground to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clauses 67 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Government amendments 14 to 17.

Schedule 3.

New Clause 40—Expired postal votes—

“(1) The Representation of the People Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 4, paragraph 3 (Absent vote at elections for a period) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

‘(5A) In the case of a person whose entitlement to vote by post at elections of the kind in question has expired, the registration officer shall make available, upon request from a registered political party, that person’s details as supplied to the registration officer in his application to vote by proxy at parliamentary elections.’”

This new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

I will speak first to clause 48 and associated schedule 3, before addressing Government amendments 14 to 17 and new clause 40, tabled by the Opposition.

The current legislative framework for absent voting was designed for a very different electoral landscape. Today, far more people vote by post; supply chains and administrator resources are under greater pressure; and expectations around reliability and timely delivery have changed. Developed in consultation with the electoral sector, clause 48 modernises and strengthens the absent voting system to reflect those realities. It streamlines administration, gives electors greater flexibility and ensures that safeguards around the integrity of absent vote applications remain robust.

These measures will enable postal voters to take part in elections with confidence, by helping to ensure their ballot is issued and delivered in good time, while allowing a switch to voting in person or by emergency proxy if their ballot is delayed. They will not apply to Northern Ireland because of the different absent voting regime there and the stricter security requirements around absent voting, which are a result of the history of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland.

Setting clearer rules and deadlines will give electoral administrators the confidence and certainty needed to manage their workload effectively and keep the absent voting system running smoothly at the most demanding points in the electoral timetable. The integrity of our elections is of paramount importance. The clause also strengthens safeguards in the absent voting system by clarifying identity verification requirements, and introduces a clear statutory determination deadline for identity verification. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Government amendments 14, 15 and 16 remove a regulation-making power that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has advised is unnecessary. The Bill already provides that a proxy with a long-term proxy postal voting arrangement can make temporary arrangements for a particular poll without affecting that long-term arrangement. Where a proxy instead applies for a proxy postal voting arrangement for a particular election, the correct outcome is that the long-term arrangement is cancelled. That is the policy intention, and the Bill already delivers that without the need for regulation-making powers. The amendments therefore simplify the legislation, remove redundant provisions and ensure the law operates clearly and consistently for electoral administrators.

Government amendment 17 ensures consistency between the absent voting regime and the proxy voting offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983. The Bill already allows someone who has applied to be registered, and is only awaiting the end of the objections period, to be treated as a person who “will be registered” for absent voting purposes. Without the amendment, that same person could be granted a proxy vote but might not be legally capable of committing the offence of acting as a proxy for too many electors if they knowingly breached the proxy limits. The amendment closes that gap, reflects the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and ensures that the law operates clearly, consistently and as intended. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

New clause 40 seeks to require electoral registration officers to share information with political parties about electors whose postal voting arrangements have expired. While supporting voter participation is important, the Government do not consider the new clause to be workable, proportionate or necessary. As drafted, it does not provide access to postal vote expiry data itself; instead, it links disclosure to details supplied in proxy vote applications for parliamentary elections, which is not how postal voting arrangements are recorded or renewed in practice.

Most postal voters will never have applied for a proxy vote. As a result, for many electors whose postal vote has expired, there would simply be no proxy application data to disclose, meaning that the new clause would not achieve its apparent policy aim. There is also a clear mismatch in scope. The new clause refers to postal vote expiry for

“elections of the kind in question”

but limits disclosure to proxy applications made for parliamentary elections, significantly narrowing and distorting the dataset that would be available.

A question of principle is also at stake. Electoral registration officers already have a legal duty to notify electors directly about when their postal voting arrangements are due to expire and to provide them with information about how to make a fresh application to vote by post. That ensures that voters are informed at the right time without reliance on third parties.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

When postal voters are notified by their local authority that they are about to drop off the roll, does the Minister agree that they should not always be encouraged to do that online? Some people who have postal votes do not want to make online applications. Does she also agree that they should be sent a fresh application from the council, with a freepost envelope for its return, so that they can keep their postal votes?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.

Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds.

I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those.

The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting

“should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience”

within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error.

However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off.

I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote.

It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off.

I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I understand the points he makes. There is a statutory duty for EROs to notify postal voters that their postal vote is due to expire at the end of January that year, and they will be contacting them. The Government’s view is that there needs to be a proportionate approach that does not add a burden in what is already a busy time for EROs. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out current Government thinking in light of his remarks.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Absent Voting

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8.

This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll.

Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert—

“20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended.

(1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49

Power to obtain election-related information etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. To achieve that, it is essential that electors are kept well informed about elections and referenda in their local area and about other pertinent information, such as the candidates running and the locations of polling stations. The clauses will enable us, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to improve online information services to provide that information to the public. Although the information is already available to electors, that service will help ensure that electors have access to consistent and complete information via a central service. The information that election officers may be required to provide will be limited to factual information about the poll and will not include details on the policies of candidates or political parties.

Clause 49 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to require returning officers, counting officers, petition officers and electoral registration officers to share specified information relating to elections and referenda. The Secretary of State can require the information to be shared with the Department, the Electoral Commission or both.

Clauses 50 and 51 specify which officers can be required to provide information, and for which types of elections and referenda. That power will be exercised via secondary legislation, so the exact details of the information required and processes for sharing it will be confirmed in due course. At this stage, our ambition is that the information will be collated by the Electoral Commission and shared with the public via its website. Electoral administrators will be supported to provide the required information and for electors to provide their location to quickly find the most relevant information. This is a straightforward and proportionate measure that we believe will greatly improve the electorate’s access to information and support increased engagement.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal.

Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating.

What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I agree; we should remove all barriers to electors participating in elections. I thank the shadow Minister for describing how those barriers are in effect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 50 and 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 52

Effect of the death of the Sovereign on certain elections and referendums

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider schedule 4.

[Samantha Dixon]

The clause and schedule 4 ensure that in the event of the demise of the Crown, effective and consistent processes are in place for scheduled local elections and other polls, including mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, as is already the case for a parliamentary general election. In the event of the demise of the Crown, if a UK parliamentary general election is taking place, legislation provides for a 14-day pause in the timetable for the general election to allow time for public mourning and the funeral arrangements, and the date of the poll is moved to after the date of the funeral. Different provisions are in place for other types of polls.

We believe that the 14-day pause in proceedings used for UK parliamentary general elections is the most appropriate arrangement, so the clause extends those provisions to a number of other types of election and referendum, including parliamentary by-elections, scheduled local elections, London Assembly elections, mayoral elections, local referendums and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. The measures also apply to certain Welsh elections in specific circumstances, when they are combined with UK parliamentary or police and crime commissioner elections.

A royal proclamation may already adjust the date of a postponed poll for a UK parliamentary general election by up to seven days. Under the Bill, when such a proclamation is made, any other polls combined with the general election will also move so that they remain combined. The Bill also creates an equivalent ministerial power to adjust postponed polls that are not UK parliamentary general elections by up to seven days. The provisions will ensure that consistent and appropriate provisions are in place for polls being held in such circumstances. I hope that Members will support the measure.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 53

Form of documents for elections and referendums

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 18.

Schedule 5.

[Samantha Dixon]

The clause, schedule 5 and Government amendment 18 deal with parliamentary processes used to update various forms. A range of prescribed electoral forms are set out in legislation, including poll cards, nomination forms and ballot papers. The rules for each type of poll, be it UK parliamentary, mayoral or local government, are set out in separate pieces of legislation. Each set of rules includes a full set of forms, despite the content of each prescribed form being almost entirely the same from one type of election or referendum to the next, so even a minor amendment to a form results in significant duplication across legislation, which is hugely inefficient.

That process is made even more difficult by different parliamentary procedures being required to update the forms in the different pieces of legislation. A good example of that is the recent legislation to add a veteran card to the list of accepted voter ID. That simple addition required an a affirmative instrument to be debated in both Houses to make the change for UK parliamentary elections, a negative instrument replicating the changes for local elections, and a third no-procedure statutory instrument making the same changes to Welsh language forms. That one small change therefore resulted in three instruments and more than 171 pages of legislation.

To reduce the unnecessary burden on parliamentary time, the clause makes a number of streamlining changes and amends the powers in the Representation of the People Act 1983 to allow the forms to be updated far more efficiently. The sector and stakeholders have been asking for this change, which will allow a relatively small but none the less important consolidation of electoral law.

Government amendment 18 is a purely technical change designed to ensure that the Bill operates as intended. It corrects a minor drafting error relating to the proposed changes to improve how electoral forms are updated. It is a routine correction identified during the drafting process and does not affect the Bill in substance. I commend the amendment, clause 53 and schedule 5 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Form of documents for elections and referendums

Amendment made: 18, in schedule 5, page 135, line 5, leave out “and (2)”.—(Samantha Dixon.)

This amendment corrects an error by removing a reference to regulations made under rule 8(2) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 from provision about the parliamentary procedure applying to certain regulation-making powers under that Act. Rule 8(2) does not confer power to make regulations.

Schedule 5, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 54

Removal of requirement to publish election agents’ addresses

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation.

Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents. These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee.

These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 6.

[Samantha Dixon]

To prevent attempts to circumvent spending limits, current rules require campaigners to seek permission from the courts before they are able to pay invoices late. In practice, most late or disputed claims are delayed due to routine administrative issues. The Electoral Commission has said that the court-based process for leave to pay applications is inefficient and costly, delaying prompt payments and placing unnecessary burdens on campaigners, the courts and suppliers, especially small businesses.

Clause 55 addresses those inefficiencies by transferring responsibility for granting leave from the courts to the Electoral Commission. The commission will be able to give permission to campaigners to pay late or disputed claims. It is right that such decisions are made by the specialist regulator of political finance. By transferring that function to the commission, the clause will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, support both suppliers and campaigners, and maintain the integrity and transparency of the broader campaign finance framework.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 56

Delivery and inspection of returns and declarations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 7.

Clause 57 stand part.

New clause 47—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 43(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to bring into force section 9(2) of that Act (declaration as to source of donation).

(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to exercise the power to commence section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 which inserts section 54A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires declarations to be provided as to the source of donations.

New clause 48—Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold—

“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 83 (declaration by treasurer as to return relating to campaign expenditure), in subsection (3)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.

(3) In section 123 (declaration of responsible person as to return relating to referendum expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for ‘knowingly or recklessly makes’ substitute ‘knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making’.”

This new clause reduces the threshold for two offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false declarations are provided in relation to election expenses an offence is committed if they have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are making a false declaration.

New clause 49—Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount—

“In section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration as to source of donation)—

(a) in subsection (1), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’;

(b) in subsection (2)(B), for ‘£7,500’ substitute ‘£500’.”

This new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration as to its source (rather than the current minimum of £7,500).

New clause 50—Penalties for false declarations—

“(1) Schedule 20 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (penalties) is amended as follows.

(2) In the entry for section 54A(5) (making a false declaration as to source of donation), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.

(3) In the entry for section 83(3)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.

(4) In the entry for section 123(4)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for ‘1 year’ substitute ‘3 years’.”

This new clause raises the maximum penalties for submitting false declarations from 1 year’s imprisonment upon conviction on indictment to 3 years’ imprisonment upon conviction on indictment.

[Samantha Dixon]

Under current rules, candidates or their election agents must deliver a return and declaration and any accompanying documents relating to their election expenses to the returning officer. To supplement the extension of the Electoral Commission’s enforcement role, clause 56 will require candidates or their election agents also to deliver a copy of the return and declaration and accompanying documents to the Electoral Commission. Those incurring expenditure in relation to candidates and recall petition campaigners will likewise be required to deliver copies of relevant returns and declarations to the commission.

