Homes for Ukraine: Funding
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(3 days, 11 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
Over the past four years, the Government have remained committed to supporting Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s illegal and unjustified full-scale invasion. Through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, we have welcomed over 181,000 Ukrainians to the UK. Our commitment to Ukraine and its people remains steadfast, as the Prime Minister made clear last month in making Kyiv the destination for his first international visit.
The Government are sincerely grateful to sponsors and hosts who have opened their homes to those fleeing from the invasion. They have played a truly pivotal role in helping Ukrainian families to find safety, stability and community in the UK. The response across the last four years reflects the generosity and solidarity of the public in providing sanctuary to those in need. In addition to sponsors and hosts, councils and voluntary and community sector organisations have been central to the strength and effectiveness of the Homes for Ukraine scheme.
Since the launch of the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has provided two core types of funding to support those seeking sanctuary in the UK. Local authorities receive the Homes for Ukraine tariff—a payment made in respect of each arrival to meet their costs associated with the delivery of the programme. Sponsors and hosts can also claim thank you payments as a gesture of appreciation for their generosity in opening their homes. To date, the Government have provided over £1.81 billion in funding for the scheme.
The Homes for Ukraine scheme has evolved from an initial emergency response into a more established programme. The Government are therefore making changes to Homes for Ukraine funding to ensure that the scheme remains sustainable, so that we can continue to support those fleeing the war in Ukraine.
Changes to Homes for Ukraine funding
The following changes will take effect from 1 January 2027:
Where sponsors/hosts are claiming thank you payments from local authorities, the Government will reimburse local authorities via the Homes for Ukraine sponsor thank you grant at a rate of £100 per month, per household, irrespective of how long a guest has been on the Homes for Ukraine programme. This is a reduction from the current rate of £350 per month. All thank you payments made by local authorities during the Ukraine permission extension visa period will be reimbursed at a rate of £100 per month for a maximum of 18 months. Sponsors/hosts and guests are encouraged to consider what this change means for them. If a sponsor/host is looking to end sponsorship, then they could explore moving on to a more formal rental arrangement. Advice on renting a room in their home (including through the Government’s rent a room scheme) or renting out a property is available on gov.uk.
The Homes for Ukraine tariff will decrease from £5,900 to £3,300 for arrivals after 1 January 2027 to ensure this funding remains affordable. This funding can continue to be used flexibly to meet local and individual needs, and remains at a sustainable level that continues to meet core administrative costs, while still enabling investment in rematching and homelessness prevention activity.
Funding for the most vulnerable arrivals—unaccompanied minors—will remain at the current levels, in recognition of the complex needs and safeguarding requirements associated with unaccompanied minors. Local authorities will continue to receive multi-year tariff funding via the Homes for Ukraine eligible minor grant, which remains at £10,500 per arrival in year one and £6,100 for subsequent years.
Implementation and next steps
The Government will be writing to sponsors/hosts, local authority leaders and chief executives, and colleagues in the devolved Governments, to set out the planned changes to Homes for Ukraine funding.
Updated guidance will also be published on gov.uk. This guidance sets out the changes and what they mean in practice, including arrangements for local authority quarterly claims.
[HCWS351]
Residential Buildings: Safety Remediation
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(3 days, 11 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this important debate.
I thank all hon. Members who are here this morning. Nine years on, a number of them have rightly raised the tragic incident at Grenfell Tower. As a London MP, I vividly remember the night of 14 June 2017. My son had been born a week earlier, on 7 June. Watching TV throughout the night was like watching a horror film with flames and black pieces, not knowing that the black pieces coming out of the building were people jumping. It is right that this House is united in continuing to scrutinise the pace of remediation and the support available to those affected.
Many residents across the country have lived with uncertainty about the safety of their homes, their financial security and their ability to move on with their lives. We recognise the impact that building safety can have not only on people’s homes, but on their wellbeing and peace of mind. Nine years on from Grenfell, we have to be honest and say that there can be no justification for unsafe buildings remaining unaddressed. Although significant progress has been made, more than 4,000 buildings have been identified as requiring remediation, and too many residents continue to face the consequences of failures that they did not cause.
That is why this Government are committed to speeding up remediation, ensuring that those responsible bear the cost of making buildings safer, and strengthening protections for leaseholders and residents. Our objective is clear: to remove barriers to remediation, speed up delivery and ensure that people can feel safe and secure in their home. Since the launch of the remediation acceleration plan, more than 420 additional buildings over 11 metres have completed cladding remediation through the Government-funded scheme and the developer remediation contract, meaning that some 35,000 more residents are now living in safer homes. The Government have approved £2.1 billion of funding for cladding remediation since the plan was launched and have committed to more than £1 billion to accelerate remediation in the social housing sector.
But we recognise that further action is needed. We are considering how we can go further to protect residents, particularly those who fall outside existing protections, and to ensure that no responsible party can avoid its obligations. That is why we will build on the foundations established by the Building Safety Act through the forthcoming remediation Bill and our wider programme of building safety reforms.
The Bill will provide greater clarity and certainty about which buildings require remediation and the standards that must be met. It will strengthen regulators’ ability to check delay and non-compliance. It will improve routes to recover remediation costs from those responsible and ensure that residents have a pathway to remediation even where responsible entities fail to act or are unable to meet their obligations. Taken together, these reforms will strengthen accountability across the system and help to ensure that buildings are made safer faster.
I turn to some specific issues raised during the debate. The hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised the issue of PAS 9980. As hon. Members will know, PAS 9980 was developed by the British Standards Institution. The Government sponsored the BSI to review and update it to ensure that it remains fit for purpose and captures best practice, looking at the learnings since it was introduced in 2022.
As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath outlined, the BSI published an update to PAS 9980 yesterday. I do not agree with the hon. Member’s characterisation. PAS 9980 provides an industry-wide accepted methodology to enable qualified and experienced assessors to undertake the fire risk appraisal of external walls. It provides a consistent and proportionate building-specific approach to risk assessments and helps to achieve the right solutions for each building, keeping residents safe while preventing unnecessary and disruptive works. As the update highlights, it has improved the clarity of the structure and usability of PAS 9980, with the aim of achieving greater transparency and consistency by assessors. It does not, however, materially change how risks are assessed, so fire risk appraisals of external walls undertaken using a previous version of PAS 9980 will remain valid. Government remediation programmes require that fire risk appraisals of external walls be undertaken using this methodology.
To further safeguard quality and ensure consistency in assessments, the remediation Bill will mandate how external wall assessments are carried out, to align with our best practice remediation programmes and ensure a nationally consistent approach to remediation work. It will also establish mandatory auditing of fire risk appraisals of external walls in law. This requirement will reinforce trust in both the assessors and the outcomes. I hope that that helps to reassure hon. Members.
Several right hon. and hon. Members rightly mentioned the issue of fire risk assessors. Fire risk assessors perform a critical safety role, and it is essential that they are fully compliant and competent. We have therefore accepted the full recommendation in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report for mandatory certifications of fire risk assessors. To meet the recommendation, we intend to bring into law mandatory compliance requirements for fire risk assessors to perform that vital role, subject to parliamentary approval and timescale.
Dame Meg Hillier
I welcome that step, but what the Minister says suggests it is some way off. Can she give some indication of the timescale for getting mandatory licensing in place?
Florence Eshalomi
I agree that many people will continue to question when the fire risk assessors will be in place. The Government recently launched a public consultation on the proposal to establish a fire risk assessor profession with consistently high levels of competency, whereby trust is rebuilt and a strong and diverse pipeline of talent comes forward to ensure that fire safety standards are met. We are currently analysing all the consultation responses, and the Government will publish a full response later this autumn, so hopefully my hon. Friend will not have to wait much longer.
We recognise the additional pressures on building control and fire engineer capacity across the country. We have established the independent building control panel and the fire engineers advisory panel to examine the issues and provide recommendations on strengthening the system. The Government are committed to working with the BSR on long-term reform and exploring options for a more efficient building control system. Any future changes will be developed in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders.
Dame Meg Hillier
We all want to see stronger and better building control, but local authorities have been hollowed out. We have lost a lot of experienced planners and there is not always a pipeline coming through with the necessary experience. Can we lobby the Treasury for support for local government in that respect?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend will know that I will definitely continue to lobby Treasury colleagues very hard, and any help from colleagues around the House will be helpful. In the meantime, the current system includes a new initiative looking at digital building control programmes. I can confirm that over £45 million has been invested in growing the workforce to help to address the key issue of capacity, streamline the process and support development. More is coming, but a lot more needs to come through the pipeline.
A number of Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, mentioned the key issue of building insurance and the continuing financial strain felt by so many innocent leaseholders. They see their insurance premiums going through the roof, in some cases paying more than for their mortgages. In the remediation acceleration plan, the Government have committed to working with the insurance industry to explore options to address the insurance challenges faced by residents living in buildings that are undergoing remediation.
To strengthen the evidence base, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the remediation programme insurance survey, a UK-wide survey of buildings in Government remediation programmes. The findings, first published in July 2026, provide the most comprehensive dataset collected to date on insurance costs, premiums and claims and remediation status across more than 2,000 buildings undergoing remediation. The evidence is informing ongoing engagement with insurers and wider work to understand how insurance costs can better reflect improvements in building safety as remediation progresses. The Financial Conduct Authority is undertaking a short and focused review of the multi-occupancy building insurance market, and the findings will strengthen the evidence base on the next steps.
The Government are also undertaking action to improve transparency and fairness in residential building insurance. We are proceeding with secondary legislation to prevent insurance commissions, which can be opaque and excessive, from being passed on by freeholders and managing agents as freeholders’ expenses, and to replace such arrangements with fair and transparent permitted insurance payments with a fee structure. Alongside that, we will introduce through secondary legislation a new transparency requirement for building insurance, including in respect of the disclosure of the relationships and financial arrangements among landlords, managing agents, brokers and insurers.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased to hear what the Minister just said about looking at the fairness of the whole market for insurance, but the immediate issue is that many of our constituents have for several years paid exorbitant and very excessive insurance costs. This is not their responsibility or fault—they did not install the dangerous cladding or fail to inspect properly. They deserve compensation from the insurance industry for what they have been through, and if that is not forthcoming, the Government should have a default position of backing it up. Our constituents have suffered grievously through this problem.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the right hon. Member for raising that point. He highlighted examples of various developments in his constituency, including Drayton Park and Highbury Gardens, underlining the fact that innocent leaseholders have continued to pay exorbitant fees for many years. It is really important that we get to grips with this, especially for new buildings. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning will be discussing the matter in respect of the national planning policy framework and some other areas, and I will continue to discuss it as well. On the specific issue of backdating, it is important for us to look at clear insurance procurement—the pricing, the cover, the prescribed timeframes for providing information and the mechanism for challenging any future delays.
Together, the measures the Government have outlined are intended to improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help to ensure that residents have a clearer understanding of insurance costs. There is a lot of jargon and hidden figures. We need to make sure that the costs are clear and that when residents challenge them, they get the right information back so that they can assess what they are being asked to pay for.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her answers; she is giving a comprehensive and detailed response, as I knew she would. Ever mindful that she has been in place for only a short time, I have a specific question about what is happening here compared with the situation back home. We have an outstanding problem with many properties in Belfast. It would be helpful if we were able, perhaps through the Minister, to engage with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in particular the relevant Minister there, to ensure that what is learned here can be passed on to those back home in the Assembly.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for raising a valid point about what lessons can be learned from what happens in the UK. As he has outlined, buildings right across the UK need to be safe. Every home needs to be safe; it does not matter where a person lives. I am very open to looking at areas of best practice, which we can share as we develop legislation.
Several Members, including the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, outlined the big issue with EWS1 forms, which has caused many homeowners a great deal of stress. The Government recognise the difficulties in selling and remortgaging homes, and the concerns for residents living in buildings impacted by building safety issues. We have continued to work with major mortgage lenders to improve access to lending for affected buildings and support the functioning of the housing market while remediation progresses.
The hon. Gentleman referred to concerns about the validity of certain EWS1 forms. I can confirm that my Department is aware of those concerns, which relate to a fire engineer who was removed from his professional accrediting body and is, as I understand it, no longer operating in the field. Although I cannot comment on individual cases, it is important to reiterate that the EWS1 form is not an official Government form but an industry tool used by lenders and valuers to help them to understand the remediation status of participating buildings.
My officials continue to engage with the mortgage lending industry to encourage it to take a proportionate approach when using EWS1 forms. The Government consider that lenders should be moving away from the forms, but there is still an over-reliance on them. The hon. Gentleman highlighted an additional bill of £4,500 because of the delay in getting an EWS1 form. We understand that EWS1 forms continue to be used by individual lenders, and the Government will continue to stress loudly that lenders should move away from that requirement.
A number of Members highlighted the issue of cost and who pays for historical remediation. The Building Safety Act puts the responsibility for undertaking, and in most cases paying for, remediation on the building’s landlords, while making it very clear that developers must pay to fix buildings that they have developed or refurbished even if they no longer own them. Courts have new powers to extend liability to associated companies, thereby stopping complex corporate structures being used to dodge responsibility. This was not fair and took a mental toll on many homeowners.
Where a developer cannot be identified or has not yet agreed to pay, public funding is available to address life-threatening cladding risk on residential buildings over 11 metres high, so that no leaseholder in those buildings will face cladding remediation costs. Many holders of qualifying leases are protected in full from non-cladding and interim measures—for example, where the landlord or its group meets the contribution condition or where the property value is below the set threshold.
Other qualifying leaseholders have their costs firmly capped and spread over 10 years, with costs already paid out since 28 June 2017 counting towards the cap. For obvious reasons, in Greater London the cap is £15,000 and across the country it is £10,000. That rises to £50,000 for properties valued between £1 million and £2 million, and to £100,000 for properties valued at more than £2 million.
The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington mentioned the building safety levy, which will come into force on 1 October and will raise funds to pay for the remediation of cladding on residential buildings where the developer cannot be held responsible or identified. That is a key element for ensuring trust.
Under the work started by the previous Government, 53 developers signed the developer-led remediation contract with the Government. The contract covers more than 2,000 buildings in England that are over 11 metres high and have life-critical fire safety defects. Developers have contributed and committed to pay or fix the matter, at a cost of around £4.2 billion. Any developer that fails to comply with the remediation obligations faces significant commercial consequences, including the imposition of statutory prohibitions, effectively preventing them from building new homes in England. We expect all developers to accelerate their remediation work without compromising safety.
Luke Myer
That is very positive, but of course those are the developers that are willing to engage, and many of them are not. I recently spoke to Carl Harris from Teesside who suffered life-changing injuries when a wall collapsed on him. He has been trying to engage the sector with an innovation he has developed to prevent unfinished walls from collapsing. What more can the Government do to encourage developers who are not already involved to innovate and protect workers and residents?
Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)
Minister, please allow a couple of minutes for the winding-up speech.
Florence Eshalomi
As of April 2026, developers had assessed whether remediation work was required in 94% of their buildings. Despite the progress, there is still a lot to do. Some developers are behind that stretch target and we will continue to engage with them.
The Government remain firmly committed to building a safety regime that is robust, proportionate and protects residents while enabling the delivery of much-needed homes. We have listened to concerns and have already taken decisive steps to strengthen the regulator’s capacity, improve its processes and ensure it is fit for purpose. We will continue to work with the industry, residents and Parliament to ensure that the regulation delivers effectively.
I am grateful for all the points Members have raised and will come back to them on any points I have not addressed, especially where they raised individual constituency cases. I look forward to the ongoing dialogue as we continue to address this really important issue.
Battle of Cable Street: 90th anniversary
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(4 days, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I congratulate my fellow London MP and hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this timely debate. She referred to a number of issues that sadly are still happening on our streets. She also referred to the tragic death of 25-year-old Altab Ali in 1978. I remember when I first learned about the history of that park and the fact that it was renamed in 1998 following his death in 1978. When people go to Whitechapel and see that arch, the history and significance of that is powerful. My hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) highlighted their shared connection in that proud part of the east end.
The battle of Cable Street was a defining moment in the history of the city that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse proudly represent. When Londoners blocked Mosley’s antisemites from marching, they showed the world that hatred and intolerance have no place on these streets. London, both then and now, is built on solidarity across our differences. I am proud that we are a hugely diverse city—it is a key component of our success. We are bonded by being Londoners. We look out for each other in London. This is the point that the fascists back then could not comprehend, and it is exactly what far-right extremists today fail to understand.
The 4 October 1936 was not just a significant moment in London’s history; it was pivotal in the history of British Jews. It was Jewish communities that Mosley was targeting, and it was Jewish communities who led the response and built the barricades against the fascists, made with anything they could find from nearby streets and builders’ yards. In the many years since, the Jewish community has been at the heart of London’s culture, identity and great achievements. Yet, 90 years on, Jewish people continue to face the same ugly brutality and racism here in our city.
I can testify to that first hand. As an MP working directly with many different communities, I was deeply disturbed to be confronted by the casual, day-to-day antisemitism on our streets. We remember with deep sadness the victims of Heaton Park—I attended a memorial with the Secretary of State on the bank holiday on 31 August, meeting the families of the two people who were tragically killed—and the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. But we must do much more than remember; we must confront this hate where it persists in educational settings, workplaces, public services and beyond.
Today we are here to celebrate the resistance of 1936, but we must also draw lessons from it in how we confront the hatred we see today. In the aftermath, as my hon. Friend mentioned, Ministers introduced a ban on marching in uniforms and required demonstrations to notify the police of their intentions. These principles remain important today. The Government have demonstrated through action their unwavering commitment to tackling antisemitism. We must also be alert to how Mosley’s political violence was financed by far-right extremists abroad and raise our defences again today. But the most important lesson from Cable Street is that it was the local community that stood up against hate and division.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Is the anniversary not also an opportunity for us to pay tribute to the trade union movement and the countless working people who stood against racism, fascism and hatred? It is in the spirit of the trade union movement’s best traditions: collective responsibility, solidarity, and fighting prejudice and discrimination, wherever it occurs.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the importance of that solidarity, which our hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse also highlighted.
It was local residents from many different backgrounds, including trade unionists, east-enders and those from migrant communities, who told the vocal minority, “Your hate does not represent us.”
Today, our Jewish friends and neighbours, in the face of antisemitism, need us all to stand with them again. This Government have taken a firm stance against antisemitism and are tackling it across businesses, civil society, health, education, culture and policing. That commitment is backed by action, including £32.4 million for Jewish community protective security, alongside a wider £251.1 million policing package over the next three years, a £1 million expansion of the Common Ground programme for communities facing antisemitism, and up to £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities.
In 1936 the fascists wanted to march through the east end because its boroughs were predominantly Jewish. Today it is also home to Muslims, and for that reason the far right today often try to whip up their hate through so-called demonstrations through the east end. They will not succeed, be it in Whitechapel or elsewhere in the country, for the same reason that they failed back then: London and Britain are home to good, decent people—people who are proud to be British across ethnicities and religions.
We are addressing the root cause of division through investment in cohesion and inter-faith initiatives. As we set out in our social cohesion action plan, “Protecting What Matters”, we are providing a further £800 million to bring communities together to decide where investment is spent in our neighbourhoods. Overall, our Pride in Place programme is providing up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 places. This will serve as a cornerstone of this Government’s support for communities.
We are also supporting inter-faith work, continuing to bring forward programmes such as Near Neighbours, which brings people together in religiously and ethnically diverse neighbourhoods, and growing Inter Faith Week to strengthen understanding and interaction between people of different faiths.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that peace walks, such as the one I attended yesterday in Rugby, where members of the community, members of different faith groups and people of no faith, walked between different religious establishments, are an important part of that inter-faith work, showing that ordinary people want to come together, irrespective of their background, faith or ethnic background, and unite as one community against those who would divide us?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. Many community initiatives, including many peace walks, some of which I have attended in my constituency, are so vital where people can come together—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) mentioned, local people, real people and trade unionists all coming together to show that solidarity.
We are taking wider steps to boost faith and belief literacy. But none of this can substitute for a very clear position that antisemitism, far-right extremists and political violence have no place in Britain. So I say to the blackshirts then and to the thugs now, we continue to say, “No pasarán! They shall not pass!”
Question put and agreed to.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2: Progress Report
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
My noble Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Resilience (Baroness Blake of Leeds CBE) has today made the following statement:
The Grenfell Tower fire was a preventable tragedy that claimed 72 lives and exposed deep-rooted weaknesses in the systems designed to keep people safe. It remains a profound failure of oversight and accountability which should never have happened and the bereaved, survivors and local community remain at the heart of our response.
This Government accepted the inquiry’s findings and are today publishing the September 2026 Grenfell Tower inquiry Government progress report to update on work under way to implement the recommendations. Since May 2026, we have completed a further nine recommendations, bringing the total of closed recommendations to 30 since February 2025. We remain on track to deliver all recommendations by the end of 2029.
Alongside the September progress report, we are publishing the interim chief construction adviser’s final report.
Together, the progress report and the interim chief construction adviser’s final report demonstrate continued progress in implementing the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s recommendations and reforming the wider building safety system. They represent important steps towards sustained system-wide change by reducing fragmentation, strengthening accountability and ensuring that those responsible for building and fire safety have the support and oversight needed to keep people safe in their homes.
The Government recognise that lasting change requires sustained transparency and oversight. We have delivered the inquiry’s recommendation on transparency through our new dashboards which publicly track progress to deliver accepted recommendations across inquiries, alongside our regular progress reports on Grenfell implementation. Parliament also has an important role to play in overseeing how Government implement recommendations and I await the outcome of PACAC's work in early 2027.
[HCWS331]
Social Housing Bill [Lords]
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for bringing their experience and expertise to today’s debate. Like many of them, I was fortunate enough to live in social housing, which my family secured following a period of homelessness in my childhood. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned the relief, and that light in your eyes when you get a set of keys and know that you and your family do not have to move yet again with plastic bags and a suitcase. The relief that social housing brought us, the safety and security of having a roof over our heads, was priceless. I share the disappointment and anger expressed by Members from across this House about the fact that this is not available to many families today. Many Members highlighted the importance of social housing to communities up and down the country.
I turn first to the reasoned amendment to the Bill, tabled by the Opposition. While I am happy to see the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), a fellow former member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I am worried to hear Opposition Front Benchers contradicting themselves. They welcome our support for protections for victims of domestic abuse, but I am disappointed with their contradictory response to our wider reforms. They both want to permit homes to be sold under the right to buy at the unsustainable rate that is discouraging our local councils from building more of them, and say that we should support more councils in building and increasing the supply of social homes, but it cannot work like that.
I am mindful of time—we do need to finish—but I want to reflect on some remarks made. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), spoke about protecting tenants who are fleeing violence. I am sad to say that I have had to help three families in my constituency who, tragically, have lost young people due to knife crime. It is important that we look at this issue and highlight some of the changes that were outlined by my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister.
Many Members raised the issue of shared ownership. As the Housing Minister outlined, we have taken positive steps to look at the shared ownership model, including the expectations on landlords who bid for shared ownership funding. As the Minister highlighted, we do not believe that a review is necessary, but we are already considering specific issues that have been raised, including about data and long-term affordability for customers. We will report back on that at a later date.
Andrew Cooper
Is my hon. Friend aware of how difficult it is to sell a shared ownership home when the previous owner is deceased? The estate can end up paying service charges and rent for quite a long period. Will she consider whether there is further action that the Government could take on that?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I think that will be one of the areas that we consider when my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister looks at shared ownership.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members mentioned domestic abuse and debt. It is really important to know that this is a key area for survivors of domestic abuse. The Government are committed to addressing this issue in their national plan to end homelessness. We believe that the best route for doing so is to ensure that the regulations are amended and the relevant legislation is looked at. My understanding is that the Housing Minister will look at that. I am due to meet the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), and I would welcome other hon. Members attending that meeting.
A number of hon. Members mentioned council disposals. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House on this matter. I want to reassure hon. Members that we take the issue very seriously. We want local authorities and housing associations to, where possible, retain homes in the social housing sector. We believe the new disposals notification requirements in the Bill will help to maximise opportunities for social housing providers to retain homes. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Housing Minister highlighted: housing associations remain independent organisations, responsible for their own asset management decisions. However, we will continue to explore what further steps we can take to stop social housing stock being sold.
Our right to buy reforms will mean a net gain of 18,000 social homes over the next 10 years, whereas there would be a loss of 26,000 homes if we retained the current system. The right to buy remains a crucial route into home ownership, but we must also confront the reality: social house building has struggled to keep pace with sales under the right to buy, and that has resulted in an increase in the number of families in costly temporary accommodation and expanded social housing waiting lists across the country. Our right to buy reforms, notably the new build exemption, will give councils the confidence to get building again.
We refute the accusation that we are doing nothing to ensure that social housing is being used effectively. The Government expect social housing landlords to maximise the use of existing homes, as well as to build more. We have launched a review of how effectively social housing providers use their properties. We will report on its findings later this year.
On the Opposition’s concerns about the allocation of social housing to non-UK nationals, the Government do not support restricting social housing solely to British citizens. Such an approach would be unworkable and would cut across legal obligations, including obligations relating to EU citizens with settled status and the Equality Act 2010. Eligibility for social housing is already tightly controlled by local councils. If a person’s immigration status does not allow them recourse to public funds, they are not eligible for social homes. The racist rhetoric and the demonising of people who want to work has to stop. The vast majority of those allocated social homes in the UK are UK nationals. That is a fact, so I hope that the Opposition will withdraw their amendment on the issue.
When the Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10, he put building more council homes at the heart of this Government’s agenda. For far too long successive Governments have failed to deliver the homes that we need up and down the country, while simultaneously failing to protect our housing stock. We know we can and must go further.
The Bill is about bringing an end to the era of failure on social housing; it is about protecting the homes that we have and supporting the building of the new homes we need; it is about ensuring that the system works fairly for those who need it the most; and it is about reducing the overreliance on temporary accommodation that is crippling so many councils, up and down the country. Collectively, London councils are spending £5.5 million a day on temporary accommodation. That is unsustainable.
We need to turbocharge social housing, up and down the country. Social housing is not just about a roof over people’s heads; it creates strong connected communities, enables families to live happily, enables healthy lives and provides long-term sustainable housing. The Government are making progress to reverse the decline of social housebuilding, as represented by the latest figures from Homes England showing a 65% increase in social rent completions.
Across the country, almost 180,000 children are growing up in temporary accommodation. As many hon. Members have mentioned, over 1.3 million people are on the housing waiting list. That has a devastating impact on the wellbeing of our children and families, who are facing poor conditions, lacking the space to grow. How can we expect those young children to contribute to society in later life when they do not have a safe place to call their home? The Bill brings an end to that failure.
The Bill provides the crucial step that many families want to see—the same step my family was given many years ago. It ensures that when families face homelessness and women are fleeing domestic abuse with their children, they are not the ones who are evicted—the perpetrator is. The Bill ensures that we restrict right-to-buy sales, and that 100% of the receipts go back to councils so that they can reinvest in their local areas.
The Bill will ensure that we turbocharge and bring a new lease of life to local council building across the country, working with our councils, providers, housing associations and private developers to get the housing right. It is important that we continue to progress the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I put the question, I need to inform the House that in the event of a Division—I pass no comment on whether there will be one—some of the pass readers in both Lobbies are currently not in operation. I ask all Members to follow the directions of Doorkeepers and Division Clerks and use the working pass readers, which have notices on them. The Parliamentary Digital Service are working hard to restore the remaining pass readers for any Divisions tomorrow.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Retirement Property Management Companies: Regulation
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) on securing the debate and thank him for his kind remarks on my appointment? I have fond memories of shadowing him when I was in opposition. I know that he has a breadth of knowledge across housing, communities and local government, and that this issue is close to his heart. I also thank the other Members for their contributions.
I want to start by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that although this area sits with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, I have been looking at it and will feed back to him on the key issues. The contributions have highlighted a really important area: the many challenges that leaseholders across the country, and especially elderly leaseholders, are facing with management companies, with flagrant disregard for people who have worked so hard to secure their property and live independently.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the key areas where management companies continue to let people down, including issues with transparency, accountability, communication, responding to issues, raising complaints and unaudited accounts. Those are basic things that management companies should be doing. I think about elderly leaseholders and how, for many of them, if they do not have a network of family support helping them to navigate this, it can feel predatory, as the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) highlighted. When someone receives those letters with demands, it can be quite scary.
We recognise the hugely important role that the older people’s housing sector plays—I do think there is a role for it—in ensuring people have independence in later life. We want to be able to make sure of that. We are keeping people out of hospital, and that can only happen if they have a safe and secure home of their own to go back to. The Government are committed to enhancing provisions and choice across the residential market, including for older people, and that means both increasing the supply of homes to older people and, most importantly, improving their experience in their own homes.
Many residents of retirement homes have made a significant financial and, in some cases, personal contribution to their homes, and they should have the confidence that when they raise valid concerns, those should be addressed promptly and in a timely manner. When they challenge bad practice, they should get a response and they should not have to come to their Members of Parliament. Yet we are seeing so many people resorting to raising issues and parliamentarians having to name and shame management companies until any action is taken. That should not be the way that things are happening.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I am delighted to see the Minister in her place. I am sure she will remember that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee recently scrutinised the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. We found it wanting; it did not go far or fast enough. The solution to the problems outlined in this debate is to properly regulate property managing agents and especially those that run retirement homes for the vulnerable elderly. Does the Minister agree that the Bill needs to come back urgently with that regulation?
Florence Eshalomi
I hope the Select Committee is going very well. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that we championed on the Committee to the point that, if he recalls, in many senses I harassed the former Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing, saying “When will we see the Bill? The Bill has to come before the House. It is an issue that comes into many parliamentarians’ inboxes, it is a cross-party issue and we want to see the Government act on that and make good on that commitment.”
I want to highlight that there are many good managing agents out there. This is not about saying that the issue of managing agents is all bad. There are good ones who are responsible, who respond on time and who are responsible for providing safe and secure homes for their residents. However, we know that far too often, the poor and unscrupulous managing agents let the sector down.
Managing agents play an important role in the maintenance of a wide range of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates. Their importance will only increase as we transition towards a commonhold future, so it is essential that we take action to drive up the standards within the sector. As the hon. Member for North Dorset and other hon. Members will know, the previous Government committed to regulating managing agents in 2018 and asked a working group chaired by Lord Best to advise them on how to do that. Yet, they failed to respond to the group’s final report, which was published in July 2019. We have moved on from that. It is about how we now take those recommendations and bring an outcome for so many people, and the Government are ready to take forward a number of those recommendations.
The retirement sector has some specific arrangements in place. Many retirement housing managing agents already operate under the Association of Retirement Housing Managers’ code of practice, which sets the standards on transparency and complaints handling, but as we have heard this evening that does not seem to be working and it is about how we ensure that we are enforcing some of those key areas. Elsewhere in the sector, similar consumer protection standards are promoted through the Associated Retirement Community Operators’ consumer code for its members. I stress again: we recognise the concerns that remain in parts of the sector and are considering how we can protect consumers and residents to strengthen that and have a consistent approach.
In the recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services, we consulted on powers to appoint a manager or to replace a managing agent, as well as on mandatory professional qualifications for managing agents in England. The Government will consult on the introduction of qualifications for estate and letting agents next year. We have also made it clear that we plan to introduce a code of practice this year setting out the minimum standards expected of all residential property agents. This includes estate, letting and managing agents. The Government are considering Lord Best’s report in full, and we will set out our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course, but this has to come at a timely pace.
Tom Gordon
I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) that this was in some sense analogous to the issues that park home residents face. While there is a fit and proper person test in that instance, it is often lacking and not the tightening regulation that people had hoped for. What measures will the Minister bring forward, having learned from those experiences, to ensure that we get proper regulation that has teeth and that will work?
Florence Eshalomi
Nearly right! My apologies. That is an issue that I will definitely be forwarding. I have taken a note of it and I will forward it to the Housing Minister so that the hon. Gentleman can get a proper response.
Tessa Munt
When the Minister says managing agents, does she mean management companies, a bit like FirstPort, which provide a lamentable service? One of the retirement buildings in my patch has just been offered the repainting of its windows for £240,000. I think that works out at over £5,000 per flat. This is just for the birds. It is absolutely bonkers. I want to be sure that they will be captured within the legislation that she is proposing.
Florence Eshalomi
I can reassure the hon. Lady that FirstPort continues to come up regularly. I had the pleasure, in my former role as Chair of the Select Committee, of scrutinising and questioning the managing director and chief exec of FirstPort, and the hon. Lady will be aware that the Housing Minister has also held important meetings with FirstPort. There are other managing agents that we should not let off the hook, but FirstPort has a large share of properties across the country.
The hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned the consultation on section 20, and this is a key issue that the Government have been looking at. The Government consulted on that last year, and my understanding is that they will be setting out the response in due course. Again, this is something that I will push the Housing Minister on, on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, to ensure we come back to this in a timely manner.
I also want to highlight the experiences that other hon. Members have raised on behalf of their constituents. It is important that we continue to share these really valid examples to show why we need to move at pace in regulating this important area. We recognise that the pre-legislative scrutiny report into the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill recommended that a number of measures should be extended to retirement providers, and we will consider that as part of our work. I am happy to say that it was a good Member of Parliament who led on that pre-legislative scrutiny.
I am grateful to the many hon. Members who have come to the House this evening to debate this important issue. I thank them for sharing their insights and, most importantly, sharing the lived examples and concerns that many residents continue to face. We continue to see people who are worried, when another bill or letter comes through the door, about what will be demanded from them. We see them worry that, when they do not respond to those letters, they could be issued with court and threatening letters. It is really important that we address this emotional, physical and mental impact; it is not just about the financial impact it is having on vulnerable residents. I want to thank all Members for engaging with this, and I look forward to working with them. I know that the Minister for Housing and Planning will also be engaging further with Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety Levy (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The remediation of residential buildings with unsafe cladding in England is a priority for this Government. Nine years on from the Grenfell tragedy, there is no justification for any building to remain unsafe. Helping residents to feel safe in their homes and to move on from this issue is crucial work.
The Government are committing £5.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to the costs of remediation, and the building safety levy is an essential part of the remediation funding package, which will protect leaseholders from costs and ensure that taxpayers are not further burdened. We estimate that the levy needs to raise £3.4 billion, likely over 10 years or more. The revenue target may be adjusted in accordance with the number of buildings requiring remediation and the costs of works. The levy regulations were made in November 2025 and will come into force on 1 October 2026. These draft amending regulations will clarify how the levy will work and are intended to come into force on 1 October.
The levy will be charged on certain building control applications for new residential floorspace in England. It is important to note that developers have known about the levy since February 2021 and about its rates since March 2025, providing a significant lead-in period to plan for and incorporate the costs into their projects. The levy has been designed to ensure that the tax base remains wide enough to fund essential remediation, while protecting housing supply. The impact on the viability of new development has been kept as low as possible with rates that vary by local authority, indexed to local average house prices. There is also a 50% discount for brownfield sites. Social and affordable housing is exempt, as are small sites with fewer than 10 units. The levy will start being charged on new applications from 1 October 2026. We have been working closely with local authorities, private sector-registered building control approvers, and IT providers to support implementation ahead of commencement.
I turn now to explaining the changes that the draft regulations will make. The Building Safety Levy (England) Regulations 2025 allow for development on previously developed land—often referred to as brownfield land—to benefit from a 50% discount levy rate. That recognises the higher cost of building on that type of land and protects the viability of development on brownfield sites. My officials received feedback that the definition of previously developed land was not clear. In particular, stakeholders noted that it was not clear that car parks and other areas of hardstanding that would appear as previously developed could qualify for the discount.
Our intention has always been to support the development of sites with those features, so the draft regulations amend the definition to make it clear where areas of hardstanding can qualify. That will better reflect the original policy intention and will, I hope, make it easier for local authorities and developers to understand which sites qualify for the discount, reducing costly and time-consuming disputes.
The draft regulations and updated guidance provide more information about how the changes will work, and the instrument also makes a small number of minor technical amendments and corrections. The regulations do not change the fundamental design of the levy but provide clarification on previously developed land and make a small number of technical amendments to support implementation. We will keep the rates and processes under review, and will report on them at least every three years. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Opposition for their positive contributions to this debate. In that spirit, we need to continue to work across parties to address this important issue.
The shadow Minister asked about viability, a key issue that continues to come up. As he mentioned, we both serve as London MPs and see the impact across London and right across the country. It is important to recognise that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply while also balancing the revenue required to make homes safe. The measures include variable rates to local authority levies and a 50% discount on developments on previously developed land, reflecting the additional costs of building on those sites.
As I highlighted in my opening remarks, affordable housing is exempt from the levy, which should help to bring forward new housing supply. On average, the levy charge represents 1.1% of house prices on non-previously developed land, and 0.55% on previously developed land. It is therefore expected to have only a very small negative impact on supply. As I also mentioned, the levy was announced in 2021, so the sector has known about it for some time. We appreciate that many issues outside the sector and outside the Government’s control, whether locally, nationally or internationally, are having a big impact on developers, but it is important that they continue to price this work into the deals that they are doing.
Gareth Bacon
I think the Minister misspoke. She said that the regulations had been designed to minimise housing supply. I am not sure that that is what she meant.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting that. I should have said that the levy has been designed to minimise potential housing supply impact.
The shadow Minister asked whether the levy could have an impact on our ambitious target—rightly so—of reaching 1.5 million new homes. We continue to work closely with the housing market to look at supply. We are committed to working with the industry to ensure that homes continue to be built at pace. This issue comes up in my inbox, as it does for many hon. Members—it is not isolated to London. It is important that we build good-quality homes.
The shadow Minister also highlighted the impact that the measures could have on innocent homeowners, who should not be burdened with the cost. I thank him for agreeing that the cost should not be placed on them. It is right that developers and house builders be responsible for it, in order to protect innocent homeowners.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, highlighted an issue on which many of us have campaigned for many years: ensuring that innocent leaseholders and homeowners are not responsible for paying the levy. Many of them struggle with housing costs and the cost of living crisis on a day-to-day basis. It is important that developers have a way to fund the levy with no additional cost to the taxpayer.
The Lib Dem spokesperson asked about properties that fall out of scope. We will continue to identify those properties and work with the sector to highlight other ways of supporting them, in order to ensure, again, that costs are fairly shared across the market.
Gideon Amos
On a point of further clarification, I hope that the Minister agrees that one reason for broadening the scope of funding for the safety regime so that it includes cladding manufacturers is that in constituencies such as mine in Somerset, there are no high-rise buildings at all—indeed, most of Somerset has no high-rise buildings—but all the developers in Somerset will none the less pay for remediation in the big cities. None of us begrudges the importance of paying for that remediation, but I hope that that example illustrates the importance of widening the funding of the regime so that cladding manufacturers are required to contribute.
Florence Eshalomi
As I mentioned, we will keep under review the process and, importantly, the rates, and we will report back to the House every three years on those key areas.
The building safety levy is essential to fund the remediation of historic building safety issues without further burdening residents and leaseholders. The draft amending regulations before the Committee are designed to support this work and make the levy work more efficiently, in accordance with our initial intention to support redevelopment of brownfield sites. They are intended to correct drafting and improve clarity and consistency of process for developers and local authorities, rather than alter the underlying policy design of the levy.
The Government are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes in this Parliament to meet the country’s long-term housing needs and unlock growth. That mission must work in parallel with our commitment to remedy the building safety failures of the past. We expect the development industry to contribute to our work making buildings safe for those who live in them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
Florence Eshalomi
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Young people must be seen and heard. We are giving 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK a vote in elections. We are working across Government and with our partners to prepare them to exercise that right, including through our £2.5 million Democratic Education Fund.
Ms Minns
I very much welcome the Government’s plans to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but blind and visually impaired young voters will still be disenfranchised as long as there is not legislation that requires them to be able to vote, in secret and independently, like their peers. Will the Minister please reiterate the commitment she gave last week that the Government will table an amendment to the Representation of the People Bill to provide fully accessible voting to all voters of all ages?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for all her work highlighting this important issue, and I am happy to reiterate my commitment on Report. As she noted in that debate, the Government have indicated their readiness to act during the passage of the Bill so that visually impaired voters can vote independently and in secret. We will continue to work with her and other hon. Members to deliver that outcome.
Alex Baker
This summer I had great conversations with the latest cohort of work experience students from Farnborough sixth form college, who came to spend time in my office. They all agreed that their citizenship education from the various local secondary schools they had attended was a bit hit and miss in terms of what they had been taught about how democracy works, and how they can participate in it. Does the Minister agree that if we want more young people to engage with our democracy, we must give them the knowledge and confidence to do so? What more can the Government do to ensure that young people leave school understanding how they can make their voices heard?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she has highlighted. When we are going out and speaking to young people across schools and sixth forms, it is important to ensure that they are equipped. We want them to engage with the democratic process and to ensure that they continue that into adulthood. That means equipping and empowering them with the knowledge and understanding that they need. The Education Secretary is considering recommendations for the curriculum and an assessment review, alongside the Government’s ambition to transform technical education from 14 through to 16. We expect there to be a full public consultation on proposals for the curriculum, and an assessment in due course.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
My local schools do an excellent job of engaging young people in democracy, and pupils at Brompton Community primary school deserve particular praise for taking action. They gathered evidence, took local views, and came to speak to me and the council about implementing a 20 mph speed limit outside their school—something now being actively worked on. Will the Minister join me in praising their effort, and agree that they are an inspiring example of what young people can do when they get involved in the democratic process?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his work; it is good to see that he continues to be an active constituency MP. One of the best parts about this role for us all is going to visit our primary and secondary schools and meeting young people—we never know what questions we are going to get. I praise the campaigning efforts of the young people from Brompton Community primary school, and encourage all young people in other schools to carry out similar community engagements.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I would like to put on the record some fantastic youth organisations, such as Harrogate Youth Council in my constituency, that do their bit to engage young people in democracy. My office manager will attest that I also do my bit by having an endless stream of work experience students through the office door—much to her frustration given the number of people who are interested.
One of those students, Benjy, told me recently that he is really excited that in future young people will be able to vote, but he said that there was an unequal opportunity in education when it comes to accessing social media for young people. One way that young people will get information about voting will be through social media. What steps is the Minister taking with other Departments to ensure that young people can find information online?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important point. It is important that we understand that young people receive information about voting through many different means, including through social media, and I know that colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are looking at challenges around misinformation and fake news circulating online. It is important that we look at the places where young people spend the majority of their time—schools and educational settings—and ensure that our teachers, trainers and carers are equipped to engage with our young people in the right way. The democratic engagement fund will be key to helping with that and the Electoral Commission is also looking at the issue of online engagement.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
The Prime Minister has set a clear ambition to end rough sleeping at the earliest opportunity, backed by the full support of central Government. The Government will convene an interministerial group to work to drive progress in the PM’s ambition and towards the commitments made in the national plan to end homelessness.
Steve Yemm
I recently wrote praising the determination of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to make tackling rough sleeping a priority, and I highlighted how the Old Eight Bells in Mansfield was turned from a derelict building into a lifeline for adults who need supported housing, bringing new activity into our town centre. Does the Minister agree that if that approach were backed in our fight to end rough sleeping, it would be a significant helping hand?
Florence Eshalomi
My hon. Friend raises an example of a good local initiative as we look at how we can end the scourge of rough sleeping. We have to be honest that central Government alone cannot achieve that task. We have to work with the local voluntary groups, councils, community groups and charities that are doing fantastic work across the country. I would be pleased to look at the example that my hon. Friend set out to see what lessons we can learn.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
My constituency has among the highest levels of deprivation. Unfortunately, subways and bus shelters are home to the most vulnerable. I know that £440 million has been allocated, but I do not know how much has been given to Birmingham city council. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can address this issue?
Florence Eshalomi
It is truly shocking that we are still seeing people having to sleep in poor and worrying conditions on the streets. I am happy to look at how much funding the hon. Member’s local authority has received from the new funding. The Government have committed £442 million in new funding in the Prime Minister’s ambition to end homelessness, and I am happy to give the hon. Member additional detail on the impact that will have for his constituency.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
Encouraging progress has been made against national homelessness and rough sleeping targets in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. In particular, the number of families in B&Bs for more than six weeks in Greenwich has decreased by 96% year-on-year, from 100 households to four—congratulations. More than £168 million in new funding was announced for London last month in the rough sleeping programme. That funding will be used across key areas to tackle rough sleeping in the winter and beyond, including the Erith and Thamesmead constituency.
Ms Oppong-Asare
Women who are experiencing rough sleeping are often hidden from official figures. Will the Minister ensure that there is a specific focus on that during the forthcoming homelessness summit, and will she ensure that new guidance is backed by the resources that councils need in order to provide safe, trauma-informed support?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. We have made it clear that authorities in all areas should look at providing accessible support for women, including specialist support, where needed. Our ending rough sleeping programme will require a whole-society approach. This autumn, the Prime Minister will bring together a diverse range of leaders from businesses, finance, charities, faith, health communities and many more areas to consider a range of options to meet the needs of different people and, most importantly, the needs of women.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
The number of families in temporary accommodation has decreased in Southport year on year, and in June 2026 no people were sleeping rough in the West Lancashire borough council area. Funding for the national rough sleeping programme was announced last month, with £340,000 allocated to Sefton, £6.7 million to the Liverpool city region and £189,000 to West Lancashire borough council. That will ensure that people sleeping rough in Southport can be offered a roof over their head and be off the streets by Christmas.
Patrick Hurley
Light for Life, a homelessness charity in Southport, tells me that some of the rough sleepers with the most complex needs are precisely the people least able to navigate the bureaucracy associated with finding that roof over their head. Will the Minister consider creating a distinct pathway for entrenched rough sleepers, and allowing trusted local bodies to triage people directly and to get them into emergency accommodation, rather than expecting those with addiction issues, poor mental health and chaotic lives to navigate the bureaucracy before they can obtain help?
Florence Eshalomi
It is important that we highlight the complexity and challenges faced by many people who are sleeping rough, and it is important that we recognise that that those with complex needs can be the least able to navigate traditional services. Our new £442 million rough sleeping programme will fund routes off the streets, as well as settled accommodation and intensive support. It will bring together the multi-agency support response that is often needed to move people off the streets for good. Local authorities will have the flexibility to work with trusted voluntary organisations that can reach those who are furthest from the services. I am happy to look into the experience that my hon. Friend has described, and the experience of Light for Life in Southport.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
As I mentioned earlier, I think it is important to look at local initiatives. I repeat that the Government’s new £442 million rough sleeping programme and the ending homelessness fund will look at that. Brighton and Hove has received £1.35 million through the rough sleeping programme allocation, while Brighton Women’s Centre has been allocated £371,380 through the ending homelessness in communities fund, subject to grant agreement completion.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
Last week, police and Trading Standards carried out co-ordinated visits, led by our local police officer, to retail premises on Fleet Road over suspected criminality, which is of increasing concern to me and my constituents. How is the Minister working cross-departmentally with the Home Office to keep our high streets safe and lawful?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important initiative in Harlow. Housing First is an important intervention, which evidence has shown can transform the lives of people with complex needs. We are funding Housing First and other forms of housing-led accommodation through our £2.7 billion homelessness, rough sleeping and domestic abuse grant for areas like Harlow. That includes, as I have mentioned, the £442 million for the rough sleeping programme.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Campsea Ashe is a tiny village with 100 residents, no school, no high street and no major employer, but it has a train station and a planning application that would double the size of the village. If the Secretary of State will not reconsider this blanket policy, will she at least intervene on this specific application?
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I recently met a homeless man at the homelessness charity the Matthew 25 Mission, who said that he had been “dumped” in temporary accommodation in Eastbourne by Brighton and Hove city council without the support that he needed. The previous Minister promised that she would review the out-of-area placement guidance for local authorities on this matter, so will this Minister meet me to discuss the progress of that review?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. Matthew should not have had to go through that. I am happy to meet with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the case.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
With the Kingswood area of my Bristol constituency currently being targeted by landlords of houses in multiple occupation, can the Minister set out the Government’s current thinking on how powers to restrict HMOs can be made more effective?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that example of the fantastic work carried out by the gurdwara. It is important to mention that we will work with all organisations, including charitable organisations. Faith communities play an important role, as a number of people who are sleeping rough seek sanctuary with faith communities. I am happy to look at the example my hon. Friend has raised and at what further work we can do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Housing, Communities and Local Government
Florence Eshalomi Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Florence Eshalomi
These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 263.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi):
Florence Eshalomi
These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets on or after 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions.
The following is an extract from the debate on the Representation of the People Bill on 2 September 2026.
Florence Eshalomi
The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 264.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith:
Florence Eshalomi
The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made on or after 25 March 2026 will be returned.