That will ensure timely receipt of returns and declarations by the Electoral Commission, which is essential to its ability to perform its new regulatory functions quickly, scrutinise returns and deal with those not complying with the rules. The Electoral Commission will also have new responsibilities for making candidate returns and declarations available for public inspection, promoting transparency by facilitating the collection and publication of data on candidate finance in a single source. Allowing the Electoral Commission to prescribe a form of return that campaigners must use will also help campaigners comply with reporting requirements and facilitate scrutiny of returns.

Turning to clause 57, the Electoral Commission has existing duties to monitor and secure compliance with the expenditure and donations rules set out in PPERA, as well as other enactments promulgating rules concerning candidates or their election agents. To enable it to perform those duties effectively, it also has powers to make regulations relating to information that must be included in donations reports that are required under these pieces of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood.

In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did.

Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them.

On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently.

We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote.

New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had

“reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting”

that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing.

The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.

The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed.

The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system.

In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most.

New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.

Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.

Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.

[Samantha Dixon]

The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc

[Samantha Dixon]

I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 58, page 67, line 38, leave out “, when it” and insert “—

(a) the party has not previously undertaken a risk assessment in relation to a relevant benefit accruing to the party in the same calendar year, and

(b) when the value of the donation”.

This amendment would mean that a risk assessment is required for donations when the £11,180 threshold (for donations or regulated transactions) is breached the first time in a calendar year. (See also amendment 40, which requires a risk assessment the second or subsequent time the threshold is breached.)

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 40 and 41.

Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—

“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.

(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.

(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—

(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,

(b) that person’s previous donation history,

(c) the type of donation,

(d) the amount of the donation, and

any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”

Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 68, line 20, at end insert—

“(da) whether the person from whom the donation is received is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme established by the National Security Act 2023.”

This amendment would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.

Government amendments 42 and 43.

Clause stand part.

Government amendments 44 to 78.

Schedule 8.

Government new clause 60—Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000—

“In section 155 of PPERA 2000 (power to vary specified sums or percentages), in subsection (1A)—

(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—

(a) ’;

(b) at the end insert

‘, or

(b) any sum for the time being specified in Schedule 7 so far as that sum applies in relation to a donation to a member of a local authority in Scotland who is not also a member of a registered party.’”

This new clause, which would be inserted after clause 62, amends section 155(1A) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to provide a power for the Scottish Ministers to vary the sums in Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and member associations), so far as they relate to areas of devolved competence.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will first speak to clause 58, schedule 8, Government new clause 60, and Government amendments 39 to 41 and 44 to 78, before turning to the amendments tabled by the Opposition.

In line with recommendations from the Electoral Commission, the National Crime Agency and the Committee on Standards in Public Life—now known as the Ethics and Integrity Commission—clause 58 addresses a long-standing gap in electoral law. Current rules require recipients of donations to verify the permissibility of the donor but do not require them to assess whether a donor may be facilitating a donation from an impermissible source. Existing permissibility checks remain important, but they do not always provide sufficient assurance where donations are routed through third parties or where risk indicators are present.

The clause introduces a clear, proportionate due diligence duty on campaigners to look beyond current permissibility checks and determine whether there is a material risk that a political contribution originates from an impermissible source. The new framework strengthens the ability of campaigners to assure themselves that donations come from permissible sources. Its purpose is not to impose unnecessary burdens, but to ensure that campaigners take reasonable, proportionate steps to understand who is behind a donation. By embedding a culture of risk-based due diligence, the clause helps to guard against foreign interference, increases confidence in the integrity of donations, and aligns political finance rules with best practice in other sectors.

Government amendment 39 to 41 and 44 to 78 seek to clarify the point at which a political donation exceeds the £11,180 thresholds and requires a risk assessment under the new “know your donor” rules. Currently, the Bill requires a risk assessment once a recipient receives cumulative contributions from the same donor surpassing £11,180 in a calendar year. However, after that point is reached, every further donation received from the same donor in the same calendar year, regardless of value, would require another risk assessment. That was not our policy intention.

Under the updated approach, a risk assessment will be required each time a donor gives £11,180 cumulatively or as an individual donation, after which the running total in effect will reset to zero. That replaces the previous rolling aggregation threshold, removing unnecessary repetition and ensuring that parties complete a risk assessment only when receiving a further significant donation from the same donor. Risk assessments could be carried out on every donation if a campaigner feels the need to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank Members for the wide-ranging and constructive points that they have made. The Government accept the thrust of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley; however, we believe the existing clauses already allow for foreign links, the status of the foreign influence registration scheme and other relevant indicators to be considered.

It is important for us all to consider—this speaks to a point that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire made—that, as drafted, the list of statutory risk factors is capable of amendment by secondary legislation, so that the framework can remain up to date. As new risks emerge, they can be addressed through secondary legislation. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove made the point that this is a very fast-moving landscape. When the Government introduced the strategy last July, it was prior to the conviction of Nathan Gill. New risks have emerged in considerable number in the past year, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset described how new parties are emerging. It is important that legislation is not prescriptive in a way that hampers consideration of risks as they emerge.

I appreciate the sensitivity that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove expressed—I think the hon. Member for Hamble Valley understands this too—to the challenge of legislating in a fast-moving landscape. The Government are responding as promptly as we can. On the timetable, Parliament will be prorogued soon—I do not know when; my hon. Friend the Government Whip may have more intelligence on that—but this is a carry-over Bill, and that is important given the consideration and consultation that needs to happen as we respond to the Rycroft review.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I want to pick up on the implications of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley and the hon. Member for South Dorset. We are all aware that Reform was the first political organisation to come into being as a private company. It operates outside the framework of a traditional political party, and that carries with it some risks.

As the Minister has outlined, the intention is that the framework identifying those risks can be regularly updated. However, that organisation has been in existence for some six years, so this is not something that has suddenly materialised. The point that my hon. Friend outlined in his contribution, and in the amendments covering things such as FIRS, is that that these are emerging risks that we have all been aware of for some time.

I appreciate the Minister’s point about the timetable and where we are in this Session, but it would be helpful to understand from her how soon those long-standing risks that we have been aware of for some time will find their way into secondary legislation and therefore the framework, or where they might feature in amendments on Report so that they can be properly taken into account.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Member will appreciate that implementation of the Bill will require substantial secondary legislation. As tempting as it is to set out a timetable, we have to focus on getting the primary legislation through first. There is the tension, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove described, between going at pace to implement measures such as votes at 16 and considering as comprehensively as possible the matters that arise from the Rycroft review. It is a challenge, albeit not an insurmountable one, for the Government to do both.

Considerable parliamentary time will be devoted to the secondary legislation; that will become clearer as time progresses. We need to move forward as swiftly as we can. We will introduce the amendment regarding crypto when parliamentary time allows, and we will ensure that it has parliamentary scrutiny. I have noted the comments by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about a donor registration scheme. None the less, it is beholden on political parties, candidates and campaigners to take seriously the risks from donors. It will be their responsibility, under this legislation, to assess those risks, and if they are found to wilfully, recklessly or knowingly circumvent them, they will be subject to prosecution.

We need to move forward with this legislation as much as we can. I sense the frustration from Members across the Committee about the time that will be required to do this, but we need to do it thoughtfully, carefully, and at pace but not too fast. I jest, but we will do it as soon as we possibly can in a way that does not jeopardise scrutiny.

Amendment 39 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 32, in clause 58, page 68, leave out from beginning of line 15 to end of line 21 and insert—

“(2) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must prioritise taking into account whether the person from whom the donation is received is a foreign citizen and likely to have foreign influence links.

(2A) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must treat donations from UK citizens, who reside in the UK, as a low risk.

(2B) In carrying out a risk assessment, the party must also take account of the following risks—

(a) the type of person from whom the donation is received,

(b) that person’s previous donation history,

(c) the type of donation,

(d) the amount of the donation, and

any other risk factors the party considers to be relevant.”—(Paul Holmes.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

With the introduction of votes at 16, 14 and 15-year-olds will be able to pre-register as attainers for up to two years before they reach voting age. To safeguard the data of young people, their electoral register data will be subject to enhanced protections. These enhanced safeguards will restrict access to under-16s’ electoral registration data, meaning that political parties and other recipients of political donations will not be able to independently verify whether a 14 or 15-year-old is on the register.

Clause 59 closes a potential loophole by prohibiting donations from under-16 attainers, ensuring that the electoral regime remains secure, while still allowing 16 and 17-year-olds, whose details can be verified, to donate like all other voters. The clause reduces the risk of impermissible or potentially foreign-linked donations entering the electoral system via routes that are unverifiable. Given the wider context of foreign interference concerns, we believe it is right to take this preventive step. Sixteen and 17-year-olds will still be able to donate like any other eligible voter, enabling early registration while ensuring that the political finance system is safeguarded from impermissible donations as younger voters become active participants in our democracy. I commend clause 59 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Donations by companies and LLPs etc

[Lisa Smart]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 60, page 72, line 36, at end insert—

“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”

This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I will speak first to clause 60, before addressing the amendments tabled by hon. Members.

Clause 60 directly responds to long-standing concerns about vulnerabilities in the current political finance system and about the risk of illicit foreign money influencing UK democracy. Under the current framework, it is possible for shell companies or companies with weak UK connections to be used to channel money into our political system. The Electoral Commission and many other stakeholders have consistently called for stronger safeguards to ensure that only legitimate entities can donate.

The new tests will require companies and limited liability partnerships wishing to donate to registered political parties to meet stricter criteria to show a genuine UK connection. The company must have generated enough income in the previous three calendar years to justify its donation. That will help to prevent shell companies from being used as fronts for foreign money. Additionally, companies must meet strict criteria related to control. They will need to be headquartered in the UK, and the majority of persons with significant control must be UK electors or UK citizens. That will ensure UK electoral control and prevent foreign influence. To prevent companies from being set up solely to make political donations, donors must have at least one up-to-date set of accounts filed with Companies House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to help prevent family voting in UK elections.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

Any form of coercion at the polling booth is unacceptable and undermines confidence in our democratic process, as the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 makes clear. The Government will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and administrators to ensure that polling station staff are confident in challenging those offences.

[Gregory Stafford]

While Greater Manchester police has stated that there was no evidence of family voting in a recent by-election, Democracy Volunteers reported witnessing “concerningly high levels” of such activity on polling day. How does the Minister reconcile these conflicting accounts, and can she clarify how Greater Manchester police conducted that assessment, and particularly whether witness statements from the observers were taken into account?

[Samantha Dixon]

Greater Manchester police has completed its investigation and found no evidence of family voting. I thank the police for their careful and diligent work investigating this matter, as well as the Electoral Commission and the local returning officer for their support. As I said before, coercion in the polling station and other types of electoral offences are unacceptable and undermine confidence in our democratic system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Easter. Family voting is just one example of unfair voting practices that seek to skew elections and exploit those isolated from wider British society. Another example of these divisive tactics was a disgraceful Green leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election, written in Urdu, saying:

“Labour must be punished for Gaza… Give the Muslims a voice. Vote Green.”

If the Minister agrees that this is divisive language, will she back our amendment to allow election literature in a short campaign to be printed only in an official British language?

[Samantha Dixon]

We will continue to work through the Representation of the People Bill in Committee, through line-by-line scrutiny. I look forward to continuing that work with the hon. Gentleman, and we will discuss that then.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of planned reforms to leasehold on integrated retirement communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

T3. I welcome the action that the Government are taking to improve the reporting and transparency of political donations from unincorporated associations in the Representation of the People Bill. Since 2010, 97% of donations from such bodies have come from unknown sources under the existing rules. Will Ministers consider going further and require information to be published on who runs unincorporated associations that make political donations and what their purpose is, to ensure that we have maximum transparency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

Through the Representation of the People Bill, we are significantly lowering the threshold for when unincorporated associations register with the Electoral Commission, and we will require them to publicly identify a responsible person who is legally accountable for compliance with electoral law.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The week before Easter, Derby suffered a terrible incident in which a car was driven into crowds of people on Friar Gate and several people were seriously injured. Will the Minister join me in thanking the emergency services for their response, as well as members of the public who delivered first aid? Will she meet me to discuss how we can strengthen local preparedness and design out risks, not just in Derby but across the country, to help to keep people safe in future?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am so sorry to hear about that terrible incident. I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. The local resilience forum in Derbyshire has worked really hard to respond to the event; I will work with her and with others across the country on resilience and recovery.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Conservative-run East Sussex county council has a vendetta against local businesses. Most recently, it placed an enormous storage crate outside the Dickens Tea Cottage, which will affect local businesses. Will the Minister urge the council to remove it so that we can protect custom at that local business?

Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am pleased to speak about this statutory instrument, which as Members will see contains a set of technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. The instrument is designed to ensure that the regulations work exactly as intended, with clear, workable rules for regulators and building control professionals, and effective protections for third parties.

By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years to 4 April 2022. Forty-five developers have joined the responsible actors scheme. Together, they are responsible for remediating more than 2,500 buildings, at an estimated cost of around £4.1 billion. The scheme is backed by planning and building control prohibitions, which would be applied to eligible developers that decide not to join the scheme or have their membership revoked for non-compliance, as well as to entities they control. The amendments in the instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and their exceptions would operate in practice if a developer is prohibited in the future.

Since the scheme was launched in 2023, technical drafting issues and ambiguities have been identified. The purpose of the instrument is to address those issues, so that protections for residents and purchasers of property work as intended if prohibitions are needed.

First, the instrument will remove an ambiguity in the 2023 regulations. If a developer were to be prohibited, that developer should not be able to make building control applications, but the original regulations did not spell that out explicitly in the list of prohibited matters. The amendments resolve that by making clear that building control applications are included wherever the prohibitions apply. The amendments also update terminology, so that the process of issuing completion and partial completion certificates matches the way that building control now operates, preventing confusion for local authorities and private registered building control approvers.

Secondly, the instrument will ensure that the emergency repairs exception works properly. Under the exception, emergency safety repairs are allowed to go ahead if a developer is prohibited. For taller buildings, there is a route to get such work formally signed off afterwards, but an omission in the 2023 regulations means that that route does not currently exist for buildings below 18 metres in height. The amendments correct this, creating a route so that, should such a situation arise, urgent safety work can be properly checked and signed off for all buildings.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to see my hon. Friend the Minister in her place. I want to understand a bit more about the operation of the prohibitions list. I note from the Department’s webpage that there are no suppliers or providers on that list. Is that because no one has fallen foul of the regulations, or because they were so inadequately drafted in the first place that it was not possible to put people on the list?

[Samantha Dixon]

My hon. Friend tempts me to get into a debate about the efficacy of the original—

[The Chair]

Order. Don’t be too tempted.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will simply say that although no prohibition has been effected, that is not to say that the Government would not do so in the future—I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Government’s own documentation contradicts what the Minister has just said. Sections 9.1 to 9.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Government’s SI present the draft regulations as not requiring an impact assessment, and say that these are purely minor technical changes that will have no impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies. However, when we look on the Government’s own website, it is interesting that there seem to be no firms on the prohibitions list. The Minister will be familiar with the Comer Group, for example, which was subject to a very significant fine of £7.8 million in Greenwich for what Greenwich council described as a “mutant development”, in the home constituency of the Minister for Housing and Planning. Has the Comer Group signed up to the scheme? If not, why is it not on the prohibitions list?

[Samantha Dixon]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific issue; I do not know the details of that particular development in that particular constituency, but I will write to him with the details of that particular business.

[Steve Barclay]

I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I simply point out to the House that this development was so notable that the Housing Minister raised it in opposition—he tabled parliamentary questions on this issue and flagged it in advance of the election. Two years on, it seems odd that Ministers do not know what has happened with it.

In reference to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, can the Minister name a single firm on the prohibitions list? If she cannot do so, given the fact that before the election the Government said they wanted to move quicker on this issue, why have they not done so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

There are no firms on the prohibitions list. However, as I stated, the Government are prepared to use the sanctions available, should they be required in the future. I will fulfil my commitment to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the full details in due course, if he will permit me to do so.

Thirdly, the draft regulations strengthen the exception that allows normal maintenance to continue in occupied residential buildings. This exception is there to ensure that routine upkeep can carry on, and that residents are not put at risk if their freeholder or responsible entity has been prohibited. At present, there are technical issues with how the relevant building control processes are set out. The amendments clarify the procedural routes available to building control professionals, and they ensure that where the exception applies, those responsible can use either the local authority building control route or the private building control route effectively.

Fourthly, the draft regulations strengthen protections for homebuyers where a sale is already well advanced when a prohibition takes effect. As things stand, only the prohibited developer can apply for the exception needed to complete the transaction, which leaves purchasers reliant on a party that may not prioritise the application. That risks buyers being negatively affected by the prohibitions through no fault of their own. The amendments fix that issue by allowing the buyer to apply, giving homebuyers greater control and reducing the risk of avoidable delay.

Finally, the draft regulations resolve drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Some wording in the regulations created double negatives that could be read as limiting eligibility for the scheme to social housing providers, which was never the intention. The amendments remove that ambiguity. The draft regulations also remove a redundant notification requirement for developers, which served no practical purpose because planners would already rely on the official published list of prohibited developers. Taking it out simplifies the framework without affecting the planning prohibition.

In summary, these are technical but important improvements. They ensure that, if the prohibitions were ever applied, the prohibitions and exceptions would operate clearly and consistently, protect residents and homebuyers from unintended impacts and give building control bodies the necessary clarity to use the prohibitions and exceptions effectively. These amendments will make the system clearer and more robust. The intent of the scheme remains the same: to make sure that developers that built unsafe buildings take responsibility for making them safe, and, in doing so, protect leaseholders from unfair costs. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, for their constructive and important points today. I can reassure Members that there is considerable work going on in this area.

The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire has misunderstood; I will be generous. The purpose of the regulations when they were initially introduced was to encourage all eligible developers to sign up to the scheme. They did so, which is why none are on the prohibited list. I hope that clarifies for him why there is nothing on the prohibited list. The developers work with the Department. Indeed, last month the Secretary of State and I met developers, the Building Safety Regulator and freeholders to discuss the developer remediation contract. We hold developers to account for their remediation progress, including with a dedicated caseworker team, and we scrutinise detailed quarterly data returns. To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, a full impact assessment was published alongside the original regulations. The regulations in front of us today tidy up what were, to be charitable, quickly drawn-up regulations that need to be amended so that they work effectively and appropriately.

I thank the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their remarks. The Government plan to bring forward a remediation Bill when parliamentary time allows. More details will come forward at that point.

In closing, the regulations make important technical amendments to the 2023 regulations. They remove drafting ambiguities, clarify how the prohibitions operate in practice, and make sure key exceptions, whether for emergency repairs, routine maintenance or home purchases, work as they were intended to, to protect residents and leaseholders. The amendments do not change the requirements on developers to remediate.

Question put and agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning. Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the Parliament website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.

I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a vote.

If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful. I may ask for it to be recited back to me.

Clause 30

Local connection and service declarations ceasing to have effect

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 30, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), omit from “and except” to the end;”.

This amendment and Amendment 9 correct amendments of section 201(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 so as not to introduce a requirement for regulations made by the Electoral Commission to be made by statutory instrument. Such regulations are subject instead to procedural requirements under Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 9.

Clause 30 stand part.

Government amendments 19 and 20.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank all Committee members for their attendance today. We will hopefully be swift and painless as we go through our deliberations. I will turn to clause 30 first, before talking to technical Government amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20, tabled in my name.

Clause 30 provides that, where the circumstances on which a declaration of local connection was made no longer apply, the registration based on that declaration will cease to have effect. That is determined by the electoral registration officer in accordance with affirmative procedure regulations, made by the Secretary of State for non-devolved elections and Welsh or Scottish Ministers for devolved elections. Members will recall, I hope, from clause 4 that declarations of local connection allow individuals to register to vote where they do not have a fixed or permanent address, and are therefore registered on the basis of specific qualifying circumstances. Where those circumstances change, it is appropriate that registration should not continue on that basis.

The clause also requires that, where a person is removed from the register in these circumstances, whether the registration was based on a declaration of local connection or a service declaration, they are notified in writing and informed how to make a new declaration, if appropriate. That is a necessary administrative measure that helps to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate and reflects individuals’ current circumstances.

Amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20 are technical Government amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State’s existing power to make regulations under section 29(8) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is preserved. Nothing in the amendments changes policy or introduces new requirements. They simply ensure that amendments made elsewhere in the Bill do not inadvertently remove or narrow an important regulation making power that supports the effective administration of elections. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The Minister outlined this group in some detail. The Opposition have many disagreements with the Bill, but this is an implementation clause, with amendments that are technical and needed to tweak the system, in essence, in order to carry this through. We have no problem with the clause and will not contest it.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment made: 9, in clause 30, page 40, line 37, at end insert—

“(1ZA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument, except in the case of regulations under section 29(8).”—(Samantha Dixon.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Seniority of electoral registration officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Electoral registration officers are responsible for maintaining accurate and complete electoral registers, which are fundamental to the integrity of elections. The clause ensures that those appointed to that role are senior officers within their authority, with the authority and accountability needed to oversee this important function effectively.

By defining “senior officer” with reference to existing statutory roles, the clause provides clarity while allowing appropriate flexibility for councils. The clause applies across England and Wales, taking account of the different local government frameworks in each. Taken together with section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, this change means that the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, must be a senior officer of the local authority, who can command the use of the local authority resources needed to run elections effectively. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Anonymous registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

A person, or someone in their household, who would be at risk if their name and address were published on the electoral register, can register to vote anonymously. Anonymous electors have their names and addresses withheld from the electoral register. The anonymous registration regime has been in place for close to two decades, and gives confidence to a vulnerable group of electors to participate in our democracy. For example, survivors of stalking or domestic violence, and staff working in certain sensitive fields, are users of this registration route.

As things stand, anonymous electors have to reapply annually to maintain their registration, or are removed from the register. That places a substantial burden on both that group of applicants and on administrators. To support this vulnerable group of electors and reduce the burden on administrators, we are extending the period of anonymous registration by increasing it from one year to three years. A three-year period of anonymous registration ends the burden of yearly reapplication for applicants, while maintaining the requirement for reapplication, which is vital to ensure that an individual’s electoral registration arrangements are suitable for them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause and the proportionate measures that the Minister is proposing. It goes without saying, and I think everybody across the Committee would accept, that vulnerable people in our society—who may be going through difficult circumstances through no fault of their own—should have the absolute right to register and participate in our democratic processes. We think the change from annual registration to three-year registration is proportionate.

Can the Minister briefly outline how the change will be monitored? Is she confident that the resources are in place so that, when we move from annual to three-year registration, EROs have the systems and emphasis to ensure the register is refreshed and people are removed when they wish to be? On the whole, we agree with the clause entirely, and will not be contesting it.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure, which is important for a particularly vulnerable group of electors. The three-year cycle that is proposed aligns with the three-year postal vote cycle, which many of these voters will be using for a variety of reasons. Given that it aligns with that particular cycle, we can be assured that it will be no less of a burden—in fact, it will ease the administrative burden. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Pre-election applications for registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 34 stand part.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 33 sets out in law a clear and unambiguous deadline to register to vote in advance of a poll. Subsections (2) and (3) set the deadline at 5 pm, 12 working days before a poll. That brings the deadline forward by seven hours from the existing deadline of 12 working days before a poll. We believe that is the right thing to do for electors and administrators. It creates consistency by aligning the 5 pm deadline with other citizen-facing deadlines, including absent vote and voter authority certificate application deadlines. It will also allow any queries or issues with a registration application to be effectively addressed within the working day by electoral administrators.