The following is an extract from the debate on the Representation of the People Bill on 2 September 2026.
Florence Eshalomi
As drafted, a number of the Bill’s provisions apply specifically to registered political parties. These include the restrictions relating to donations and regulated transactions involving cryptoassets, the cap on donations made by, and transactions involving, overseas electors, and restrictions on donations made by transactions including companies and LLPs.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 267.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith:
Florence Eshalomi
As drafted, a number of the Bill’s provisions apply specifically to registered political parties. These include the restrictions relating to donations and regulated transactions involving cryptoassets, the cap on donations made by, and transactions involving, overseas electors, and restrictions on donations made by and transactions involving companies and LLPs.
The following is an extract from the debate on the Representation of the People Bill on 2 September 2026.
Florence Eshalomi
The new clause also allows the Secretary of State to impose similar restrictions on the use of gifts made by overseas contributors and companies to incorporated associations making political donations.
[Official Report, 2 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 267.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith:
Florence Eshalomi
The new clause also allows the Secretary of State to impose similar restrictions on the use of gifts made by overseas electors and companies to incorporated associations making political donations.
Representation of the People Bill
Florence Eshalomi ExcerptsWednesday 2nd September 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 View all Representation of the People Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 2 September 2026 - large print - (2 Sep 2026)
The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Section 56(3) or (4) (failure to return donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year” Section 55A(8) (cap on donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55B On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55D(3) (declaration as to compliance with the donations cap) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year””” “Section 56(3) or (4) (failure to return donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment : fine or 1 year” Section 55A(8) (cap on donations) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment : fine or 1 year Section 55B On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year Section 55D(3) (declaration as to compliance with the donations cap) On summary conviction: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year”
Government new clause 76—Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000.
Government new clause 77—Procedure for regulations under PPERA 2000.
Government new clause 78—Sharing of information between Electoral Commission and others.
Government new clause 113—Termination of entitlement to be registered as overseas elector.
Government new clause 114—Powers to prescribe form and contents of campaign expenditure returns etc.
Government new clause 115—Meaning of “donation”.
Government new clause 116—Cap on donations etc by overseas contributors.
Government new clause 117—Power to extend certain restrictions to other types of donation and loan etc.
New clause 2—Commencement of Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—
“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay an order under section 216 (commencement) of the Equality Act 2010 to commence section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of that Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 within three months, which would require political parties to publish information on the protected characteristics of candidates in parliamentary elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and to the Senedd.
New clause 3—Electoral Commission: Publication of information about diversity in range of candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 13A (reimbursement of costs by Scottish Ministers etc.) insert—
‘13ZAA Collection and publication of information about diversity in range of candidates
(1) The Commission shall collect information published under section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of the Equality Act 2010.
(2) The Commission shall publish the information collected under subsection (1) in an accessible form at such intervals as the Commissioners consider appropriate.’”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to collect and publish in an accessible form diversity information required to be provided by political parties under section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.
New clause 4—Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds under this Act.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must include consideration of proposals to—
(a) promote awareness among relevant persons of the extension of the franchise; and
(b) make any necessary changes required to strengthen civic education in schools and educational settings available to relevant persons.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant persons are children and young people who—
(a) are enfranchised as a result of section (1) of this Act; or
(b) are entitled to be registered as a parliamentary or local government elector before reaching voting age as a result of section (3) of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause requires the Government to report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, through promoting awareness or making changes required to strengthen civic education.
New clause 5—Electoral Commission: pre-investigation decision notices—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In Schedule 19B, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (5), at end insert ‘or;
(b) relevant to determining whether to start an investigation.’”
This new clause would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation.
New clause 6—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.—
“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—
‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates
(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—
(a) a relative; or
(b) a member of staff;
of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”
This new clause would, with Amendment 1, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.
New clause 7—Duty of Electoral Commission to provide candidate safety guidance—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish guidance on the safety and security of candidates and campaigners during election periods.
(2) The guidance must include information about—
(a) identifying, recording and reporting threats, abuse and intimidation;
(b) physical and online security measures; and
(c) the roles of the police, the Electoral Commission and any other relevant public authority in relation to candidate safety during an election period.
(3) The Electoral Commission must keep the guidance under review and revise it whenever it considers appropriate.
(4) A returning officer must provide each validly nominated candidate with a copy of, or an electronic link to, the guidance as soon as reasonably practicable after the candidate’s nomination is accepted.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘election periods’ means the period specified in section 90ZA (meaning of ‘election expense’ of the RPA 1983).”
This new clause places a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain candidate safety guidance, and requires returning officers to provide it to candidates as soon as possible after their nomination has been accepted.
New clause 9—Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual is, or has been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to
a foreign administration.’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In subsection (2A)—
“foreign administration” means the government or state apparatus of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom;
“member” includes elected and appointed members.’”
This new clause would ban those who are or have been members of a foreign administration, or advisers to a foreign administration, from donating money to a political party, think tank or campaigning body.
New clause 10—Permissible donors not to include persons who have promoted political violence—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3ZB) insert—
‘(3ZC) A person is not to be treated as a permissible donor in relation to a donation if the person has been convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence.
(3ZD) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the offences which fall within subsection (3ZC).’”
New clause 11—Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of any foreign nation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of any foreign nation means anyone who has at any time been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to a foreign administration.’
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
‘(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities in order to be validly nominated. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure their candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on behalf of the party.
New clause 12—Annual statements on foreign donation risks and independent investigations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Annual statement on mitigation of foreign donation risks
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, prepare a statement setting out the steps taken by the party to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation.
(2) The statement must be delivered to the Commission alongside the party's statement of accounts for that year.
66B Annual independent investigation of donations by foreign-owned UK entities
(1) A registered party must, in respect of each calendar year, arrange for an independent investigation to be conducted into any donations received by the party from a foreign-owned UK entity.
(2) A report of the independent investigation must be submitted to the Commission by the treasurer of the party within six months of the end of the calendar year to which it relates.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) the appointment and qualifications of an independent investigator for the purposes of this section;
(b) the definition of a “foreign-owned UK entity”; and
(c) the required contents of the investigation report.
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.’”
This new clause requires registered political parties to produce an annual statement detailing how they have mitigated risks relating to donations from foreign nations. It also requires parties to commission an annual independent investigation into donations they receive from foreign-owned UK entities, with the findings submitted to the Electoral Commission.
New clause 13—Information to be included with electronic material: generative artificial intelligence—
“(1) Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3)(b) insert—
“(c) where the electronic material consists of or includes image, audio or video content that has been generated or materially altered by means of generative artificial intelligence, a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.”
(2A) In this section, ‘generative artificial intelligence’ means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined prompts or objectives, generate new image, audio or video content.”
This new clause amends the digital imprint rules in the Elections Act 2022 to require that any political campaigning material which contains images, audio, or video generated or materially altered by AI must include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used.
New clause 14—Repeal of voter identification requirements—
“(1) In the Elections Act 2022 omit section 1 (voter identification).
(2) In the Elections Act 2022 omit Schedule 1.
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(4) In rule 37 (voting procedure), omit paragraphs (1A) to (1G).”
This new clause repeals the provisions of the Elections Act 2022 that introduced the requirement for voters in Great Britain to produce photographic identification at polling stations. It is linked to Amendment 2.
New clause 15—Disclosure of past donations in cryptoassets—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report) insert—
‘66A Report on past donations involving cryptoassets
(1) The treasurer of a registered party must, within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, prepare a report under this section.
(2) The report must record the relevant details in relation to each donation received by the party during the relevant 5-year period which was—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant 5-year period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section, “the relevant details” in relation to a donation means—
(a) the name and address of the donor;
(b) the amount or value of the donation;
(c) the date on which the donation was received; and
(d) the date on which, and the way in which, any necessary steps were taken regarding the donation under section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general).
(5) The report must be delivered to the Commission within the period of 14 days beginning with the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1).
(6) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
This new clause amends PPERA 2000 to require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing the source, value, and dates of any donations made via cryptoassets, or accepted via crypto wallets/exchanges, over the past five years.
New clause 16—Impact of the Act on trust in elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act's provisions on trust in elections.
(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections.
(3) For the purposes of this section, "trust in elections" includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) Scottish Ministers;
(c) Welsh Ministers;
(d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
New clause 18—Payments from foreign state broadcasters to politicians and candidates—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments from foreign state broadcasters
(1) A regulated donee must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from a prescribed foreign state broadcaster.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe a foreign state broadcaster for the purposes of this paragraph where the Secretary of State considers the broadcaster is acting on behalf of, or producing propaganda for, a foreign power.
(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for appearing on, hosting, or contributing to broadcasts or programmes.’
(3) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of past earnings from foreign state broadcasters
(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received any past or current earnings, payments or benefits from a foreign state broadcaster prescribed under paragraph 6A of Schedule 7 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.’”
This new clause prohibits politicians (regulated donors) from receiving any payment from prescribed foreign state broadcasters. It also amends the parliamentary election rules to require candidates (including incumbent MPs) to formally declare any past earnings from these entities in order to be validly nominated to stand for election.
New clause 19—Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.
(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—
(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;
(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;
(c) voting by telephone;
(d) secure electronic voting;
(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;
(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;
(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and
(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) overseas electors;
(b) electoral administrators;
(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.
New clause 20—Extension of right to vote etc. to certain foreign nationals—
“(1) The RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c), after ‘Ireland,’ insert ‘a qualifying EU citizen, or a qualifying foreign national’.
(3) In section 2 (local government electors)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c) leave out “(in Wales)”
(b) in subsection (1)(c)(i), after ‘rights’ insert ‘or a qualifying foreign citizen;’.”
This new clause would extend the franchise in parliamentary elections to include qualifying EU citizens and to foreign nationals with a right to enter or remain in the UK, and to extend the local government franchise in England to foreign citizens with a right to enter or remain in the UK.
New clause 21—Cap on political donations—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied) insert—
‘54C Power to set cap on political donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation from a person if the value of donations from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds the maximum amount specified by regulations made under subsection (3).
(2) Where a registered party receives a donation which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the donation limit for the purposes of subsection (1) within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Before laying a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the level of the cap on political donations.
(6) The review must consider and make recommendations on the level of the cap in light of—
(a) the prevailing economic conditions;
(b) the effect of the cap on democratic participation and political competition; and
(c) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.
(7) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person or panel with relevant experience to conduct the review.
(8) The person or panel appointed under subsection (7) must—
(a) consult the Electoral Commission and any other persons the person or panel considers relevant; and
(b) prepare and publish a report of its findings.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (8)(b) before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.
(10) No later than three years after a report under subsection (9) has been laid the Secretary of State must commission a new review under subsection (5) for the purposes of determining whether the cap under subsection (1) should be amended.’”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on permissible political donations from a person, following an independent review to be conducted every three years.
New clause 22—Permissible donors not to include oil and gas companies—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) after ‘Kingdom’ insert ‘, subject to the exemption in subsection (2A).’
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A company is not a permissible donor if it is an oil and gas company.’
(4) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) For the purposes of this section, “an oil and gas company” means any company which derives over 50% of its annual revenue from the extraction, acquisition, transportation, processing, supply or disposal of petroleum or natural gas, or a combination of the two.’”
This new clause provides that an oil and gas company would not be a permissible donor for the purposes of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
New clause 23—Prohibition on remuneration for social media activity—
“(1) Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000 (control of donations to individuals and members associations) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments for social media activity
6C (1) A regulated donee must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from any person or organisation in connection with activity on a social media platform.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for publishing, promoting or interacting with content on a social media platform,
(b) a social media platform means an electronic medium or service through which users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations.’
(3) Schedule 2A to RPA 1983 (control of donations to candidates) is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) After paragraph 6 insert—
‘Prohibition on payments for social media activity
6A (1) A candidate or their election agent must not accept any payment, remuneration or other financial benefit, whether or not on commercial terms, from any person or organisation in connection with activity on a social media platform.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a payment or benefit includes, but is not limited to, remuneration for publishing, promoting or interacting with content on a social media platform,
(b) a social media platform means an electronic medium or service through which users may create, share, or view user-generated content, including, without limitation, videos, photographs, blogs, podcasts, messages, emails, or website profiles or locations.’”
This new clause prohibits members of registered parties, members associations, holders of relevant elective offices and electoral candidates from receiving any payment, remuneration, or financial benefit in exchange for posting, promoting, or interacting with content on social media.
New clause 24—Declaration of income or gifts from the Russian Federation—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of income or gifts from the Russian Federation
8A (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating whether they have received in the past or are currently in receipt of any income or gifts from—
(a) the government of the Russian Federation, or
(b) any person or organisation connected to the government of the Russian Federation.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a person or organisation connected to the government of the Russian Federation means anyone who has at any time been—
(a) a member of, or
(b) a politically-appointed adviser to the government of the Russian Federation.”
(3) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
“(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare past or current income or gifts from the government of the Russian Federation or from any person or organisation connected to that government. It also places a duty on political parties to ensure that their candidates have made this declaration.
New clause 25—Permissible donors not to include property development and construction undertakings—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of PPERA 2000 and any other enactment, a person is not a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant if they meet the conditions in subsections (2).
(2) The conditions in this subsection are that the person is a property development or construction undertaking as defined under subsections (3) and (4).
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a person is a “property development or construction undertaking” if they are a body corporate, partnership, limited liability partnership, or unincorporated association, of such an undertaking which carries out, whether wholly or substantially, activities consisting of—
(a) the acquisition, disposal, or development of land for commercial or residential purposes,
(b) property speculation,
(c) the construction, renovation, or substantial alteration of buildings or infrastructure, or
(d) the provision of construction services as a principal contractor,
and whose principal business activities fall within such Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Further to subsection (3), a ‘property development or construction undertaking’ includes—
(a) any person who is acting on behalf of a property development or construction undertaking,
(b) any person who is funded either directly or indirectly by a property development or construction undertaking, and
(c) any subsidiaries or holding companies of a property development or construction undertaking.
(5) The Electoral Commission may issue guidance for the purposes of determining whether an undertaking is a property development or construction undertaking.”
This new clause would mean that a property developer or construction undertaking would not be a permissible donor to a registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant.
New clause 26—Restrictions on permitted donors: public contracts—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) has significant control of a company which has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) has significant control of a company which is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(2B) A company which would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(b) is not a permissible donor if that company—
(a) has been awarded a public contract within the previous ten years, or
(b) is a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of a company falling within paragraph (a).’
(3) After subsection (8) insert—
‘(9) In this section—
“public contract” has the meaning given by section 3 (public contracts) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“significant control” has the meaning given by section 790C (key terms) of the Companies Act 2006;
“parent undertaking” and “subsidiary undertaking” have the meanings given by section 1162 (parent and subsidiary undertakings) of the Companies Act 2006.’”
This amendment would prevent individuals and companies connected to public contracts within the previous ten years from being treated as permissible donors under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
New clause 27—Report on interference in UK elections originating from the United States of America—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the extent of electoral interference originating from the United States of America and its impact on the integrity of elections in the United Kingdom.
(2) The report published under subsection (1) must review the extent of the following activities and their impact on voters—
(a) United States-based social media companies amplifying electoral campaign material via algorithms; and
(b) donations made to registered political parties, think-tanks, lobbying firms and other regulated donees in the United Kingdom originating from—
(i) the United States Government,
(ii) United States-based companies, and
(iii) business leaders with United States citizenship.
(3) The report must also set out information about the nature of any campaigns receiving donations from those set out in subsection (2), including—
(a) the stated aims attached to any donations made; and
(b) any agreements between donees and organisations in receipt of such donations.
(4) The report published under subsection (1) must include any recommendations considered necessary to protect the integrity of United Kingdom elections.
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘the integrity of United Kingdom elections’ means the extent to which elections are considered to be free and fair, and have public confidence in their outcomes.”
This new clause requires the Government to publish a report on electoral interference originating from the USA and its impact on the integrity of elections in the United Kingdom, focusing on the extent of algorithmic amplification of campaign material by US-based social media companies and of donations from US-based companies and business leaders.
New clause 28—Prohibition of controlled expenditure and expenses by non-permissible donors—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In Section 89A (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure) leave out subsection (2).
(3) In Section 89B (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure: Senedd Cymru elections) leave out subsection (2).
(4) In Section 89B (restriction on which third parties may incur controlled expenditure: Scottish Parliament elections) leave out subsection (2).
(5) In Section 75 of RPA 1983 (prohibition of expenses not authorised by election agent) leave out—
(a) subsection 1ZZB(a);
(b) subsection 1ZA.
(6) In Section 41 of the Elections Act 2022 (requirement to include information with electronic material) after subsection (3)(b) insert—
‘(c) a statement declaring the original source of the funding used to pay for the promotion or publication of the material.’”
This new clause prevents controlled expenditure and expenses by non-permissible donors, including foreign-funded advertising, by reducing the existing £700 spending limit for such donors to nil. It also requires that campaign material includes a statement declaring the origin of its funding.
New clause 29—Prohibition of political advertising by non-permissible donors—
“(1) A person or organisation that is not a permissible donor must not incur any expenditure on political advertising, whether or not related to a relevant election.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
‘political advertising’ means any materials or activities with a view to promoting a political party, candidate or campaign;
‘relevant election’ has the same meaning as in Part II of PPERA.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, by regulations amend, repeal or revoke any enactment, including this Act and other electoral legislation, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission; and
(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would prevent non-permissible donors from funding political advertising, whether or not related to a relevant election, and provide the Secretary of State with regulation making powers to enable this prohibition to be enforced.
New clause 30—Review of how limits on campaign expenditure could apply on annual basis—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties.
(2) The review must consider how annual campaign expenditure limits could—
(a) promote transparency and fairness in elections;
(b) limit the risk of foreign interference in elections; and
(c) be implemented in a proportionate manner without undue impact on political parties, candidates and third parties.
(3) In conducting the review, the Electoral Commission must consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission.
(4) The Electoral Commission must publish a report of its findings no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report, lay before both Houses of Parliament, a response to the report.
(6) The response to the report must contain proposals informed by the Electoral Commission’s report.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties, and for the Government to respond to the report and bring forward proposals based on the Electoral Commission’s findings.
New clause 32—Parliamentary elections: Requirement to obtain an enhanced disclosure and barring service check—
“(1) Schedule 1 of RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 6 (nomination of candidates) insert—
‘(6AA)(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person has—
(a) undertaken an enhanced DBS check; and
(b) obtained an enhanced DBS certificate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of one or more organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be requested.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule—
“enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997;
“enhanced DBS certificate” means a certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service following an enhanced DBS check.’”
This new clause would require candidates in a parliamentary election to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain the resulting certificate before they can be validly nominated as a candidate.
New clause 33—Local government elections (England and Wales): Requirement to obtain an enhanced disclosure and barring service check—
“(1) The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 are amended as follows.
(2) After rule 4 (nomination of candidates) insert—
‘(4A)(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person has—
(a) undertaken an enhanced DBS check; and
(b) obtained an enhanced DBS certificate.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of an organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be requested.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule—
“enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997;
“enhanced DBS certificate” means a certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service following an enhanced DBS check.’”
This new clause would require candidates in a local government election in England and Wales to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain the resulting certificate before they can be validly nominated as a candidate.
New clause 34—Prohibition on accepting donations in cryptoassets to political parties and candidates—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors), at end insert—
‘(7) Any donation received by a registered party or regulated donee which is—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets; or
(b) made from the proceeds generated by crypto-assets such as digital tokens and memecoins; or
(c) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider, shall be regarded as a donation received by the party from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(8) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, the Electoral Commission must publish guidance in relation to the matters in subsection (7).
(9) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’
(3) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (4).
(4) In Schedule 2A, Section 6 (prohibition on accepting donations from impermissible donors), after subparagraph (3), insert—
‘(3A) Any relevant donation received by a candidate or their election agent which is—
(a) made wholly or in part with cryptoassets,
(b) made from the proceeds generated by crypto-assets such as digital tokens and memecoins, or
(c) accepted by means of a custodian wallet provider or cryptoasset exchange provider,
shall be regarded as a donation received by a candidate or their election agent who is not a permissible donor.
(3B) Within three months of the coming into force of this section, the Commission must publish guidance in relation to the matters in subsection (3A).
(3C) In this section—
“Cryptoassets” has the meaning given by Regulation 14A(3)(a) of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017;
“Custodian wallet provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
“Cryptoasset exchange provider” has the meaning given by Section 131ZC (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.’”
The purpose of this new clause is to prevent parties, regulated donees (including third party campaigners) and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets or from the proceeds of cryptoassets, to reduce the risks of anonymous and impermissible donations.
New clause 35—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at parliamentary elections—
“(1) Section 1 (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), after “Ireland” insert “or a foreign national who for the purposes of the Immigration Act 1971 has—
(i) the right of abode in the United Kingdom;
(ii) settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme;
(iii) indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom; or
(iv) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.””
This new clause expands the right to vote in General Elections to residents of the UK who have the right to abode in the UK or leave to enter or remain for an indefinite period.
New clause 36—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at local government elections in England—
“(1) Section 2 (entitlement to vote in local elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c) leave out “(in Wales)”.
(3) In subsection (1)(c)(i), after “rights” insert “or a qualifying foreign citizen;”.”
This new clause expands the right to vote in local government elections in England to extend to foreign citizens with a right to enter or remain in the UK.
New clause 37—Access to Elected Office Fund (England)—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 90D insert—
“90E Access to Elected Office Fund (England)
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, require the Electoral Commission to establish and maintain a fund to be known as the Access to Elected Office Fund (England) (“the Fund”).
(2) The purpose of the Fund is to provide financial assistance to disabled candidates standing for election in England, including providing assistance to meet any additional campaign costs incurred by the candidate as a result of their disability, and the Electoral Commission or a person designated under subsection (4)(a) must administer the Fund consistently with that purpose.
(3) The Secretary of State may from time to time make payments into the Fund of such amounts as they may determine.
(4) Regulations under this section may—
(a) designate a different person, other than the Electoral Commission, to establish and maintain the Fund;
(b) specify criteria for eligibility for financial assistance;
(c) set out the types of expenditure for which financial assistance may be provided;
(d) specify the value of financial assistance available to an individual candidate; and
(e) establish rules and procedures that the Electoral Commission or a person designated under subsection (4)(a) must comply with when administering the Fund.
(5) Before making any regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) disabled people;
(b) political parties;
(c) relevant charities and civil society organisations; and
(d) the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “disability” has the meaning given under section (6) (disability) of the Equality Act 2010.
(7) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.””
New clause 38—Enfranchisement of foreign nationals at local elections in Northern Ireland—
“(1) Section 2 (local elections electors) of the RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c), at end insert—
“(iii) in relation to a local government election in Northern Ireland, a relevant citizen of the Union or a qualifying foreign citizen;””
This new clause would give all residents in Northern Ireland with leave to enter or stay in the UK the right to vote in local and Assembly elections in Northern Ireland.
New clause 39—Prohibition on campaigning or obstructing electors outside polling places—
“(1) A person who interferes or obstructs or impedes a person going to or coming from a polling station commits an offence.
(2) During the period commencing 30 minutes before the time appointed for the taking of a poll at an election, and ending 30 minutes after the close of the said poll, a person shall not, in or in the curtilage of a polling station or in any place within 50 metres of such station, for the purpose of promoting the interest of a political party or furthering the candidature of a candidate or candidates or soliciting votes for a candidate or candidates or for any contrary purpose, do any or all of the following—
(a) loiter or congregate with other persons;
(b) attempt to induce, by any means whatsoever, an elector to vote for a candidate or candidates or vote in a particular way or refrain from voting;
(c) display or distribute any notice, sign or poster (other than a notice, sign or poster displayed by the returning officer) or card, circular or other document relating to the election; or
(d) use or cause to be used any loud-speaker or other public address mechanism to broadcast matter relating to the election.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a polling station shall be deemed to include all parts of the building and any land within the curtilage of the building in which the polling station is situated and the distance referred to in subsection (2) shall be measured from any entrance to the polling station or to the curtilage thereof.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (2) commits an offence.
(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.”
This new clause would prevent people from campaigning, interfering, obstructing or impeding electors going to or coming from a polling station.
New clause 40—Voting eligibility of convicted persons in detention—
“In section 3 of RPA 1983, (disfranchisement of offenders in prison etc.)—
(a) for subsection (1), substitute—
“(1) A convicted person, during the time that they are detained in a penal institution in pursuance of a sentence imposed for a term exceeding four years or unlawfully at large when they would otherwise be so detained, is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.”;
(b) omit subsection (1A); and
(c) in subsection 1B, for “1A” substitute “1”.”
The new clause seeks to extend the franchise at UK Parliamentary and local government elections to include those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years and who would ordinarily be eligible.
New clause 41—Guidance on the law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament guidance on certain digital communication offences, including offences involving digital manipulation and artificially generated content in relation to candidates and elected officials.
(2) Any guidance issued under subsection (1) must include guidance on the following—
(a) the operation of section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(b) the operation of section 114A (undue influence) of the RPA 1983 in relation to digital communications;
(c) the interaction between the operations of sections 106 and 114A of the RPA 1983 and the duty of providers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including in relation to priority offences during election periods.
(3) Within 12 months of the publication of guidance under subsection (1) and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament either—
(a) a statement that no updates to the guidance are required, or
(b) an updated version of the guidance.
(4) Before issuing—
(a) any guidance under subsection (1) or subsection (3)(b), or
(b) a statement under subsection (3)(a),
the Secretary of State must consult OFCOM and such other persons as they think necessary.
(5) For the purposes of this section “priority offences” means an offence listed in Schedule 7 (Priority offences) of the Online Safety Act 2023.”
This new clause would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications as they relate to candidates and elected officials.
New clause 42—Report on electoral online harms—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Electoral Commission must publish a report on the prevention of electoral online harms.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “electoral online harms” includes—
(a) abuse and harassment of or threats directed towards elected representatives, candidates, party campaigners and election officials, or
(b) incitement or violence against any such individuals, but does not include mockery or insult, save where it forms part of a campaign of harassment.
(3) Any report published under subsection (1) must contain—
(a) an assessment of the risks of electoral online harms, and
(b) proposals to put in place systems to mitigate those risks including through amendment of the Online Safety Act 2023.
(4) Before publishing its report under subsection (1) the Electoral Commission must consult—
(a) OFCOM, and
(b) the National Police Chiefs Council.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to publish a report containing an assessment of the risks of online electoral harms, and proposals to put in place systems to mitigate those risks.
New clause 43—Repository of digital political advertising—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 61 insert—
“Part 6A Repository of digital political advertising
61A Establishing a repository of digital political advertising
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to require the Electoral Commission to establish a repository of paid-for digital political advertising.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide for the repository of political advertising to be publicly accessible;
(b) specify that a provider of a Category 1 service within the meaning of the Online Safety Act 2023 must ensure that prescribed information relating to such advertising is submitted to the repository as soon as reasonably practicable, and, in any event, within 72 hours;
(c) set out the types of information to be prescribed; and
(d) provide for material in the repository to be transferred to the National Archives for preservation after a certain period.
(3) Before making any regulations that make provision for the matters under subsection 2(c), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission;
(b) the Information Commissioner’s Office; and
(c) OFCOM.
(4) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.””
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to require the Electoral Commission to establish a publicly available repository of political advertising.
New clause 44—Electoral Commission: powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(2) After Schedule 12, insert—
“SCHEDULE 13: Electoral Commission powers to obtain information outside of a formal investigation
(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to allow the Electoral Commission to issue a notice requiring certain information from a regulated user-to-user service or search service, at any time during any regulated election period.
(2) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must specify that a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph must comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must specify the information which may be requested by the Electoral Commission, and include the following where they relate to elections—
(a) information relating to paid-for political advertising;
(b) algorithmic systems;
(c) coordinated inauthentic behaviour; and
(d) automated or bot accounts (whether domestic or foreign).
(4) Any regulations made under paragraph (2) must also provide for any safeguards considered necessary by the Secretary of State as regards data protection or commercial confidentiality.
(5) Any regulations made under paragraph (1) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this Schedule, “user-to-user service” has the meaning given by section 3 (“user-to-user service” and “search service”) of the Online Safety Act 2023.””
New clause 45—Critical election incident protocol—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a Critical Election Incident Protocol (“the Protocol”) for the purpose of responding to incidents that present a significant risk to the integrity, security or public confidence of elections.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Critical Election Incident” means any event, threat or activity that poses a substantial risk to—
(a) the integrity, security or administration of an election;
(b) the ability of the public to freely participate in the electoral process;
(c) or public confidence in the fairness or legitimacy of an election.
(3) Before publishing the Protocol, the Secretary of State must consult the following on its contents—
(a) relevant civil society organisations,
(b) relevant experts, and
(c) relevant regulators.
(4) Any Protocol published under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the establishment of an oversight body comprised of such senior ministers and officials as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) the establishment of an advisory body of civil society and experts with relevant expertise as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(c) criteria by which Critical Election Incidents are identified and the Protocol is triggered;
(d) categories of severity of Critical Election Incidents based on their severity; and
(e) details of differentiated responses to Critical Election Incidents for each of the categories identified under subsection (d) which would be necessary and proportionate.
(5) Any Protocol published under subsection (1) must be compatible with the United Kingdom’s human rights obligations including but not limited to the right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Protocol—
(a) one year after the publication of the Protocol under subsection (1) and annually thereafter; and
(b) within three months of any occasion on which the Protocol has been used.
(7) Any report published under subsection (6) must include—
(a) a description of activities undertaken under the Protocol, subject to any necessary limitations relating to national security or ongoing investigations;
(b) information about consultation with the established oversight and advisory bodies;
(c) an assessment of the impact of the Protocol on human rights and democratic participation.
(8) Any report produced under subsection (6) must be sent to the Housing and Local Government Committee of the House of Commons.
(9) In this section, references to Housing and Local Government Committee shall—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, be taken (subject to paragraph (b)) to be references to the Committee by its new name;
(b) if the functions of that Committee at the passing of this Act with respect to matters relating to Protocol become functions of a different committee of the House of Commons, be taken to be references to the committee by whom the functions for the time being exercisable.”
New clause 46—Government review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the adequacy of the current regulated periods for elections and referendums.
(2) The review must consider the following—
(a) the impact of campaign activity outside the relevant regulated period on elections;
(b) whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient to tackle the prevalence of—
(i) manipulated content,
(ii) misinformation,
(iii) disinformation,
and their potential influence on elections.
(3) The review may make any recommendations it feels necessary for legislative or regulatory reform as a result of its findings.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “campaign activity” includes—
(a) digital campaigning;
(b) targeted advertising; and
(c) automated content distribution.
(5) For the purposes of this section “regulated period” means any period regulated under the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament, together with their response to any recommendations for legislative or regulatory reform.”
This new clause requires the government to establish a review of the “regulated periods” in relation to elections which would consider whether the length of the regulated periods are sufficient in relation to the prevalence of manipulated content, misinformation and disinformation.
New clause 47—Information to be included with electronic material: data provenance—
“After Section 41 (requirement to include information with electronic material) of the Elections Act 2022 insert—
“Requirement to include information with electronic material created through generative artificial intelligence
(1) This section applies to electronic material which—
(a) meets the conditions in section 42 (paid for electronic material), or
(b) meets the conditions in section 44 (other electronic material), and has been generated wholly through generative artificial intelligence.
(2) Electronic material to which this section applies must not be published unless it includes the following information—
(a) a statement that content was wholly generated by a generative artificial intelligence system;
(b) the name of the system used to generate the content.
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) additional requirements for information to be required under subsection (2);
(b) the form in which the information required under subsection (2) is to be provided.
(4) The form prescribed by regulations under subsection (3)(b) must be a form which can be detected and processed by regulated user-to-user services for the purpose of providing the required information to users of such services.
(5) Any regulations made under subsection (3) must be laid before and agreed by both Houses of Parliament.
(6) For the purposes of this section, “generative artificial intelligence” means a computer system or software that—
(a) is capable of producing text, images, audio, video, or other content autonomously, wholly or substantially, based on prompts or instructions provided by a user;
(b) uses machine learning or other algorithmic techniques to generate content that mimics human-created material; and
(c) may produce content that is not pre-existing but is synthesized based on patterns learned from existing data.””
This new clause requires campaign material which has been generated by generative artificial intelligence to include a statement to that effect along with the name of the system used. It creates a power for the Government to make regulations about the information to be included.