Subsections (4) and (5) introduce a power for the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make regulations to change the deadline for elections that they have a responsibility for. In doing so, they might consult the Electoral Commission. Regulations must be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 34 repeals unique requirements for additional documentary evidence to always be provided by anyone trying to register to vote just before an election, even if the chief electoral officer is confident of their eligibility based on the data held. The current late-registration requirements in Northern Ireland require that additional documentary evidence to support an application to register must always be provided by anyone trying to register just before an election, even if the routine data checks carried out by the chief electoral officer provide a clear address and identity match.

The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him. That allows him to be confident in the identity of the vast majority of people making applications to register to vote. Therefore, it is necessary to request supporting evidence from applicants only where the data check is not clear. The repeal of these requirements will make voter registration easier for many people. In particular, it will remove an unnecessary barrier for many younger electors who may have fewer forms of documentary evidence than those over 18.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Electoral identity card issued in Northern Ireland: month and year of birth

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 35 allows for a change to the electoral ID cards that are produced by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will enable the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to produce a card that is sufficient to meet a narrower electoral requirement and will prevent misuse.

By moving to a system where cards display only the month and year of birth, we maintain the electoral requirement of the card, while also relieving pressure on the resources of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will ensure that electoral ID cards are used for their intended purpose of facilitating participation in our democracy. It will allow the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to focus its limited budget on delivering effective and secure elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Regulations as to registration etc: information to assist registration officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

The clause will support EROs with their duties to maintain complete and accurate registers, and facilitate the implementation of other clauses in the Bill related to direct registration, such as clauses 17 and 18. Clause 36 has two main effects. First, it will clarify the level of access that EROs should have to local authority datasets, and secondly, it will build the legislative framework to allow data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs.

On the first point, EROs currently have powers to access data from local authorities, or anyone providing services to that authority, to enable them to discharge their duty to maintain a complete and accurate register. However, in some cases, they face barriers to accessing the data they need. Local authorities interpret the extent of access they can provide in different ways, which creates an inconsistent picture of data access for EROs across the country. To address that, subsection (2) amends an existing power to clarify the rights of EROs to access local authority data to support electoral registration processes.

I now turn to the second impact of the clause. We know that there are opportunities to make better use of citizen data from across the public sector, including in the electoral registration space. The clause also includes a new power to enable better data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs. Subsection (3) introduces that power, which provides the legal basis for regulations setting out specific data-sharing arrangements and further data-sharing agreements. Given the importance of the clause to implementing clauses 17 and 18, I urge Members to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Edited register: electors to opt in

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Our electoral registration system relies on public confidence, part of which is knowing how personal data is used and having genuine control over it. As we update voter registration processes and prepare to extend the franchise to younger citizens, it is essential that the protections around personal information keep pace.

The open, or edited, register is not used for elections. It is available to be purchased and used for a wide range of purposes. The Bill introduces a clear and important safeguard. Electors will no longer be placed on the open register by default. Instead, they will be asked directly whether they wish to appear on it. That ensures that inclusion is an active decision rather than a presumption.

An opt-in approach gives people stronger control, aligns with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reflects modern expectations of consent with regard to personal data. As we move towards more automated forms of registration, individuals might not always complete an application form themselves. In that context, it would no longer be fair or appropriate to assume inclusion on the open register. Moving to an opt-in system ensures that no person appears on the open register without their explicit consent.

Strong protections for younger people are built into that change. Anyone under the age of 16 registering as an attainer will be automatically excluded from the open register and will not be able to opt in. At its core, this measure strengthens the standard of consent, protects personal data and supports a modernised approach to voter registration. It contributes to a system that is secure, transparent and respectful of individual choice, ensuring public confidence as registration processes evolve. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause, but I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. We must seriously consider anything that the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators have called for, and the Government have. The open register seems quite outdated and does not give the user or the person on it convenience or security. It is used for a number of different things that opens people up to unsolicited advances by dodgy people, if I can say that in Hansard. We therefore think that the clause is perfectly sensible.

This is perhaps my ignorance, but I want to ask the Minister about these changes in connection with the duties of Members of Parliament. I might be entirely wrong, and I do not expect officials to have a quick answer, so if the Minister wants to write to me, she may. I am not sure whether the software that Conservative Members of Parliament use for their casework relies on buying the open register, or what Labour Members use when they get a piece of casework to search for somebody who has not written to them before. If that is in the purview of the Minister’s Department—if not, that is fine—perhaps she can write to me about whether our duties and roles in this respect might be affected. Other than that, we think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not seek a Division.

[Samantha Dixon]

As the hon. Member suspected, I do not have the answer to that question to hand. It is an interesting question, and I will supply a response as soon as I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Provision of assistance by local authority officers to returning officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 39 stand part.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clauses 38 and 39 deal with returning officers. As Members will know, returning officers play a central role in delivering elections and maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Their decisions carry significant legal and operational responsibility. Returning officers rely on the support of local authority officers to support the effective and efficient running of elections. That is particularly important where constituencies cross local authority boundaries.

Clause 38 ensures that all local authorities in England and Wales are required to make their officers available to support the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections that fall wholly or partly within their area. That removes any ambiguity about local authority support responsibilities to returning officers, and helps to ensure that elections are administered smoothly and consistently. It aligns the position in England and Wales with the existing statutory arrangements in Scotland, promoting a coherent approach across Great Britain. The clause provides clarity and certainty, ensuring that returning officers have access to the local authority officer support they need in order to deliver well-run and trusted elections.

Clause 39 ensures that those appointed as returning officers are senior officers within their authority, with the experience, authority and accountability needed to manage complex electoral activity. In Scotland, the clause requires a senior officer to be appointed as returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, with provision for a designation where a constituency spans more than one council area.

In England, equivalent seniority requirements apply for returning officers at local elections, including those administered by London borough councils and the Greater London Authority. By ensuring that returning officers hold appropriately senior positions, the clause strengthens accountability and supports the effective administration of elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 ordered to start of the Bill.

Clause 40

Timing of proceedings for nominations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 40 makes changes to the deadlines for submitting nomination papers to returning officers at elections. Currently, nomination papers may be delivered between 10 am and 4 pm on any day in the period for submitting nominations, including the final day. Under the proposals in the clause, at a UK parliamentary election and at Northern Ireland local elections, nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer between 9 am and 5 pm on any day of the nomination period except the last day, and between 9 am and 12 noon on the last day for submitting nomination papers. The change will therefore provide greater flexibility for political parties and prospective candidates when submitting their nominations.

As indicated, the clause will also move the deadline to submit nomination papers on the final day earlier, to midday. The deadline for making objections to nominations at UK parliamentary elections is set at 12 noon, except in relation to nominations delivered on the last day, for which the deadline will be 1 pm. That will allow returning officers to begin printing ballot papers earlier, and so reduce pressure on printing and delivery of postal ballot papers.

Alongside the planned forthcoming change to the postal vote application deadline—to be made by secondary legislation, and detailed in the Government’s strategy for elections, published last July—the adjustments will provide additional time for electoral administrators to process postal vote applications and to prepare and issue postal ballot packs, while still ensuring adequate time for candidates to submit their nominations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 42 stand part.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clauses 41 and 42 strengthen the candidate nomination process by introducing new safeguards. That will protect the integrity of our elections and prevent impersonation or false nominations.

Recent years have seen individuals stand for election in order to be disruptive, or as sham candidates. A recent case saw multiple individuals standing under the same name across a number of constituencies, highlighting the need for identity checks. The Speaker’s Conference recommended introducing candidate ID and stronger nomination requirements to prevent candidates from misleading the electorate or undermining the integrity of the democratic process.

Clause 41 introduces a new requirement for those wishing to stand for election to provide evidence of their identity. The returning officer can deem a nomination invalid if there is a discrepancy in the ID that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, or reject it if the ID leads them to doubt that the candidate is who they claim to be. If we are asking electors to identify themselves to register and vote, it is perfectly reasonable to ask candidates to do the same to stand.

We are reinforcing the integrity of the nomination process by introducing a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration with their nomination, setting out that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers and that their papers do not include any false information. In combination, these measures will deter prospective candidates who wish to abuse the system and undermine our democratic processes.

Clause 42 mirrors, for local elections in Northern Ireland, the provisions in clause 41 requiring candidates at UK parliamentary elections to provide proof of identity as part of the nomination process. To summarise, candidates at local elections in Northern Ireland will be required to include proof of identity with their nomination papers and to sign a new statutory declaration confirming that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers. We intend to extend these measures through secondary legislation to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.

The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.

[Samantha Dixon]

To respond to the question’s from the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, we are currently finalising the details of the proposals, to make sure we strike the right balance between security and accessibility, and we will set more details out soon.

We anticipate that the candidate ID check will be different from the voter ID check. Voters show ID once, at the ballot box; candidates are in the public eye for weeks. If somebody attempts to mislead the public, there should be multiple opportunities for scrutiny, but the new checks will add an early safeguard that does not currently exist.

Later today, we will discuss our views around identification for those coming to the ballot box, but this important step forward for the nomination process will prevent people from disrupting our democratic process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Withdrawal of certificates authorising candidate descriptions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

The purpose of the clause is to enable political parties to withdraw support for candidates prior to the close of nominations, which is not currently possible. Parties will be able to take appropriate action when concerns about a candidate arise during the nomination period. Under the clause, at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in Northern Ireland, the registered nominating officer of a political party will be able to revoke their authorisation for a candidate to use the party’s description in their nomination papers up to 48 hours before the close of nominations.

Upon such a request being made, the candidate’s nomination would be cancelled, and their name would not appear on the ballot paper for that party. The clause will only allow such requests to be made up to 48 hours before the close of nominations. We have decided that to ensure that the candidate would still have time to resubmit nomination papers to stand for another party or as an independent candidate by the close of nominations. The party would also be able to nominate a new candidate to stand in place of the original candidate. We believe that making this change is right in order to ensure that, when concerns arise about a candidate during the nomination period, political parties will be able to withdraw their support and nominate a new candidate.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step.

Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not go into that particular arena. I will say that we are taking a balanced approach and that we have discussed the issue with electoral administrators. We do not believe that this approach is going to impose administrative burdens on returning officers, and it should allow the polls to run more smoothly than under the current arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

As we have just discussed, clause 43 enables a political party to withdraw authorisation for a candidate to stand on its behalf prior to the close of nominations. Clause 44 makes provision in relation to the subscription to nomination papers as a consequence of that change.

Under clause 44, if a person who has previously subscribed to the nomination paper of a candidate at a parliamentary election but the party withdraws its support for that candidate, which as a consequence invalidates the nomination, that person may subscribe to another nomination paper. That also applies to any time a nomination is ruled to be invalid due to a problem with the party description.

We believe that it is right for a subscriber in that circumstance—when the original nomination has been deemed invalid, through no fault of the subscriber—to be able to subscribe to another nomination paper if they wish to do so. That would allow them to subscribe to an alternative candidate put forward by the party, or to the same candidate if that candidate was now running as an independent or for a different party. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure.

[Paul Holmes]

We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others.

Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Police contact form

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following—

New Clause 56

“Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance

(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.

(2) The guidance must include information about—

(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;

(b) physical and online security measures; and

(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.

(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.

(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “election periods” means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of “election expense” of the RPA 1983).”

This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 45 seeks to enhance the security of candidates by ensuring that candidates at UK parliamentary elections are able to receive appropriate and tailored security briefings from the police in a timely and effective manner. The clause makes provision for a new form to capture candidates’ contact details, which candidates will be able to complete and return with their nomination papers.

The returning officer will send the contact details to the relevant local police force or forces, so that they can contact the candidate to invite them to security briefings for the election or in case of emergency. Completion of the form will be optional and any submitted forms will be kept confidential. This is a simple and straightforward measure to improve the support that police forces are able to offer to candidates.

New clause 56, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidates’ safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination had been confirmed. The Government are clear that harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Consequently, we are highly sympathetic to the goal that the new clause seeks to achieve; that is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.

The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.

Specifically, ahead of the upcoming May 2026 elections across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales for distribution to candidates in early January—earlier than previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.

The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt and the cyber-security services available to them, as well as guidance on reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage action plan. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland, to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats.

The Electoral Commission already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has also updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated. In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation.

However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning, and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.

In the Bill, the Government will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination form papers. The purpose of that additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer, specifically so that the returning officer can then share those details with local policing. Once local policing has that information, the relevant force elected official adviser will make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates to take up the opportunity of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.

Given past and ongoing work by the Government and the Electoral Commission in this space, co-ordinating with the relevant policing authorities and providing guidance, the Government do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the commission to perform such functions. For these reasons, and with these reassurances in place, I hope that new clause 56 will be withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times.

Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent.

We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue.

Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official.

Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates.

Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces?

I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.

If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly.

I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 45, but I will speak particularly in favour of new clause 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, regarding the duty of the Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which looked at the safety of candidates in elections. It did a huge amount of very detailed work and came up with some really strong recommendations. We should all be grateful to those who served on it.

New clause 56 is quite a straightforward proposal. We sadly live in times where candidates—those standing both in national elections and in local elections—too often face abuse and hostility. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley was entirely right to talk about Operation Bridger, while Operation Ford works with candidates for local elections. Those are both really big steps forward in recent years towards helping candidates know what support is out there, and helping police forces know what their duties and responsibilities are and what good looks like. There is real inconsistency between police forces about how they treat the activity that none of us wants to see in elections, including hostility and abuse both online and offline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to introduce consistency. The Electoral Commission is a national body, and it can make the point to police forces and others about what their roles and responsibilities are. Political parties can support their candidates, but not all candidates represent a political party, so there is inconsistency in that regard. Some parties are newer than others, and do not have the experience necessarily of some of the spikier sides of election campaigning.

New clause 56 would place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance. It would require returning officers to provide it to their candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted. I take the point about the level of bureaucracy it could introduce, but if it is one set of guidance for all candidates standing in local elections, I do not believe that is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. Providing it would ensure that all candidates in elections have access to consistent and quality guidance. The proposal is supported by the Jo Cox Foundation, which was set up after the absolutely horrific murder of a Member of Parliament. The foundation knows of what it speaks, and recommended in its evidence to the Committee that we look at this. I encourage the Committee to support the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for tabling it.

[Samantha Dixon]

I deeply appreciate the warmth that Members have shown for these measures. As someone who also served for a short time on the Speaker’s Conference and having experienced harassment myself, as many on the Committee have, I know that this is an important measure that will protect our candidates. Operation Ford is a great step forward, but I reassure the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that we do not stand still in this sphere. The work of the joint election security and preparedness unit, the defending democracy taskforce, Operation Ford and Operation Bridger does not rely on this legislation. That continues constantly, and not just during elections.

[Paul Holmes]

I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states:

“The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.”

We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will take away and consider carefully. I would not want to hamper the passage of information in any respect, and I would want to think through carefully with officials whether such a timescale would do that.

I absolutely understand the sentiment and ambition behind new clause 56. However, the Government do not support it because we believe a non-statutory approach gives us flexibility. The nature of political campaigning is changing very fast, and to oblige a code of conduct in a statutory framework would not leave us—or the Speaker’s Conference and the Electoral Commission—the flexibility to respond to new and emerging forms of political campaigning. We need to respond promptly and swiftly, and to freeze something in a statutory aspic may have the unintended consequence of not enabling us to do that. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Calling out and completed corresponding number lists etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 46 removes the unnecessary and outdated requirement for polling station staff to call out the name and elector number of a voter when delivering a ballot paper. This change will bring Northern Ireland in line with practice in Great Britain. This practice can be intimidatory and unwelcome for voters, and its removal is in line with the Government’s wider commitments to tackle harassment and intimidation in the democratic process.

Calling out is also unnecessary given the requirement to produce photo ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland. This change will apply to all elections in Northern Ireland. The clause will also make some technical amendments to ensure that legislative references to the corresponding number list are correct. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Voter identification requirements

[Samantha Dixon]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—

“, and

(iii) shows when the card expires (see also paragraph (1NA)).”

This amendment and Amendment 11 provide that a payment or cash withdrawal card can only be used as voter identification if the card shows when it expires and has not expired.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—

“(iii) is issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in connection the issuance of the bank card, which is recorded on the individual’s credit file, and visible to other lenders.”

This amendment would ensure that only bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment would be able to be used as voter ID.

Government amendments 11 to 13.

Clause stand part.

New clause 19—Repeal of voter identification requirements—

“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).

(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.

(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.

(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”

This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 22.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will speak to clause 47 before turning to Government amendments 10 to 13. I will then respond to amendment 30, tabled by the Opposition, and new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. We believe it is unacceptable for legitimate voters to be prevented or discouraged from voting, and any barriers to voting must be addressed. While we believe it is appropriate to retain the requirement to show ID to protect electors from the risk of personation, the current voter ID rules are too restrictive. Research has consistently shown that between 2% and 4% of electors report not owning a currently accepted form of ID, and thousands of electors have been recorded being turned away from polling stations due the policy.

Clause 47 will amend the voter ID rules to allow the use of UK-authorised bank cards at the polling station. These are widely held and our research estimates that allowing their use will bring the number of electors reporting not owning an accepted ID to under 1%. This significant step will greatly improve the accessibility of this policy and support democratic participation.

The clause will also make changes to modernise the legislation with regards to digital forms of ID. The measure will require that any digital ID must be verifiable by a visual inspection feature in order to be accepted at the polling station—for example using a digital hologram. All currently accepted digital IDs have such security features. This change will ensure that any new digital ID without such a feature will not be accepted and so not create a new route for electoral fraud. Finally, this clause amends existing and creates new powers to make regulations relating to voter ID.

Together, the measures will ensure that our elections continue to maintain a proportionate voter ID check to prevent the risk of personation, while allowing a greater proportion of legitimate electors to more easily meet the voter identification requirements and engage in our democratic system.

Government amendments 10 to 13 ensure that only in-date bank cards are accepted as Voter ID at the polling station. Allowing UK-authorised bank cards to be used as voter ID will allow a greater proportion of legitimate electors in Great Britain to more easily meet the voter identification requirements, particularly newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds. However, improving accessibility and participation in our elections must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain their security and integrity.

An in-date bank card is likely to be kept carefully by its owner and unlikely to be discarded or given to others. However, unlike an expired photographic document, which is unlikely to be usable by anyone other than the legitimate owner due to the photograph, there is a risk that an expired bank card might be discarded, given away, or not noticed missing by the owner, as it no longer poses a financial risk. It therefore makes sense for photographic ID on the accepted list to continue to be able to be used as voter ID after it expires, so long as the photo remains a good likeness to the individual, but for a bank card to need to be in date in order to maintain the security of the policy. The amendments will make that change.

The amendments will also allow that if further types of non-photographic documents are added to the list of permissible forms of ID in the future, the same requirement that they be in date can be imposed. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.

Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is

“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.

That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.

For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.

During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are

“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”

The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that

“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”

She was also right when she said:

“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]

We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.

I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.

Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.

Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.

I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

I have to say that I find it quite shocking to hear Members of the official Opposition supporting the exclusion of thousands of eligible voters from the polling station. That really is shocking. This proposal represents a broadening and an enhancing of the voter ID system so that those eligible can cast their vote. It is a very simple principle. I must correct the shadow Minister: there was support for this measure from the Electoral Reform Society, which said that

“Allowing IDs like bank cards and digital ID, which voters are likely to be carrying on them, will help voters who do not have access to the other accepted forms of ID and make it easier for all voters on the day.”

That is the point.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning. Would everyone ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the Parliament website. That shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate.

I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in that debate by bobbing. At the end of a debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause or to seek a vote.

If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including grouped new clauses and schedules—in a group to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper. I hope that explanation is helpful. I may ask for it to be recited back to me.

Clause 30

Local connection and service declarations ceasing to have effect

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 30, page 40, line 30, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), omit from “and except” to the end;”.

This amendment and Amendment 9 correct amendments of section 201(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 so as not to introduce a requirement for regulations made by the Electoral Commission to be made by statutory instrument. Such regulations are subject instead to procedural requirements under Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 9.

Clause 30 stand part.

Government amendments 19 and 20.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank all Committee members for their attendance today. We will hopefully be swift and painless as we go through our deliberations. I will turn to clause 30 first, before talking to technical Government amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20, tabled in my name.

Clause 30 provides that, where the circumstances on which a declaration of local connection was made no longer apply, the registration based on that declaration will cease to have effect. That is determined by the electoral registration officer in accordance with affirmative procedure regulations, made by the Secretary of State for non-devolved elections and Welsh or Scottish Ministers for devolved elections. Members will recall, I hope, from clause 4 that declarations of local connection allow individuals to register to vote where they do not have a fixed or permanent address, and are therefore registered on the basis of specific qualifying circumstances. Where those circumstances change, it is appropriate that registration should not continue on that basis.

The clause also requires that, where a person is removed from the register in these circumstances, whether the registration was based on a declaration of local connection or a service declaration, they are notified in writing and informed how to make a new declaration, if appropriate. That is a necessary administrative measure that helps to ensure that the electoral register remains accurate and reflects individuals’ current circumstances.

Amendments 8, 9, 19 and 20 are technical Government amendments that ensure that the Secretary of State’s existing power to make regulations under section 29(8) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is preserved. Nothing in the amendments changes policy or introduces new requirements. They simply ensure that amendments made elsewhere in the Bill do not inadvertently remove or narrow an important regulation making power that supports the effective administration of elections. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. The Minister outlined this group in some detail. The Opposition have many disagreements with the Bill, but this is an implementation clause, with amendments that are technical and needed to tweak the system, in essence, in order to carry this through. We have no problem with the clause and will not contest it.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendment made: 9, in clause 30, page 40, line 37, at end insert—

“(1ZA) Regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers under this Act are to be made by statutory instrument, except in the case of regulations under section 29(8).”—(Samantha Dixon.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.

Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Seniority of electoral registration officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Electoral registration officers are responsible for maintaining accurate and complete electoral registers, which are fundamental to the integrity of elections. The clause ensures that those appointed to that role are senior officers within their authority, with the authority and accountability needed to oversee this important function effectively.

By defining “senior officer” with reference to existing statutory roles, the clause provides clarity while allowing appropriate flexibility for councils. The clause applies across England and Wales, taking account of the different local government frameworks in each. Taken together with section 28 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, this change means that the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, must be a senior officer of the local authority, who can command the use of the local authority resources needed to run elections effectively. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Anonymous registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

A person, or someone in their household, who would be at risk if their name and address were published on the electoral register, can register to vote anonymously. Anonymous electors have their names and addresses withheld from the electoral register. The anonymous registration regime has been in place for close to two decades, and gives confidence to a vulnerable group of electors to participate in our democracy. For example, survivors of stalking or domestic violence, and staff working in certain sensitive fields, are users of this registration route.

As things stand, anonymous electors have to reapply annually to maintain their registration, or are removed from the register. That places a substantial burden on both that group of applicants and on administrators. To support this vulnerable group of electors and reduce the burden on administrators, we are extending the period of anonymous registration by increasing it from one year to three years. A three-year period of anonymous registration ends the burden of yearly reapplication for applicants, while maintaining the requirement for reapplication, which is vital to ensure that an individual’s electoral registration arrangements are suitable for them. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause and the proportionate measures that the Minister is proposing. It goes without saying, and I think everybody across the Committee would accept, that vulnerable people in our society—who may be going through difficult circumstances through no fault of their own—should have the absolute right to register and participate in our democratic processes. We think the change from annual registration to three-year registration is proportionate.