New clause 48—Blind and partially sighted voters: equipment and secret voting—
“(1) Rule 29 (equipment of polling stations) of Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (3)(a), at end insert—
“independently and in secret”.
(3) For paragraph (3A) substitute—
“(3A) The returning officer shall also provide each polling station with such equipment as is necessary to ensure that relevant persons are able to vote independently and in secret, including—
(a) tactile equipment that enables the voter to navigate the ballot paper and accurately mark their chosen candidate without assistance; and
(b) audio equipment that enables the voter to access and review the content of the ballot paper in the language in which it is printed without assistance.”
(4) After paragraph (3A) insert—
“(3AA) For the purposes of paragraph (3A)(b), a person is able to vote independently and in secret only if they are not required to rely on the assistance of the presiding officer, companion, or any other person to navigate, review and mark the ballot paper.””
This new clause would require certain equipment to be provided to people who find it difficult or impossible to vote because they are blind, partially sighted, or because of another disability in order for them to be able to vote independently and in secret.
New clause 49—Electoral Advertising Code of Practice—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice (“the Advertising Code”).
(2) The Advertising Code must include principles and guidance relating to electoral advertising and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) ensuring the accuracy of factual claims,
(b) the need for relevant and reliable evidence to substantiate factual claims,
(c) the need to clearly identify the political party affiliated with an advert,
(d) transparency in the use of artificial intelligence, and
(e) issuing prompt public corrections to address mistakes.
(3) In this section “electoral advertising” means any factual claims in marketing communications, whenever published or distributed, whose principal function is to influence voters in a local, regional, national or international election or referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Advertising Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) the Electoral Advertising Code Committee,
(b) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(c) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to produce an Electoral Advertising Code of Practice. It is connected to NC50, NC51 and NC52.
New clause 50—Electoral Advertising Code Committee—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee (“the Committee”).
(2) The functions of the Committee are—
(a) to advise the Electoral Commission on the preparation and revision of the Advertising Code,
(b) to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the Advertising Code, and
(c) to oversee the operation of and monitor the effectiveness of the Advertising Code.
(3) In exercising functions under this Part, the Committee must have regard to the importance of freedom of political expression and open democratic debate, and will not determine matters of political opinion unless they fall within the scope of factual claims in electoral advertising.
(4) The Committee is to consist of—
(a) a Chair,
(b) a member nominated by the Electoral Commission,
(c) a member nominated by the Advertising Standards Authority or its successor body,
(d) a member nominated by the Office of Communications, and
(e) a member nominated by the United Kingdom Statistics Authority.
(5) Nothing in this Part limits the powers of the bodies identified in subsection (4) under any other enactment.
(6) The Chair is to be appointed by the Electoral Commission following a fair and open competition conducted in accordance with the Public Appointments Code, with a majority of independent members on the assessment panel and a senior independent panel member.
(7) The appointment of the Chair requires the consent of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which must not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
(8) In making the appointment, the Electoral Commission must have regard to the need to secure the independence of the Committee.
(9) A person appointed as Chair holds office—
(a) for a single non-renewable term of five years from the date of appointment, and
(b) in accordance with terms and conditions (including as to remuneration and pension) specified by the Electoral Commission.
(10) The Chair may resign from office by giving written notice to the Electoral Commission.
(11) The Electoral Commission must pay to the Committee the sums determined by the Chair as appropriate for, or in connection with, the carrying out of the Committee’s functions.
(12) The Secretary of State must, within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, carry out a consultation on a levy on registered political parties’ election advertising spend for the purpose of funding the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(13) In carrying out the consultation, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) representatives of registered political parties, and
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to establish an Electoral Advertising Code Committee. It is connected to NC49, NC51 and NC52.
New clause 51—Status of the Campaign Code and enforcement of the Advertising Code—
“(1) Persons engaged in political campaigning must have regard to the Campaign Code.
(2) A registered political party must prepare, publish and keep under review a code of conduct relating to its political campaigning.
(3) A code under subsection (2) must be consistent with the Campaign Code and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(4) The following persons, when engaged in electoral advertising, must comply with the Advertising Code—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) members of the House of Commons,
(c) members of any local authority in any part of the United Kingdom,
(d) members of the Greater London Assembly,
(e) candidates or prospective candidates at a United Kingdom general election, by-election, local authority election, Greater London Authority election or mayoral election,
(f) recognised third parties within the meaning of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(g) election agents within the meaning of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(5) The Committee may, by written notice, require a person to provide information or documents reasonably required for the purposes of investigating a suspected breach of the Advertising Code.
(6) A person must comply with a requirement under subsection (5) unless the person has a reasonable excuse.
(7) If, on an application by the Committee, a court is satisfied that a person has failed to comply with a requirement under subsection (5), the court may make an order requiring the person to provide the Committee with—
(a) information referred to in the notice, and
(b) other information which the court is satisfied the Committee requires.
(8) Where the Committee considers that electoral advertising is inconsistent with the Advertising Code, it may take the following steps which it considers reasonable to secure compliance—
(a) issuing a notice requiring the person responsible to amend, withdraw or substantiate the advertising within a specified period,
(b) publishing a formal finding of non-compliance on its website [and in the repository of political adverts],
(c) requiring the publication of a correction, clarification or updated version of the advertising with similar prominence where practicable,
(d) notifying relevant online services or publishers and requesting prompt suspension or removal of advertising during the regulated period, and
(e) referring repeated or serious breaches to the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions in accordance with its powers under Schedule 19C to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(9) In deciding whether to impose a civil sanction under subsection (8)(e), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the findings and recommendations of the Committee, and
(b) any enforcement action taken in relation to the same conduct under any other enactment.
(10) Where the Electoral Commission imposes a civil sanction following a referral from the Committee, it must publish a notice setting out—
(a) the nature of the breach,
(b) the sanction imposed, and
(c) the reasons for the sanction.
(11) A person on whom a civil sanction is imposed under subsection (8)(e) may appeal in accordance with the appeal provisions under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
(12) Failure to comply with the Campaign Code or the Advertising Code does not of itself give rise to criminal liability.”
This new clause is connected to NC49, NC50 and NC52.
New clause 52—Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning—
“(1) The Electoral Commission must prepare and publish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning (“the Campaign Code”).
(2) The Campaign Code must set out principles and guidance relating to political campaigning and must in particular include provisions relating to—
(a) honesty in political debate and reasonable efforts to not mislead voters, and
(b) the avoidance of intimidation, harassment or abusive conduct.
(3) In this section “political campaigning” means any conduct, communications or other activity which can reasonably be regarded as intended, directly or indirectly, to influence public support for, or opposition to—
(a) a registered political party,
(b) a candidate or prospective candidate at a general election, by-election, local election or mayoral election, or
(c) an outcome in a referendum.
(4) Before preparing or revising the Campaign Code, the Electoral Commission must carry out such consultation as it considers appropriate and must in particular consult—
(a) representatives of parties appointed to the Parliamentary Parties Panel in accordance with section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) such other persons as the Electoral Commission considers appropriate.
(5) The Electoral Commission may revise the Campaign Code from time to time, and subsections (1) to (4) apply to a revised Campaign Code as they apply to the original.
(6) Electoral advertising as defined in this Part is regulated under the Electoral Advertising Code of Practice and subject to enforcement by the Electoral Advertising Code Committee.
(7) This Part applies in relation to elections and referendums for which provision may be made by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament.”
This new clause would establish a Code of Conduct for Political Campaigning. It is connected to NC49 to NC51. The reference in this new clause to “this Part” is a reference to a new Part which would be formed of NC49 to NC51.
New clause 53—Third party campaigning: meaning of “controlled expenditure”—
“(1) Section 85 of PPERA 2000 (controlled expenditure by third parties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(b) substitute “can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure” with “is incurred with a view to promoting or procuring”.
(3) Omit subsection (4A).”
This new clause would amend the definition of “controlled expenditure” so that expenditure will only be “controlled expenditure” if the intention of a relevant third party is to promote or procure electoral success for registered parties or candidates.
New clause 54—Declaration of gifts and benefits—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
‘Declaration of certain gifts and benefits prior to nomination
(1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration stating—
(a) whether they have received in the 12 months preceding the declaration, or are currently in receipt of, gifts or benefits from a single source which are individually or cumulatively of a value exceeding £5000 (“a qualifying gift or benefit”);
(b) the value of any qualifying gift or benefit; and
(c) the source of any qualifying gift or benefit.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.
(3) For the purposes of this rule, a gift or benefit means—
(a) any gift to the person of money or other property;
(b) any sponsorship provided in relation to the person;
(c) any money lent to the person otherwise than on commercial terms;
(d) any money spent in paying any expenses incurred directly or indirectly by the person; or
(e) the provision otherwise than on commercial terms of any property, services or facilities for the use or benefit of the person;
whether or not made in connection with the person’s nomination.
(4) A gift or benefit is not required to be declared under sub-paragraph (1) if it is provided by an immediate family member of the person and the conditions in sub-paragraph (5) are met.
(5) The conditions are that—
(a) the gift or benefit is not being transferred, either directly or indirectly, from any third person; and
(b) the gift or benefit is not made or used in connection with the person’s nomination or any other political activity.
(6) For the purposes of this rule “immediate family member” means a spouse, civil partner, partner, parent, child, sibling, grandparent or grandchild.
(7) In rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party), at the end insert—
“(4) A registered political party is under a duty to ensure that a candidate has made the declaration required by rule 8A, and a certificate under paragraph (1) or (1B) may not be issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party in respect of a candidate unless this duty has been discharged.”’”
This new clause would require candidates to declare gifts or benefits worth over £5000, except from immediate family, during the 12 months before nomination to be validly nominated, It also places a duty on parties to ensure candidates have made this declaration before authorising them to stand on their behalf.
New clause 56—Plan for implementation of registration without an application—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a plan for the implementation of Part 2.
(2) The Secretary of State must comply with subsection (1) within the period of two months beginning with the day on which this section of this Act comes into force.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the plan before Parliament.
(4) The plan must set out—
(a) the steps that the Secretary of State plans to take to facilitate the registration of persons registered under section 12A of RPA 1983, including the dates by which each step will be completed;
(b) when the Secretary of State expects any pilot regulations made under section 20 to be laid before each House of Parliament;
(c) a projection of the number of additional persons registered by 15 August 2029 as a consequence of the implementation (in part or in full) of Part 2.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for implementation of registration without an application.
New clause 57—Compulsory voting and civic education—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for introducing—
(a) a compulsory duty to vote at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England, and
(b) a programme of civic education in connection with that duty.
(2) Proposals published under this section relating to compulsory voting must include—
(a) provision for electors to be able to mark an abstention, either through returning a spoilt or blank ballot;
(b) provision for the failure to vote to be punishable through a penalty fine, at a rate to be set by the Secretary of State;
(c) provision for certain exemptions to be made for those who are unable to participate in an election, including—
(i) those with a physical or mental illness, or disability,
(ii) those who are unavoidably absent from the UK, and
(iii) those with a sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from participating in the election.
(3) Proposals published under this section relating to a programme of civic education must include civic education in schools and the production of learning materials for adults on topics including—
(a) the different electoral systems operation in the UK, and
(b) the roles and responsibilities of elected office holders in the UK.”
This new clause requires the Government to publish proposals for compulsory voting at UK general elections and local elections in England and proposals for a programme of civic education in schools and the production of learning materials for adults on topics including electoral systems and the roles of elected office holders.
New clause 58—Offences for purposes of Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022: domestic abuse—
“(1) Schedule 9 (offences for the purpose of part 5) of the Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After paragraph 52A (Online Safety Act 2023) insert—
“Behaviour amounting to domestic abuse
52B Any offence where the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act).””
This new clause would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to the list of Schedule 9 offences for which provisions relating to hostility would apply.
New clause 59—Disqualification orders for court orders relating to abuse or harassment—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out below.
(2) After Section 30 (disqualification orders) insert—
“30A Disqualification orders in connection with court orders relating to abuse or harassment
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“the perpetrator”) has a qualifying order made against them,
(b) the perpetrator was aged 18 or over when the order was made, and
(c) the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that behaviour done to a person for whose protection the qualifying order is made is aggravated by hostility to a person falling within any of sections 32 to 34.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a qualifying order is—
(a) a domestic violence protection order;
(b) a non-molestation order; or
(c) a restraining order.
(3) The court must, when making a qualifying order, also make an order (a “disqualification order”) that the offender is disqualified, for the period in which the qualifying order is in force—
(a) for being nominated for election to a relevant elective office, and
(b) for being elected to or holding a relevant elective office.
(4) Subsection (2) does not apply where the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the qualifying order or to the perpetrator which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to make the order; and in such a case the court must state the reasons for not making the order.
(5) For the purposes of this section an offence is aggravated by hostility related to persons falling within any of sections 32 to 34 if—
(a) at the time the order was made, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the person for whose protection the order was made, hostility based on the person being (or being presumed to be) a person falling within any of sections 32 to 34, or
(b) the abusive behaviour was motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons falling within any of those sections in their capacity as such.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4) it is immaterial whether or not the perpetrator’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that subsection.
(7) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a disqualification order the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution and the defence.
(8) It is immaterial whether evidence led in pursuance of subsection (6) would have been admissible in the proceedings in which the protection order was made.
(9) In this section—
“domestic violence protection order” has the meaning set out in section 27 (meaning of “domestic abuse protection order”) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;
“non-molestation order” has the meaning set out in section 42 (non-molestation orders) of the Family Law Act 1996;
“restraining order” has the meaning set out in chapter 3 (protection from harassment) of the Sentencing Act 2020;
“presumed” means presumed by the offender.
(10) In section 37 (interpretation of part), in subsection (1) after “section 30” insert “or 30A”.”
This new clause would require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders imposed to prevent abuse or harassment in cases where the hostility relates to a person protected under the Elections Act 2022.
New clause 61—Restriction on registration of parties with assets greater than £250,000—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 28 (registration of parties) after subsection (3D) insert—
“(3DA) A party may not make an application under this section at any time when the total value of the party’s assets is greater than £250,000”
(3) In Schedule 4 (applications under part II) after paragraph 5 insert—
“5A An application must be accompanied by a declaration containing the details of all bank accounts used by the central party and, where relevant, its accounting units for managing all income and expenditure of the party.
5B The Secretary of State may by regulations set out the information required in a declaration under paragraph 5A following a recommendation by the Electoral Commission.
5C Regulations under paragraph 5B are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause prevents a new political party from applying to be registered with the Electoral Commission if it has assets of more than £250,000 at the time of registration, and to provide the Commission with details of the bank accounts used.
New clause 62—Statutory guidance on suspected breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Electoral Commission must prepare draft guidance for Returning Officers on enforcing the provisions of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
(2) Once the Commission has prepared draft guidance under this section, it must submit it to the Secretary of State.
(3) Within 28 days of receipt the draft ballot secrecy guidance, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the draft guidance, either—
(a) in its original form, or
(b) in a form which incorporates any modifications that the Secretary of State considers necessary.
(4) If the draft guidance incorporates any such modifications, the Secretary of State must at the same time lay before each House a statement of the Secretary of State’s reasons for making them.
(5) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft guidance, the Secretary of State must take no further steps in relation to the draft guidance.
(6) Subsection (5) does not prevent new draft guidance from being laid before Parliament.
(7) If no resolution of the kind mentioned in subsection (5) is made within the 40-day period—
(a) the Secretary of State must issue the guidance in the form of the draft laid before Parliament,
(b) the Commission must arrange for the guidance to be published in such manner as it considers appropriate, and
(c) the guidance comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.
(8) The Commission—
(a) may from time to time prepare draft revised guidance under this section, and
(b) must prepare draft revised guidance under this section if directed to do so by the Secretary of State.
(9) References in this section (other than in subsection (1)) to guidance or draft guidance include revised guidance or draft revised guidance.
(10) In this section “the 40-day period”, in relation to draft guidance, means—
(a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the day on which it is laid before the other House, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and
(b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before each House, no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(11) Returning Officers must have regard to guidance issued under this section in exercising their functions.”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to prepare, and Parliament to approve, statutory guidance to Returning Officers on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023.
New clause 63—Overseas electors: reform to voting process—
“(1) The Secretary of State, must, by regulations, make provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at a United Kingdom Embassy, High Commission or consulate at United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
(2) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.
New clause 64—Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad—
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to allow overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passport online.