Can the Minister briefly outline how the change will be monitored? Is she confident that the resources are in place so that, when we move from annual to three-year registration, EROs have the systems and emphasis to ensure the register is refreshed and people are removed when they wish to be? On the whole, we agree with the clause entirely, and will not be contesting it.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the Opposition for their support for this measure, which is important for a particularly vulnerable group of electors. The three-year cycle that is proposed aligns with the three-year postal vote cycle, which many of these voters will be using for a variety of reasons. Given that it aligns with that particular cycle, we can be assured that it will be no less of a burden—in fact, it will ease the administrative burden. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Pre-election applications for registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 34 stand part.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 33 sets out in law a clear and unambiguous deadline to register to vote in advance of a poll. Subsections (2) and (3) set the deadline at 5 pm, 12 working days before a poll. That brings the deadline forward by seven hours from the existing deadline of 12 working days before a poll. We believe that is the right thing to do for electors and administrators. It creates consistency by aligning the 5 pm deadline with other citizen-facing deadlines, including absent vote and voter authority certificate application deadlines. It will also allow any queries or issues with a registration application to be effectively addressed within the working day by electoral administrators.

Subsections (4) and (5) introduce a power for the Secretary of State and Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make regulations to change the deadline for elections that they have a responsibility for. In doing so, they might consult the Electoral Commission. Regulations must be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Clause 34 repeals unique requirements for additional documentary evidence to always be provided by anyone trying to register to vote just before an election, even if the chief electoral officer is confident of their eligibility based on the data held. The current late-registration requirements in Northern Ireland require that additional documentary evidence to support an application to register must always be provided by anyone trying to register just before an election, even if the routine data checks carried out by the chief electoral officer provide a clear address and identity match.

The chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland has made it clear that he has full confidence in the quality of the data available to him. That allows him to be confident in the identity of the vast majority of people making applications to register to vote. Therefore, it is necessary to request supporting evidence from applicants only where the data check is not clear. The repeal of these requirements will make voter registration easier for many people. In particular, it will remove an unnecessary barrier for many younger electors who may have fewer forms of documentary evidence than those over 18.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Electoral identity card issued in Northern Ireland: month and year of birth

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 35 allows for a change to the electoral ID cards that are produced by the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will enable the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to produce a card that is sufficient to meet a narrower electoral requirement and will prevent misuse.

By moving to a system where cards display only the month and year of birth, we maintain the electoral requirement of the card, while also relieving pressure on the resources of the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland. The change will ensure that electoral ID cards are used for their intended purpose of facilitating participation in our democracy. It will allow the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to focus its limited budget on delivering effective and secure elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36

Regulations as to registration etc: information to assist registration officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

The clause will support EROs with their duties to maintain complete and accurate registers, and facilitate the implementation of other clauses in the Bill related to direct registration, such as clauses 17 and 18. Clause 36 has two main effects. First, it will clarify the level of access that EROs should have to local authority datasets, and secondly, it will build the legislative framework to allow data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs.

On the first point, EROs currently have powers to access data from local authorities, or anyone providing services to that authority, to enable them to discharge their duty to maintain a complete and accurate register. However, in some cases, they face barriers to accessing the data they need. Local authorities interpret the extent of access they can provide in different ways, which creates an inconsistent picture of data access for EROs across the country. To address that, subsection (2) amends an existing power to clarify the rights of EROs to access local authority data to support electoral registration processes.

I now turn to the second impact of the clause. We know that there are opportunities to make better use of citizen data from across the public sector, including in the electoral registration space. The clause also includes a new power to enable better data sharing between Government Departments and other bodies with EROs. Subsection (3) introduces that power, which provides the legal basis for regulations setting out specific data-sharing arrangements and further data-sharing agreements. Given the importance of the clause to implementing clauses 17 and 18, I urge Members to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Edited register: electors to opt in

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Our electoral registration system relies on public confidence, part of which is knowing how personal data is used and having genuine control over it. As we update voter registration processes and prepare to extend the franchise to younger citizens, it is essential that the protections around personal information keep pace.

The open, or edited, register is not used for elections. It is available to be purchased and used for a wide range of purposes. The Bill introduces a clear and important safeguard. Electors will no longer be placed on the open register by default. Instead, they will be asked directly whether they wish to appear on it. That ensures that inclusion is an active decision rather than a presumption.

An opt-in approach gives people stronger control, aligns with guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reflects modern expectations of consent with regard to personal data. As we move towards more automated forms of registration, individuals might not always complete an application form themselves. In that context, it would no longer be fair or appropriate to assume inclusion on the open register. Moving to an opt-in system ensures that no person appears on the open register without their explicit consent.

Strong protections for younger people are built into that change. Anyone under the age of 16 registering as an attainer will be automatically excluded from the open register and will not be able to opt in. At its core, this measure strengthens the standard of consent, protects personal data and supports a modernised approach to voter registration. It contributes to a system that is secure, transparent and respectful of individual choice, ensuring public confidence as registration processes evolve. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause, but I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. We must seriously consider anything that the Electoral Commission and electoral administrators have called for, and the Government have. The open register seems quite outdated and does not give the user or the person on it convenience or security. It is used for a number of different things that opens people up to unsolicited advances by dodgy people, if I can say that in Hansard. We therefore think that the clause is perfectly sensible.

This is perhaps my ignorance, but I want to ask the Minister about these changes in connection with the duties of Members of Parliament. I might be entirely wrong, and I do not expect officials to have a quick answer, so if the Minister wants to write to me, she may. I am not sure whether the software that Conservative Members of Parliament use for their casework relies on buying the open register, or what Labour Members use when they get a piece of casework to search for somebody who has not written to them before. If that is in the purview of the Minister’s Department—if not, that is fine—perhaps she can write to me about whether our duties and roles in this respect might be affected. Other than that, we think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not seek a Division.

[Samantha Dixon]

As the hon. Member suspected, I do not have the answer to that question to hand. It is an interesting question, and I will supply a response as soon as I can.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Provision of assistance by local authority officers to returning officers

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 39 stand part.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clauses 38 and 39 deal with returning officers. As Members will know, returning officers play a central role in delivering elections and maintaining public confidence in the democratic process. Their decisions carry significant legal and operational responsibility. Returning officers rely on the support of local authority officers to support the effective and efficient running of elections. That is particularly important where constituencies cross local authority boundaries.

Clause 38 ensures that all local authorities in England and Wales are required to make their officers available to support the returning officer for UK parliamentary elections that fall wholly or partly within their area. That removes any ambiguity about local authority support responsibilities to returning officers, and helps to ensure that elections are administered smoothly and consistently. It aligns the position in England and Wales with the existing statutory arrangements in Scotland, promoting a coherent approach across Great Britain. The clause provides clarity and certainty, ensuring that returning officers have access to the local authority officer support they need in order to deliver well-run and trusted elections.

Clause 39 ensures that those appointed as returning officers are senior officers within their authority, with the experience, authority and accountability needed to manage complex electoral activity. In Scotland, the clause requires a senior officer to be appointed as returning officer for UK parliamentary elections, with provision for a designation where a constituency spans more than one council area.

In England, equivalent seniority requirements apply for returning officers at local elections, including those administered by London borough councils and the Greater London Authority. By ensuring that returning officers hold appropriately senior positions, the clause strengthens accountability and supports the effective administration of elections.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 ordered to start of the Bill.

Clause 40

Timing of proceedings for nominations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 40 makes changes to the deadlines for submitting nomination papers to returning officers at elections. Currently, nomination papers may be delivered between 10 am and 4 pm on any day in the period for submitting nominations, including the final day. Under the proposals in the clause, at a UK parliamentary election and at Northern Ireland local elections, nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer between 9 am and 5 pm on any day of the nomination period except the last day, and between 9 am and 12 noon on the last day for submitting nomination papers. The change will therefore provide greater flexibility for political parties and prospective candidates when submitting their nominations.

As indicated, the clause will also move the deadline to submit nomination papers on the final day earlier, to midday. The deadline for making objections to nominations at UK parliamentary elections is set at 12 noon, except in relation to nominations delivered on the last day, for which the deadline will be 1 pm. That will allow returning officers to begin printing ballot papers earlier, and so reduce pressure on printing and delivery of postal ballot papers.

Alongside the planned forthcoming change to the postal vote application deadline—to be made by secondary legislation, and detailed in the Government’s strategy for elections, published last July—the adjustments will provide additional time for electoral administrators to process postal vote applications and to prepare and issue postal ballot packs, while still ensuring adequate time for candidates to submit their nominations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 42 stand part.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clauses 41 and 42 strengthen the candidate nomination process by introducing new safeguards. That will protect the integrity of our elections and prevent impersonation or false nominations.

Recent years have seen individuals stand for election in order to be disruptive, or as sham candidates. A recent case saw multiple individuals standing under the same name across a number of constituencies, highlighting the need for identity checks. The Speaker’s Conference recommended introducing candidate ID and stronger nomination requirements to prevent candidates from misleading the electorate or undermining the integrity of the democratic process.

Clause 41 introduces a new requirement for those wishing to stand for election to provide evidence of their identity. The returning officer can deem a nomination invalid if there is a discrepancy in the ID that cannot be resolved to their satisfaction, or reject it if the ID leads them to doubt that the candidate is who they claim to be. If we are asking electors to identify themselves to register and vote, it is perfectly reasonable to ask candidates to do the same to stand.

We are reinforcing the integrity of the nomination process by introducing a requirement for candidates to sign a declaration with their nomination, setting out that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers and that their papers do not include any false information. In combination, these measures will deter prospective candidates who wish to abuse the system and undermine our democratic processes.

Clause 42 mirrors, for local elections in Northern Ireland, the provisions in clause 41 requiring candidates at UK parliamentary elections to provide proof of identity as part of the nomination process. To summarise, candidates at local elections in Northern Ireland will be required to include proof of identity with their nomination papers and to sign a new statutory declaration confirming that they understand it is a criminal offence to knowingly provide false information on nomination papers. We intend to extend these measures through secondary legislation to Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister outlining these measures. We agree with them, but I note the slight irony that the Minister has given examples of wanting to stop impersonation and disruptive candidates and to protect the integrity of the election system, when later in the Bill there is a watering down of identification requirements for those who want to vote in UK elections. If she now believes that we need to strengthen the process by instigating a form of ID to stand in elections— I understand that the types of ID will be brought forward in secondary legislation, and we have no problem with that, as long as it is done clearly—what are her views on moving towards photographic ID being provided—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s confirmation of his assertion. Currently, there are higher barriers for voting than there are for standing in an election. That situation baffles me. We should be welcoming as many people as possible to vote if are entitled to. I am reasonably confident that we will discuss this matter more as the day progresses.

The Liberal Democrats welcome these clauses, because it is wholly sensible that there should be proof, particularly around home address. In our experience of elections, many of us will have seen looser or tighter interpretations of where somebody is living when standing for election. It is very welcome that proof must be provided in this way; there should be bars that candidates need to jump over to stand in an election. Those bars should be proportionate, and we feel that the Government’s proposal is entirely proportionate, so we support it.

[Samantha Dixon]

To respond to the question’s from the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, we are currently finalising the details of the proposals, to make sure we strike the right balance between security and accessibility, and we will set more details out soon.

We anticipate that the candidate ID check will be different from the voter ID check. Voters show ID once, at the ballot box; candidates are in the public eye for weeks. If somebody attempts to mislead the public, there should be multiple opportunities for scrutiny, but the new checks will add an early safeguard that does not currently exist.

Later today, we will discuss our views around identification for those coming to the ballot box, but this important step forward for the nomination process will prevent people from disrupting our democratic process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Withdrawal of certificates authorising candidate descriptions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

The purpose of the clause is to enable political parties to withdraw support for candidates prior to the close of nominations, which is not currently possible. Parties will be able to take appropriate action when concerns about a candidate arise during the nomination period. Under the clause, at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in Northern Ireland, the registered nominating officer of a political party will be able to revoke their authorisation for a candidate to use the party’s description in their nomination papers up to 48 hours before the close of nominations.

Upon such a request being made, the candidate’s nomination would be cancelled, and their name would not appear on the ballot paper for that party. The clause will only allow such requests to be made up to 48 hours before the close of nominations. We have decided that to ensure that the candidate would still have time to resubmit nomination papers to stand for another party or as an independent candidate by the close of nominations. The party would also be able to nominate a new candidate to stand in place of the original candidate. We believe that making this change is right in order to ensure that, when concerns arise about a candidate during the nomination period, political parties will be able to withdraw their support and nominate a new candidate.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the clause. It has common sense and provides the ability for political parties, no matter what they are, to protect their reputation and integrity by clearly removing support from an election candidate who may have gone slightly skew-whiff. Let us face it: every party in this House—and outside it—has wrong ’uns, to use the technical term, in its midst. Enabling parties to withdraw support at that early stage is a vital and pragmatic step.

Has the Minister done a risk assessment on the effects on staff? I suspect that this legislative change will mean that Reform staff have a huge amount of work to do, given the number of candidates that their party suspends at elections and how often it is unable to get a candidate who has remotely sensible views. Will there be an impact assessment about the work created when Reform is standing candidates? Other than that, we are completely in support of the clause.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but I will not go into that particular arena. I will say that we are taking a balanced approach and that we have discussed the issue with electoral administrators. We do not believe that this approach is going to impose administrative burdens on returning officers, and it should allow the polls to run more smoothly than under the current arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

As we have just discussed, clause 43 enables a political party to withdraw authorisation for a candidate to stand on its behalf prior to the close of nominations. Clause 44 makes provision in relation to the subscription to nomination papers as a consequence of that change.

Under clause 44, if a person who has previously subscribed to the nomination paper of a candidate at a parliamentary election but the party withdraws its support for that candidate, which as a consequence invalidates the nomination, that person may subscribe to another nomination paper. That also applies to any time a nomination is ruled to be invalid due to a problem with the party description.

We believe that it is right for a subscriber in that circumstance—when the original nomination has been deemed invalid, through no fault of the subscriber—to be able to subscribe to another nomination paper if they wish to do so. That would allow them to subscribe to an alternative candidate put forward by the party, or to the same candidate if that candidate was now running as an independent or for a different party. I hope that hon. Members will support the measure.

[Paul Holmes]

We support the clause and think it a pragmatic and proportional response to the other legislative changes that the Minister has outlined. We all know what happened before—candidates would have to run around to get 10 signatures, although that figure went down to two signatures under the last Government. That was a good thing, particularly because in some circumstances it is harder for smaller parties suddenly to find somebody else within a ward or a geographical area to sign nomination papers. Even for the main parties, in some geographical areas it is harder to get nominations than in others.

Clause 44 is a pragmatic solution. It favours smaller parties that do not have the infrastructure of larger parties, enabling them to put up candidates subject to the implications of clause 43. We wholly support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Police contact form

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following—

New Clause 56

“Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance

(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.

(2) The guidance must include information about—

(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;

(b) physical and online security measures; and

(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.

(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.

(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “election periods” means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of “election expense” of the RPA 1983).”

This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 45 seeks to enhance the security of candidates by ensuring that candidates at UK parliamentary elections are able to receive appropriate and tailored security briefings from the police in a timely and effective manner. The clause makes provision for a new form to capture candidates’ contact details, which candidates will be able to complete and return with their nomination papers.

The returning officer will send the contact details to the relevant local police force or forces, so that they can contact the candidate to invite them to security briefings for the election or in case of emergency. Completion of the form will be optional and any submitted forms will be kept confidential. This is a simple and straightforward measure to improve the support that police forces are able to offer to candidates.

New clause 56, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidates’ safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination had been confirmed. The Government are clear that harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. Consequently, we are highly sympathetic to the goal that the new clause seeks to achieve; that is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.

The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The Joint Election Security Preparedness Unit is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.

Specifically, ahead of the upcoming May 2026 elections across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales for distribution to candidates in early January—earlier than previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.

The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt and the cyber-security services available to them, as well as guidance on reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage action plan. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland, to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats.

The Electoral Commission already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has also updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated. In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation.

However, we recognise that more can be done. That is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning, and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.

In the Bill, the Government will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination form papers. The purpose of that additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer, specifically so that the returning officer can then share those details with local policing. Once local policing has that information, the relevant force elected official adviser will make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates to take up the opportunity of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.

Given past and ongoing work by the Government and the Electoral Commission in this space, co-ordinating with the relevant policing authorities and providing guidance, the Government do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the commission to perform such functions. For these reasons, and with these reassurances in place, I hope that new clause 56 will be withdrawn.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister was right to go through a detailed explanation of clause 45, because it affects us all. As we come up to local elections across the country, it is absolutely right that—no matter what party we stand for, how many candidates we run or who those candidates are—we stand together and share the Minister’s encouragement and instruction that every candidate, where possible, should get their security briefing. People need to take their security as seriously as possible in these uncertain times.

Every Committee member will have been subject to some security threat at some point; as Members of Parliament, that is what we go through. It is a sad side of democracy. The measures in clause 45 are not only perfectly sensible but vital for the safety of all candidates, no matter what their party, what election it is or where they live or seek to represent.

We all know lots of people, particularly females, who are not standing in elections because they are concerned that they will not get the protection they deserve or want and that currently the system is not clear enough in making sure that police forces across the whole United Kingdom are working in the same way to provide briefings to candidates seeking election. An unfortunate side of that patchwork quilt is that, because of the sad and untimely passing—or, should I say, the murder—of two Members in the last few years, there is the unintended consequence that local election candidates are not considered to be as important or at the same level of risk as national candidates. But that is fundamentally untrue.

Clause 45 will ensure that when police officers get those forms, they take exactly the same action as others across the whole UK, and quickly get in touch with the candidates to give them security briefings. However, I have a concern—this is not because of a drawback in the legislation—that the Minister and the Department will need to make it very clear to police forces across the country that there is no time to wait. If a form is received from a returning officer in a local authority, there should be a statutory timeline for how quickly police officers get in touch with that official.

Today, two candidates in the Fareham borough elections have handed in their nomination forms to stand for election in May. One is a female who goes out campaigning, canvassing and leafleting by herself—I dearly hope that she wins—and the other is the leader of the council. There is no difference in their candidatures, and both of them should receive briefings as keenly, seriously and quickly as possible. I hope that the Minister can say something about the timescale between the form’s being submitted and the police force getting in touch with candidates.

Members are covered by Operation Bridger. How will the interactions of elected Members with Operation Bridger when we go into elections compare with how this form will affect local election candidates, but also us as Members of Parliament? How will that integrate with the House of Commons services, the Metropolitan police and local police forces?

I absolutely understand where new clause 56 is coming from. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has not spoken to it yet—I am slightly jumping the gun in interpreting what she and her party are trying to do—but the Electoral Commission already does the relevant work. Guidance is presented to local authorities and EROs across the UK. I worry that adding bureaucracy to the Electoral Commission through a statutory duty would have no effect on the physical approaches of police forces to candidates.

If there was an amendment to add a statutory duty on timescales, we might be able to work towards that on a cross-party basis; we might look into that on Report. However, I worry that having a statutory duty just on the Electoral Commission, when the responsibility is actually with local authorities, EROs and the police, will not make any tangible difference to the most important thing: the safety and freedom of candidates in going about their business and seeking to represent the areas they care about. We do not support new clause 56, although the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will give her oration on why we should support it shortly.

I am sorry for taking time, but I want to go back to clause 45. It is really important that all parties represented in this Committee stand with the Minister in making something very clear, as we come up to national elections in the next eight weeks or so; I am sure that all of us will be out on doorsteps over the Easter break to support our various candidates in winning our various councils. Regardless of the fact that this legislation will not have passed by then, parties must approach their local police forces and electoral returning officers and get that security brief. I wish them all luck as we go to the ballot box on 7 May.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats welcome clause 45, but I will speak particularly in favour of new clause 56, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, regarding the duty of the Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, which looked at the safety of candidates in elections. It did a huge amount of very detailed work and came up with some really strong recommendations. We should all be grateful to those who served on it.

New clause 56 is quite a straightforward proposal. We sadly live in times where candidates—those standing both in national elections and in local elections—too often face abuse and hostility. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley was entirely right to talk about Operation Bridger, while Operation Ford works with candidates for local elections. Those are both really big steps forward in recent years towards helping candidates know what support is out there, and helping police forces know what their duties and responsibilities are and what good looks like. There is real inconsistency between police forces about how they treat the activity that none of us wants to see in elections, including hostility and abuse both online and offline.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to introduce consistency. The Electoral Commission is a national body, and it can make the point to police forces and others about what their roles and responsibilities are. Political parties can support their candidates, but not all candidates represent a political party, so there is inconsistency in that regard. Some parties are newer than others, and do not have the experience necessarily of some of the spikier sides of election campaigning.

New clause 56 would place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance. It would require returning officers to provide it to their candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted. I take the point about the level of bureaucracy it could introduce, but if it is one set of guidance for all candidates standing in local elections, I do not believe that is an excessive amount of bureaucracy. Providing it would ensure that all candidates in elections have access to consistent and quality guidance. The proposal is supported by the Jo Cox Foundation, which was set up after the absolutely horrific murder of a Member of Parliament. The foundation knows of what it speaks, and recommended in its evidence to the Committee that we look at this. I encourage the Committee to support the new clause, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford for tabling it.

[Samantha Dixon]

I deeply appreciate the warmth that Members have shown for these measures. As someone who also served for a short time on the Speaker’s Conference and having experienced harassment myself, as many on the Committee have, I know that this is an important measure that will protect our candidates. Operation Ford is a great step forward, but I reassure the hon. Member for Hamble Valley that we do not stand still in this sphere. The work of the joint election security and preparedness unit, the defending democracy taskforce, Operation Ford and Operation Bridger does not rely on this legislation. That continues constantly, and not just during elections.

[Paul Holmes]

I sincerely apologise for interrupting the Minister’s oration. Clause 45(2) states:

“The returning officer must give a copy of the police contact form to the relevant chief officer of police (or, if there is more than one, to each such officer) as soon as practicable after publication of the statement of persons nominated.”

We agree with that and absolutely understand her intention. She may be about to answer this, but would she consider either writing to me or addressing this afternoon whether, on a cross-party basis, we could support strengthening the paragraph to include a statutory timescale for a form to be handed to a police force? Would she look favourably on tightening that element and, if so, could we meet after the Committee to see if that could be amended on Report?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Member for his suggestion, which I will take away and consider carefully. I would not want to hamper the passage of information in any respect, and I would want to think through carefully with officials whether such a timescale would do that.

I absolutely understand the sentiment and ambition behind new clause 56. However, the Government do not support it because we believe a non-statutory approach gives us flexibility. The nature of political campaigning is changing very fast, and to oblige a code of conduct in a statutory framework would not leave us—or the Speaker’s Conference and the Electoral Commission—the flexibility to respond to new and emerging forms of political campaigning. We need to respond promptly and swiftly, and to freeze something in a statutory aspic may have the unintended consequence of not enabling us to do that. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Calling out and completed corresponding number lists etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 46 removes the unnecessary and outdated requirement for polling station staff to call out the name and elector number of a voter when delivering a ballot paper. This change will bring Northern Ireland in line with practice in Great Britain. This practice can be intimidatory and unwelcome for voters, and its removal is in line with the Government’s wider commitments to tackle harassment and intimidation in the democratic process.