New clause 65—Independent review of registration and participation by overseas electors in UK Parliamentary elections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review into how to increase the registration and participation by overseas electors in UK Parliamentary elections.
(2) The matters which the review must consider shall include, but shall not be limited to—
(a) the experience of overseas voters at 2024 general election;
(b) the impact of the Elections Act 2022 on overseas voters;
(c) the number of voters participating from overseas in recent elections in the United Kingdom.
(3) The independent review must report within six months of the passing of this Act and be laid before Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into increasing the registration and participation by overseas electors in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 66—Sponsorship—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 51 (sponsorship) after subsection 3 (b) insert—
“(c) the making of any payment in respect of advertisements or marketing at a conference organised by or on behalf of a registered party where the payment is made at the commercial rate payable for such advertisements or marketing;”
(3) In section 52 (payments, services etc. not to be regarded as donations), for subsection (3) substitute—
“(3) Nothing in section 50 or 51 shall have the result that a payment made in respect of the—
(a) hire of a stand,
(b) hire or sponsorship of a lounge, dedicated space, room, marquee, roundtable event, meal or reception,
at or associated with a party conference organised by or on behalf of a registered party is to constitute a donation to the party for the purposes of this Part if or to the extent that the payment does not exceed such of the maximum commercial rates which the Commission determine to be reasonable for such types of activity at a conference.””
This new clause amends the definition of sponsorship for the purposes of PPERA 2000 so that it does not include advertising, marketing, hire of a stand or a space associated with a party conference, where payment is made at commercial rates.
New clause 67—Language of campaign materials—
“(1) During the relevant period campaign material must not be promoted or published in a foreign language.
(2) A person is guilty of an offence if the person causes campaign material to be promoted or published that falls within subsection (1).
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“campaign material” means imprinted election campaign material published by political parties and candidates, whether in hard copy or digital format;
“foreign language” means a native language of any foreign country outside the British Islands, other than English;
“relevant period” the period after the date on which the candidate becomes a candidate at an election.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (2) to prove—
(a) that the person took all reasonable steps, and exercised all due diligence, to ensure that the campaign material was not promoted or published contrary to subsection (1), and
(b) that the contravention arose from circumstances beyond the person’s control.”
This new clause would ban election materials published in a foreign language by political parties and candidates during the short campaign. It would not ban campaigning in native languages of the British Islands such as in English, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster Scots, Irish, et al. Nor would it prevent campaigning via the likes of BSL or Braille.
New clause 68—Deadlines for proxy vote applications sent by post—
‘(1) In regulation 56 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means.”
(2) In regulation 56 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for a particular parliamentary election is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means”
(3) In regulation 57 (closing date for applications) of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1AA) An application for a proxy vote under paragraph 3(1), (6) or (7), 4(3) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act 2000 for a particular parliamentary election is not to be refused by virtue of paragraph (1) if—
(a) the application was sent by post; and
(b) the registration officer is satisfied on the basis of a postmark or other proof of posting that the application was posted at such time that it would be a reasonable expectation of the applicant that it would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1); and
(c) the application was received before 5 p.m. on the day of the poll at that election.
(1AB) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1AA)(b) whether an application would have been delivered before the time mentioned in paragraph (1), the registration officer must have regard to—
(a) the means of postal delivery used, and
(b) any evidence before the registration officer as to the reasonable expectation for the time of delivery by that means”.’
This new clause would require registration officers to accept postal applications for proxy votes in local and general elections in England and Wales, and in general elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland received after the deadline, where there is proof that the application was sent on time for the deadline.
New clause 69—Cap on donations—
‘(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) insert—
“55A Cap on donations
(1) A permissible donor must not, subject to subsections (3) and (4), directly or indirectly give a donation to a relevant regulated entity that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that permissible donor in the same calendar year, exceeds £1,000,000 “the donations cap”.
(2) “Donations” for the purpose of sections 55A to 55F, has the meaning given in section 50 (donations for the purposes of part iv) but does not apply to—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;
(c) subscriptions paid by industrial and provident societies to a registered party;
(d) donations between registered parties;
(e) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(f) bequests.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection 2(b) are that—
(a) the amounts paid by the union’s members into the union’s political fund as their contribution to the union’s affiliation fee, and the money paid by that union to the registered party as its affiliation fee are the same;
(b) the following information must be provided by the union on all of its membership application forms:
(i) an explanation of what the political fund is and the union’s affiliation to a political party;
(ii) an explanation of how much individual members contribute to the political fund and towards the union’s affiliation fee;
(iii) an explanation of the trade union member’s right at any time to stop contributing to the political fund and the union’s affiliation fee and clear information about how they can do this; and
(iv) an explanation of the fact that if a member stops contributing, their membership subscription will be reduced accordingly; and
(c) the union informs its members annually of the amount they are contributing to the union’s affiliation fee and of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, including how they may do so.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known their donation exceeded the donations cap commits an offence.
55B Prohibition on accepting donations in excess of the cap
(1) A relevant regulated entity must not accept a donation that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that donor, exceeds the donations cap under section 55A.
(2) A relevant person or unincorporated association that contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known that accepting a donation would exceed the donations cap under section 55A commits an offence.
55C Receipts for donations
(1) A relevant regulated entity must, within the period of 30 days beginning with the relevant date, provide the donor with a receipt which states—
(a) the name of the relevant regulated entity, and any unique identifier given to it by the Electoral Commission;
(b) the amount of the donation received;
(c) the amount of the donation accepted or returned; and
(d) the date on which the donation was accepted or returned.
55D Declaration as to compliance with the donations cap
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a relevant regulated entity by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the relevant regulated entity—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating, to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the donation does not exceed the donations cap under section 55A (cap on donations).
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P; and
(c) where relevant, that they have complied with the requirements of section 55F (verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships).
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may by regulations prescribe a form of declaration which may be used for the purposes of this section, and other declarations donors are required to give to a relevant regulated entity by virtue of this Act.
55E Attribution of donations connected with companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) For the purposes of section 55A (cap on donations)—
(a) a donation made by a company or limited liability partnership is to be treated as made by each relevant person connected with that company or limited liability partnership, and
(b) a donation made by a relevant person is to be treated as made by each company or limited liability partnership with which that person is connected.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a company are—
(a) members of the company,
(b) directors of the company,
(c) shareholders of the company, and
(d) persons with significant control over the company within the meaning of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a limited liability partnership are—
(a) members of the limited liability partnership, and
(b) persons with significant control over the limited liability partnership.
(4) This section applies in addition to, and not in place of, any donation made by the relevant person in their own capacity.
(5) This section does not apply to companies with voting shares admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or an EU regulated market within the meaning of section 1173 (minor definitions: general) of the Companies Act 2006.
55F Verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) A company or limited liability partnership must not make a donation until they have verified with their directors, members, shareholders and people with significant control that doing so would not exceed the donations cap.
(2) In section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), leave out from “ascertain)” to the end of the subsection and insert—
(a) the identity of the donor;
(b) whether they are a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation;
(c) whether the donation exceeds the donations cap.
(3) In section 56(2), after "by virtue of section 54(1)" insert—
“or section 55B”
(4) After section 56(2) insert—
56 “(2A) Where subsection (2) applies and only part of a donation exceeds the donation cap, the party may retain the amount that does not exceed the donations cap.”
(5) In section 61(1) (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations), after "other than a permissible donor" insert—
“, or which facilitates or is likely to facilitate a breach of section 55A (cap on donations)”
(6) In section 160 (general interpretation)—
(a) after "“organisation” includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;" insert—
“political fund” means a political fund maintained by a trade union under Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;”
(b) after “registered party” means a party registered under Part II of this Act;” insert—
“relevant regulated entity” means—
(a) a registered party within the meaning of Part II of this Act;
(b) a recognised third party within the meaning of Part VI of this Act;
(c) a regulated donee within the meaning of Schedule 7 of this Act;
(d) a candidate standing for a relevant election within the meaning of section 22(5) of this Act;
(e) an unincorporated association making political contributions within the meaning of Schedule 19A.
“relevant person” for the purposes of subsection 55B(2) means—
(a) in the case of a political party, the Treasurer;
(b) in the case of a recognised third party, the responsible person;
(c) in the case of a regulated donee, that person; and
(d) in the case of a candidate, that person.
() In paragraph 6 of schedule 6 (Donations from impermissible donors), after “section 54(1)(a)” insert—
“or section 55B.”
(8) In Schedule 20, in Table after
Insert—
The purpose of this new clause is to introduce a cap on the amount any individual or organisation can give to a political party, candidate, third party campaigner or regulated donee within a calendar year, together with related offences, through amendment to PPERA 2000.
New clause 70—Limits on campaign expenditure—
“In paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (limits on campaign expenditure)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for "£54,010" substitute "£37,600";
(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for "£1,458,440" substitute "£1,015,100";
(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), for "£216,060" substitute "£150,390";
(d) in sub-paragraph (3)(c), for "£108,030" substitute “£75,000";
(e) in sub-paragraph (4), for "£54,010" substitute “£37,600”.”
This new clause lowers the national campaign spending limits for political parties, in line with recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL).
New clause 71—Cap on donations exceeding £100,000—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 56 (acceptance of return of donations: general) insert—
“56A Cap on donations exceeding £100,000
(1) A registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee or permitted participant must not accept a donation or gift from a person if the value of donations and gifts from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds £100,000.
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to donations between registered parties or where the source of funds for the donation are—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(c) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (4);
(d) subscriptions paid by registered societies under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to a registered party; or
(e) bequests.
(4) The conditions for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) that the total amount contributed by members of a union to its political fund for the purpose of paying that union’s affiliation fee to a registered party is no less than the total affiliation fee paid by that union to the registered party; and
(b) that the trade union has within the previous twelve months provided those members who contribute to the political fund of that union with details of—
(i) the purpose of the political fund;
(ii) any relationship between the union and any political party in receipt of contributions paid from the political fund; and
(iii) the manner in which a member who contributes to the political fund may exercise a right to stop any contribution to the political fund.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the administration of the conditions in subsection (4).
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause would introduce an annual cap of £100,000 on donations for registered parties, recognised third parties, regulated donees, permitted participants or candidates and their agents, with exemptions for certain organisational donations and bequests.
New clause 80—Cap on donations—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors) insert—
“55A Cap on donations
(1) A permissible donor must not, subject to subsections (3) and (4), directly or indirectly give a donation to a relevant regulated entity that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that permissible donor in the same calendar year, exceeds £250,000 “the donations cap”.
(2) “Donations” for the purpose of sections 55A to 55F, has the meaning given in section 50 (donations for the purposes of part iv) but does not apply to—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) affiliation fees paid by a trade union to a registered party that comply with the conditions set out in subsection (3) below;
(c) subscriptions paid by industrial and provident societies to a registered party;
(d) donations between registered parties;
(e) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(f) bequests.
(3) The conditions referred to in subsection 2(b) are that—
(a) the amounts paid by the union’s members into the union’s political fund as their contribution to the union’s affiliation fee, and the money paid by that union to the registered party as its affiliation fee are the same;
(b) the following information must be provided by the union on all of its membership application forms—
(i) an explanation of what the political fund is and the union’s affiliation to a political party;
(ii) an explanation of how much individual members contribute to the political fund and towards the union’s affiliation fee;
(iii) an explanation of the trade union member’s right at any time to stop contributing to the political fund and the union’s affiliation fee and clear information about how they can do this; and
(iv) an explanation of the fact that if a member stops contributing, their membership subscription will be reduced accordingly; and
(c) the union informs its members annually of the amount they are contributing to the union’s affiliation fee and of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund, including how they may do so.
(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known their donation exceeded the donations cap commits an offence.
55B Prohibition on accepting donations in excess of the cap
(1) A relevant regulated entity must not accept a donation that, individually or in aggregate with other donations from that donor, exceeds the donations cap under section 55A.
(2) A relevant person or unincorporated association that contravenes subsection (1) and who knew or ought reasonably to have known that the accepting a donation would exceed the donations cap under section 55A commits an offence.
55C Receipts for donations
(1) A relevant regulated entity must, within the period of 30 days beginning with the relevant date, provide the donor with a receipt which states—
(a) the name of the relevant regulated entity, and any unique identifier given to it by the Electoral Commission;
(b) the amount of the donation received;
(c) the amount of the donation accepted or returned; and
(d) the date on which the donation was accepted or returned.
(2) The relevant date for the purposes of subsection (1) is—
(a) where the donation is accepted, the date of acceptance; or
(b) where the donation is returned, the date of return.
(3) When requested by a relevant regulated entity for the purpose of complying with section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), a donor must provide copies of all receipts received by them within that calendar year.
(4) Donors and relevant regulated entities must retain copies of receipts issued or received under this section for a period of 5 years.
(5) When requested by a relevant regulated entity for the purpose of complying with section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), the Electoral Commission must provide a unique identifier to the relevant regulated entity.
55D Declaration as to compliance with the donations cap
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a relevant regulated entity by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the relevant regulated entity—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating, to the best of the individual's knowledge and belief, the donation does not exceed the donations cap under section 55A (cap on donations).
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P; and
(c) where relevant, that they have complied with the requirements of section 55F (verification by directors, members and persons of significant control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships).
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may by regulations prescribe a form of declaration which may be used for the purposes of this section, and other declarations donors are required to give to a relevant regulated entity by virtue of this Act.
55E Attribution of donations connected with companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) For the purposes of section 55A (cap on donations)—
(a) a donation made by a company or limited liability partnership is to be treated as made by each relevant person connected with that company or limited liability partnership, and
(b) a donation made by a relevant person is to be treated as made by each company or limited liability partnership with which that person is connected.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a company are—
(a) members of the company,
(b) directors of the company,
(c) shareholders of the company, and
(d) persons with significant control over the company within the meaning of Part 21A of the Companies Act 2006.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the relevant persons connected with a limited liability partnership are—
(a) members of the limited liability partnership, and
(b) persons with significant control over the limited liability partnership.
(4) This section applies in addition to, and not in place of, any donation made by the relevant person in their own capacity.
(5) This section does not apply to companies with voting shares admitted to trading on a UK regulated market or an EU regulated market within the meaning of section 1173 (minor definitions: general) of the Companies Act 2006.
55F Verification by directors, members and persons of signification control of political donations by companies and limited liability partnerships
(1) A company or limited liability partnership must not make a donation until they have verified with their directors, members, shareholders and people with significant control that doing so would not exceed the donations cap.
(2) In section 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations: general), leave out from “ascertain)” to the end of the subsection and insert—
(a) the identity of the donor;
(b) whether they are a permissible donor, and (if that appears to be the case) all such details in respect of him as are required by virtue of paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 6 to be given in respect of the donor of a recordable donation;
(c) whether the donation exceeds the donations cap.”
(3) In section 56(2), after "by virtue of section 54(1)" insert—
“or section 55B”
(4) After section 56(2) insert—
56 “(2A) Where subsection (2) applies and only part of a donation exceeds the donation cap, the party may retain the amount that does not exceed the donations cap.”
(5) In section 61(1) (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations), after "other than a permissible donor" insert—
“, or which facilitates or is likely to facilitate a breach of section 55A (cap on donations)”
(6) In section 160 (general interpretation)—
(a) after "“organisation” includes any body corporate and any combination of persons or other unincorporated association;” insert—
““political fund” means a political fund maintained by a trade union under Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992;”
(b) after "registered party" means a party registered under Part II of this Act;" insert—
““relevant regulated entity” means—
(a) a registered party within the meaning of Part II of this Act;
(b) a recognised third party within the meaning of Part VI of this Act;
(c) a regulated donee within the meaning of Schedule 7 of this Act;
(d) a candidate standing for a relevant election within the meaning of section 22(5) of this Act;
(e) an unincorporated association making political contributions within the meaning of Schedule 19A.
“relevant person” for the purposes of subsection 55B(2) means—
(a) in the case of a political party, the Treasurer;
(b) in the case of a recognised third party, the responsible person;
(c) in the case of a regulated donee, that person; and
(d) in the case of a candidate, that person.”
(7) In paragraph 6 of schedule 6 (Donations from impermissible donors), after "section 54(1)(a)" insert—
“" or section 55B".”
(8) In Schedule 20, in Table after
insert—
The purpose of this new clause is to introduce a cap on the amount any individual or organisation can give to a political party, candidate, third party campaigner or regulated donee within a calendar year, together with related offences, through amendment to PPERA 2000.