Calling out is also unnecessary given the requirement to produce photo ID at polling stations in Northern Ireland. This change will apply to all elections in Northern Ireland. The clause will also make some technical amendments to ensure that legislative references to the corresponding number list are correct. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Voter identification requirements

[Samantha Dixon]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—

“, and

(iii) shows when the card expires (see also paragraph (1NA)).”

This amendment and Amendment 11 provide that a payment or cash withdrawal card can only be used as voter identification if the card shows when it expires and has not expired.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 30, in clause 47, page 60, line 18, at end insert—

“(iii) is issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in connection the issuance of the bank card, which is recorded on the individual’s credit file, and visible to other lenders.”

This amendment would ensure that only bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment would be able to be used as voter ID.

Government amendments 11 to 13.

Clause stand part.

New clause 19—Repeal of voter identification requirements—

“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).

(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.

(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.

(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”

This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 22.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will speak to clause 47 before turning to Government amendments 10 to 13. I will then respond to amendment 30, tabled by the Opposition, and new clause 19, tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. We believe it is unacceptable for legitimate voters to be prevented or discouraged from voting, and any barriers to voting must be addressed. While we believe it is appropriate to retain the requirement to show ID to protect electors from the risk of personation, the current voter ID rules are too restrictive. Research has consistently shown that between 2% and 4% of electors report not owning a currently accepted form of ID, and thousands of electors have been recorded being turned away from polling stations due the policy.

Clause 47 will amend the voter ID rules to allow the use of UK-authorised bank cards at the polling station. These are widely held and our research estimates that allowing their use will bring the number of electors reporting not owning an accepted ID to under 1%. This significant step will greatly improve the accessibility of this policy and support democratic participation.

The clause will also make changes to modernise the legislation with regards to digital forms of ID. The measure will require that any digital ID must be verifiable by a visual inspection feature in order to be accepted at the polling station—for example using a digital hologram. All currently accepted digital IDs have such security features. This change will ensure that any new digital ID without such a feature will not be accepted and so not create a new route for electoral fraud. Finally, this clause amends existing and creates new powers to make regulations relating to voter ID.

Together, the measures will ensure that our elections continue to maintain a proportionate voter ID check to prevent the risk of personation, while allowing a greater proportion of legitimate electors to more easily meet the voter identification requirements and engage in our democratic system.

Government amendments 10 to 13 ensure that only in-date bank cards are accepted as Voter ID at the polling station. Allowing UK-authorised bank cards to be used as voter ID will allow a greater proportion of legitimate electors in Great Britain to more easily meet the voter identification requirements, particularly newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds. However, improving accessibility and participation in our elections must be carefully balanced with the need to maintain their security and integrity.

An in-date bank card is likely to be kept carefully by its owner and unlikely to be discarded or given to others. However, unlike an expired photographic document, which is unlikely to be usable by anyone other than the legitimate owner due to the photograph, there is a risk that an expired bank card might be discarded, given away, or not noticed missing by the owner, as it no longer poses a financial risk. It therefore makes sense for photographic ID on the accepted list to continue to be able to be used as voter ID after it expires, so long as the photo remains a good likeness to the individual, but for a bank card to need to be in date in order to maintain the security of the policy. The amendments will make that change.

The amendments will also allow that if further types of non-photographic documents are added to the list of permissible forms of ID in the future, the same requirement that they be in date can be imposed. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I am very much aware of time, of which the hon. Member has had a lot. I know that people are keen to move on, so I would like to complete my remarks.

Out of all allegations of electoral fraud in the 2019 elections, only 33 related to personation fraud at the polling station—that is, 0.000057% of the over 58 million votes cast in all elections that year. Only one instance resulted in a conviction and one in a caution. Following the 2023 local elections, the cross-party democracy and the constitution all-party parliamentary group inquiry concluded that voter ID is

“a ‘poisoned cure’ in that it disenfranchises more electors than it protects”.

That inquiry found that voter ID brings with it a risk of injustice and highlighted that there is no immediate right to appeal for those who have been denied a ballot.

For those and other reasons, Labour Ministers should be scrapping the voter scheme in its entirety—not least because that would be consistent with their own opposition to the 2022 Act at the time. Labour tabled a reasoned amendment at the time, which was very good, and cited the creation of unnecessary barriers to entry for voting as one of the reasons for opposing Johnson’s anti-democratic legislation.

During that debate, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), said the voter ID proposals are

“simply not proportionate to the risk of voter fraud.”

The hon Lady was right—as she was when she went on to flag that

“the significant staffing and financial impact was disproportionate to the security risk of voter fraud.”

She was also right when she said:

“Even if one person lacked their ID to vote, that should be a reason to rethink this Bill entirely.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 7 September 2021; c. 261.]

We know that the requirement for voter ID has had a chilling effect on turnout. Statistics from the Electoral Commission have already been cited, so I will not repeat them. As we heard in oral evidence, Democracy Volunteers pointed out that those official statistics are likely a significant underestimate, because of all the people who do not even get to the clerk before they are turned away.

I hope the Minister will reconsider and adopt new clause 19, scrapping voter ID entirely, consistent with her party’s previous position. If not, I hope she will, at the very least, commit to ongoing monitoring of its impact, given the serious concerns about it. The Electoral Reform Society points out that the impact of the voter ID requirement is not currently being monitored at local elections, and that the next general election will be the last at which monitoring is required under the law as it stands. If we have just one more data point, we will not know whether the changes in clause 47 that the Government hope to introduce will have the desired effect, or whether improvements—such as scrapping this Tory scheme in its entirety—need to be made.

Evidence from the Electoral Commission suggests that some groups were particularly likely to have a problem voting, including disabled or unemployed people, and those from certain demographics. Evidence indicates that more deprived areas have a higher proportion of voters turned away compared with less deprived ones. If the Government refuse to scrap voter ID entirely, it is essential that the impact of voter ID requirements continues to be monitored and that data is collected, so that we can understand whether there is an indirect discrimination effect in how this policy affects voters.

Finally, several improvements have been suggested by a number of people, through oral and written evidence—including the Electoral Commission—for other mechanisms of widening accessibility and replacements for voter ID. I hope Ministers will consider the inclusion of poll cards as ID, given the good evidence that that lowers the percentage of voters turned away. Consideration should also be given to statutory declarations to allow provisional ballots to be cast and later verified, so that any failure to provide the required documentation can be cured. I am also sympathetic to calls for vouching to be allowed, which I believe is also one of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.

I very much hope that the Minister will approach further measures to improve the accessibility of voting with an open mind, and ensure that we monitor the impact of what I feel has a repressive effect on our democracy. I look forward to discussing the far more pressing challenges to the security and integrity of our democracy as we come to later parts of the Bill.

[Samantha Dixon]

I have to say that I find it quite shocking to hear Members of the official Opposition supporting the exclusion of thousands of eligible voters from the polling station. That really is shocking. This proposal represents a broadening and an enhancing of the voter ID system so that those eligible can cast their vote. It is a very simple principle. I must correct the shadow Minister: there was support for this measure from the Electoral Reform Society, which said that

“Allowing IDs like bank cards and digital ID, which voters are likely to be carrying on them, will help voters who do not have access to the other accepted forms of ID and make it easier for all voters on the day.”

That is the point.

Firefighters’ Pension Scheme: Opt-out Contingent Decisions

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

In 2014 and 2015, the previous Government reformed public service pension schemes. These reforms introduced “transitional protections” that allowed members closest to retirement to remain in their legacy schemes rather than move to the reformed schemes. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal found that these protections in the judicial and firefighters schemes constituted unlawful age discrimination: the McCloud and Sargeant judgments.

To remedy this, Parliament enacted the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022. The Act gives affected members a choice between legacy and reformed scheme benefits for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2022 and permits certain pension decisions to be revisited where they would have been made differently but for the discrimination.

However, an unintended consequence has arisen for firefighters who opted out of their pension scheme because of the discrimination. The Act fixes the “relevant legacy scheme” in legislation. As a result, some affected members cannot be reinstated into the actual legacy scheme in which they last accrued service, preventing them from buying back opted-out service and leaving them without a full remedy.

To resolve this, the Government will use the Act’s special-case power to amend regulations with the effect of disapplying sections 4(2) and 4(3) for the particular cohort of eligible members who opted out due to the discrimination and who now elect, under section 5 of the Act and regulation 6 of the Firefighters’ Pensions (Remediable Service) Regulations 2023, to buy back opted-out service between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022—the remedy period. This will mean that opted-out service within the remedy period can be treated as pensionable service in the last-accrued legacy scheme.

The Government will now bring forward a statutory instrument under the Act’s special-case power to correct this position and will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[HCWS1479]

Fire Safety and Building Control

Samantha Dixon Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Samantha Dixon)]

Today, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government launched a public consultation on proposals to establish a fire risk assessor profession with consistently high levels of competency, where trust is rebuilt, and where a strong, diverse pipeline of talent ensures improved standards of fire safety.

Context

Fire risk assessments are a fundamental part of the fire safety regime established under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. This legislation requires responsible persons to make a suitable and sufficient assessment to help make sure hazards are identified and the right fire precautions are delivered to keep people safe in the buildings where they live, work, and visit.

RPs can currently undertake this assessment themselves, or appoint someone, commonly known as an FRA, to assist them. Competent and professional FRAs therefore play a critical role in keeping people safe.

Despite this vital life-safety role, FRAs are not currently recognised as a regulated profession. There is no single professional body, no agreed definition of the role, no defined career pathway, and no specified training or qualifications.

While many FRAs are highly competent, we want to see an FRA profession with consistently high and demonstrable standards of competency across the board. Further, we want these proposals to rebuild trust in the FRA profession so that those who rely on their expertise, whether occupying, buying or selling, can feel confident in the fire safety of their homes or other premises.

The Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report identified serious shortcomings in the fire risk assessments produced by the FRA for Grenfell Tower, including failures to identify critical fire safety hazards and to verify that previously identified risks had been addressed. In response to recommendation 26 in the inquiry’s phase 2 report, the Government committed to introduce mandatory certification for FRAs.

Consultation

The consultation we have launched today is an important step in delivering recommendation 26 of the inquiry’s phase 2 report and fulfilling our commitment to introduce mandatory certification for FRAs.

We have engaged stakeholders across Government, the devolved Governments, and industry to secure their initial contributions to our plans and help shape the future of a profession that can consistently deliver its vital fire safety role.

The consultation will remain open for 12 weeks until 18 June 2026. We encourage as many responses as possible, to make sure future measures strengthen confidence in the FRA regime and so that those undertaking this critical work are appropriately competent, supported, and accountable. Following the consultation, Government will carefully consider the responses received and set out next steps in due course. The consultation can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fire-risk-assessors-profession

This work forms part of a wider programme to implement inquiry recommendations and improve fire and building safety, including proposals for the establishment of the single construction regulator, recent publications on the fire engineering profession and ongoing work to develop a new strategy for the built environment professions.

Further, a consultation was launched today on improving proportionality and safety outcomes in the higher-risk building control regime, which can be found here: https://consult.communities.gov.uk/higher-risk-buildings/redefining-category-a-building-work-consultation/

This is launched alongside the announcement of a £70 million building professional workforce programme to address shortages of capacity and capability in two safety-critical professions: building control and fire engineering. The funding for fire engineering will contribute to our response to the inquiry recommendations on increasing education for fire engineers.

A separate statement has been laid providing further detail on these announcements.

[HCWS1480]