New clause 81—Removal of requirement to publish candidates’ addresses
“(1) Schedule 1 of RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In rule 6 (nomination of candidates) omit paragraphs (5) and (6).
(3) In rule 14 (publication of statement of persons nominated)—
“(a) In paragraph (2) for “addresses” substitute “a statement of—
“(a) where the candidate’s home address is in the United Kingdom, the constituency or the relevant area within which that address is situated;
(b) where the candidate’s home address is outside the United Kingdom, the country within which that address is situated;”
(b) After paragraph (2) insert—
“(2ZA) In paragraph (2)(a), “relevant area” means—
“(a) in relation to a home address in England—
(i) if the address is within a district for which there is a district council, that district;
(ii) if the address is within a county in which there are no districts with councils, that county;
(iii) if the address is within a London borough, that London borough;
(iv) if the address is within the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples), the City of London;
(v) if the address is within the Isles of Scilly, the Isles of Scilly;
(b) in relation to a home address in Wales—
(i) if the address is within a county, that county;
(ii) if the address is within a county borough, that county borough;
(c) in relation to a home address in Scotland, the local government area in which the address is situated;
(d) in relation to a home address in Northern Ireland, the local government district in which the address is situated.””
(c) Omit paragraph (3A)”
(4) In rule 14A (correction of minor errors) omit subparagraph (2)(c).”
This new clause would remove the requirement for candidates’ addresses to be published, replacing it with a statement of the constituency, relevant area or country outside the UK in which they are resident.
New clause 82—Liability for false statements as to candidates and undue influence on regulated user-to-user services—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) Section 106 (false statements as to candidates) is amended as set out in subsections (3) to (5).
(3) In subsection (1) after “makes” insert “hosts on a regulated user-to-user service”.
(4) After subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged under subsection (1) in connection with the hosting on a regulated user-to-user service if the person is alerted by a person to the presence of any activity on the regulated user-to-user service, or becomes aware of it in any other way, and removes such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.”
(5) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) For the purposes of this section a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).”
(6) Section 114A (undue influence) is amended as set out in subsection (7) to (8).
(7) In subsection (5) after (c) insert—
“(d) on a regulated user-to-user service operated by or on behalf of P”
(8) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) It is a defence for a person charged under subsection (1) in connection with an activity under subsection 5(d) if the person is alerted by a person to the presence of any such activity on the regulated user-to-user service, or becomes aware of it in any other way, and removes such activity as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5) a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).””
This new clause would enable operators of regulated user-to-user services, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023, to be held liable for false statements relating to election candidates and activity amounting to undue influence in elections, if not swiftly removed from the service.
New clause 83—Proposals for regulation of social media during specified elections—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the regulation of content relating to specified elections on regulated user-to-user services during election periods.
(2) The specified elections for the purposes of subsection (1) are—
(a) UK parliamentary elections, and
(b) local government elections in England and Wales.
(3) The election periods for the purpose of subsection (1) are—
(a) in the case of a parliamentary election, the period between the issuance of a writ and the closure of polling, as set out in paragraph 1 (timetable) of schedule 1 of RPA 1983; or
(b) in the case of a local election, the period between the publication of the notice of election and the closure of polling, as set out in schedules 2 (rules for conduct of an election of councillors of a principal area where poll is not taken together with poll at another election) and schedule 3 (rules for conduct of an election of councillors of a principal area where the poll is taken together with the poll at a relevant election or referendum) of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006.
(4) Proposals under subsection (1) must include measures to require regulated user-to-user services to—
(a) have regard to fairness and public confidence in specified elections in relation to the publication and promotion of content on the service; and
(b) remove content that is deliberately false or misleading relating to specified elections as quickly as is reasonably possible.
(5) In preparing proposals under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) The operation of the Online Safety Act 2023 with regard to regulated user-to-user services; and
(b) The operation of section 6 of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code as established by section 319 (OFCOM’s standards code) of the Communications Act 2003 (“the Broadcasting Code”).
(6) In preparing proposals under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission,
(b) Ofcom,
(c) representatives of broadcasters subject to the Broadcasting Code,
(d) representatives of operators of regulated user-to-user services;
(e) representatives of registered political parties; and
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay the proposals before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) For the purposes of this section a “regulated user-to-user service” has the meaning given in subsection 4(4) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (“regulated service”, “part 3 service” etc).”
This new clause would require the Government to bring forward proposals for the regulation of election-related content of regulated user-to-user services, as defined in the Online Safety Act 2023, during parliamentary elections and local Government elections.
New clause 84—Party descriptions in the form of instructions to voters—
“After subparagraph (2)(g) of section 28A of PPERA 2000 (descriptions) insert—
“(h) could be interpreted as an instruction to an elector on how to cast their vote.””
This new clause would prevent a candidate from registering a party description that could be interpreted as an instruction to an elector in how to cast their vote.
New clause 85—Permissible donors not to include overseas voters—
“At the end of subsection 54(2)(a) of PPERA (permissible donors) insert — “and who is not qualified to vote as an overseas elector under section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985”
This new clause would prevent donations being received from overseas voters.
New clause 86—Impermissible donations where donor’s income is not subject to UK tax liability—
“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 54 (permissible donors), subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (aa) (both as inserted by section 9(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 and as substituted by section 10(1) of that Act);
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(ab) the person by whom the donation is to be made is using the Foreign Income and Gains regime to claim tax relief on—
(i) income and gains arising from outside the UK; or
(ii) UK income or gains deemed to be foreign under the qualifying asset holding company rules.””
This new clause would mean that donations could not be accepted by parties if a donor was using the Foreign Income and Gains regime to claim tax relief on foreign income.
New clause 87—Randomised listing of names on ballot papers—
“(1) Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 2, at end insert—
“14 The order of candidate surnames on ballot papers where more than one candidate is to be elected must be listed using a randomised system rather than names being listed alphabetically.””
This new clause would require the order of names on ballot papers for UK Parliamentary elections to be determined and listed using a randomised system.
New clause 88—Proposals for a Royal Commission on political donations and campaign expenditure—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider—
(a) the merits of a cap on political donations, and the level at which such a cap should be set, and
(b) the effectiveness of existing limits on campaign expenditure, including the appropriateness of the time period during which those limits apply.
(2) Any proposals made under this section must specify that the Royal Commission should publish its recommendations for a cap on political donations within twelve months of being established.
(3) Proposals published under this section must include proposals for the Royal Commission’s—
(a) terms of reference,
(b) membership, and
(c) funding.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to put forward proposals to establish a Royal Commission to consider and make recommendations for a cap on political donations, as well as the effectiveness of existing campaign expenditure limits.
New clause 89—Compulsory voting—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of section 17 (registration without an application) of this Act coming into force, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for introducing compulsory duty to vote at UK parliamentary elections and local elections in England for individuals who are registered to vote.
(2) Proposals published under this section relating to compulsory voting must include—
(a) provision for electors to be able to mark an abstention, either through returning a spoilt or blank ballot;
(b) provision for the failure to vote to be punishable through a penalty fine of £10.
(c) provision for certain exemptions to be made for those who are prevented from participating in an election as a , including—
(i) those with a physical or mental incapacity, illness, or disability,
(ii) those who are absent from the UK, and
(iii) those with a sincerely held conscientious or religious belief
(d) provision for pilots of compulsory voting in connection with any pilots undertaken under Section 20 of this Act (power to pilot changes to the voter registration process).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for compulsory voting, including piloting compulsory voting in connection with any pilots of changes to voter registration process.
New clause 91—Declaration of notification requirements for registered sex offenders—
“(1) Schedule 1 to RPA 1983 (parliamentary elections rules) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8 (consent to nomination) insert—
“(8A) Declaration of notification requirements for registered sex offenders
(1) A person convicted and sentenced for a sexual offence or sexual offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 must declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime as part of the nomination process, otherwise that person is not validly nominated.
(2) The declaration must be—
(a) in the prescribed form,
(b) signed by the person, and
(c) delivered at the place and within the time for the delivery of nomination papers.””
This new clause would require sexual offenders who are subject to the notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare this requirement as part of the candidate nomination process.
New clause 92—Permissible donors not to include overseas electors registered for periods exceeding five years—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) An individual who would otherwise fall within subsection (2)(a) is not a permissible donor if that individual—
(a) is currently registered as an overseas elector; and
(b) that registration as an overseas elector has been for a continuous period exceeding five years.
(2B) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985””
This new clause would prevent overseas electors who have been registered as such for more than five years from being a permissible donor.
New clause 93—Impermissible donations and donors—
“(1) After section 54 of PPERA 2000, insert—
“54A Impermissible donations: criminal property and proceeds of crime
(1) A donation received by a registered party or regulated donee, must not be accepted by that recipient if—
(a) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the party or regulated donee knows or ought reasonably to have known that the donation constitutes “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act, or
(b) the donation derives from money or other benefit where there is a reasonable suspicion that it comes from the proceeds of crime.
(2) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the candidate or his election agent knows, or ought reasonably to have known that the donation constitutes “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act.”
(3) After subsection Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA 2000 insert—
“(2A) A person who would otherwise fall under section 54(2) is not a permissible donor if their donation derives directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and which was provided with a view to the making of the donation.”
(4) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
“(c) the donation derives directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom, and not registered in an electoral register, and which was provided with a view to the making of the donation.”
(5) After section 54A of PPERA 2000 (declaration as to source of donation) insert—
“54AA Declaration as to source of a donation or loan: criminal property and proceeds of crime
(1) Where a person (P) causes an amount to be received by a registered party by way of a donation, a written declaration must be given to the party—
(a) by P, if P is an individual, or
(b) if not, by an individual authorised by P to make the declaration,
stating that the donation or loan, to the best of the individual’s knowledge and belief, meets the criteria set out in subsection (2).
(2) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that the donation does not constitute “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that the donation does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation.
(3) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made and, where subsection (1)(b) applies—
(a) state that the person is authorised by P to make the declaration;
(b) describe the person's role or position in relation to P.
(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence subject to the same sanction as an offence under section 54A (declaration as to the source of a donation).”
(6) After subsection 56(1) (acceptance or return of donations) of PPERA 2000, insert—
“(1A) The duty in subsection (1) shall include a duty to take all reasonable steps to verify that—
(a) the donation does not derive directly or indirectly from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation or loan; and
(b) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the donation does not constitute “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act.
(1B) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Electoral Commission, make regulations exercisable by statutory instrument providing what the duty in subsection (1), to take all reasonable steps, requires.
(1C) Any regulations made under subsection (1B) may contain such incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may make different provision for different cases.
(1D) Regulations to which subsection (1B) applies are not to be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”””
This new clause prevents donations to parties and candidates where the donation derives from the proceeds of crime or is provided by a person who is not resident in the UK and is not registered on the electoral register, and creates related declarations and verification requirements.
New clause 94—Government proposals to require declarations as to the source of a donation: money derived from cryptocurrency—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals to require—
(a) any person who causes a donation, loan, or other regulated transaction to be received by a political party to make a declaration that they have not converted cryptocurrency into fiat currency for the purposes of avoiding the restrictions of section 55A (cryptoassets) of PPERA 2000; and
(b) for any donation not accompanied by such a declaration to be returned to the donor.”
This new clause is intended to require the Government to bring forward proposals to require people who donate to registered parties to declare that they have not converted money from cryptocurrency to fiat currency to avoid the restrictions.
New clause 95—Acceptance of regulated transactions—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 71G (valuation of regulated transactions) insert—
“71GAA Conditions for being a party to a regulated transaction
(1) A registered political party or other regulated donee must not be party to a regulated transaction if—
(a) without prejudice to Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), the party or regulated donee knows or ought reasonably to have known that the financing of the regulated transaction is through the use of “criminal property” within the meaning of section 340 of the 2002 Act, or
(b) the financing of the regulated transaction derives from money or other benefit where there is a reasonable suspicion that it comes from the proceeds of crime.
(c) that the financing of the regulated transaction does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to providing finance for the transaction.”
(3) After section 71HZA (declaration that residence etc condition is satisfied) insert—
“71HZB Declaration regarding the source of finance for regulated transactions
(1) A registered party or regulated donee must not be party to a regulated transaction unless they have received a written declaration from the other party to the transaction where that party is an individual stating that to the best of the individual’s knowledge and belief, that the transaction meets the criteria set out in subsection (2).
(2) The criteria in this subsection are—
(a) that the financing of the regulated transaction does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit that constitutes "criminal property" within the meaning of section 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and
(b) that the donation does not directly or indirectly derive from money or other benefit provided by a person who is resident outside the United Kingdom and not registered in an electoral register, and was provided with a view to the making of the donation.
(3) A declaration under this section must also state the full name and address of the person by whom it is made.
(4) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence subject to the same sanction as an offence under section 54A (declaration as to the source of a donation).””
This new clause prevents loans being provided to registered parties and regulated donees where the financing of the transaction derives from the proceeds of crime or is provided by a person who is not resident in the UK and is not registered on the electoral register, and creates related declarations.
New clause 96—Permissible electors to include overseas electors with previous tax residence etc—
“(1) Section 54 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (permissible donors) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a), at the end insert “(but this is subject to subsection (2ZA))”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) An individual registered in an electoral register who at the date of a donation qualifies as an overseas elector in respect of a constituency is only a permissible donor for the purposes of this Part if—
(a) the individual was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes,
(b) the individual has a Unique Taxpayer Reference, and
(c) the individual holds, and has held for at least the past 12 months, sufficient funds that may be charged to tax in the United Kingdom that are at least equivalent to the value of the donation.
(2ZB) For the purposes of subsection (2ZA)—
(a) whether a person qualifies as an overseas elector is to be determined in accordance with section 1A of the Representation of the People Act 1985;
(b) whether a person was at any time resident in the UK for tax purposes is to be determined in accordance with Schedule 45 to the Finance Act 2013.””
This new clause limits permissible donors who are overseas electors to those who have previously been resident in the UK for tax purposes, have a Unique Taxpayer Reference and holds funds that may be taxed in the UK which have a value of at least the amount to be donated.
New clause 97—Power of Electoral Commission to require disclosure from financial institutions—
“In Schedule 19B of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (investigatory powers of Commission), after paragraph 1 insert—
“Power to require disclosure from financial institutions
1A(1) The Commission may give a disclosure notice to a financial institution requiring the institution—
(a) to produce, for inspection by the Commission or a person authorised by the Commission, any documents which—
(i) relate to the income and expenditure of an organisation or individual to which paragraph 1 applies, and
(ii) are reasonably required by the Commission for the purposes of carrying out their functions; or
(b) to provide the Commission, or a person authorised by the Commission, with any information or explanation which relates to that income and expenditure and is reasonably required by the Commission for those purposes.
(2) A financial institution to whom a disclosure notice is given shall comply with it within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice.
(3) In this paragraph, “financial institution” has the same meaning as in Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (see paragraph 6 of that Schedule).””
This new clause gives the Electoral Commission the power to require information from a financial institution relating to the income and expenditure of political parties and associated individuals.
New clause 98—Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009—
“(1) By 1 July 2027, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in section 43(1) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 to bring into force section 9(2) of that Act (declaration as to source of donation).
(2) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to exercise the power to commence section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 which inserts section 54A into the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which requires declarations to be provided as to the source of donations.
New clause 99—Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 39 (false statements: offence), in subsection (1), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(3) In section 44 (supplementary provisions about auditors), in subsection (4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(4) In section 54A (declaration as to source of donation), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(5) In section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied), in subsection (3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(6) In section 66 (declaration by treasurer in donation report), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(7) In section 71T (declaration by treasurer in transaction report), in subsection (5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(8) In section 73 (notional campaign expenditure), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(9) In section 83 (declaration by treasurer as to return relating to campaign expenditure), in subsection (3)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(10) In section 86 (notional controlled expenditure), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(11) In section 94F (authorised expenditure in excess of targeted expenditure limit), in subsection (6), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(12) In section 95C (related offences), in subsection (2), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(13) In section 99 (declaration by responsible person as to return as to controlled expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(14) In section 99A (declaration by responsible person as to statement of accounts), in subsection (3)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(15) In section 112 (notional referendum expenses), in subsection (8), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(16) In section 123 (declaration of responsible person as to return relating to referendum expenditure), in subsection (4)(a), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(17) In Schedule 7 (control of donations to individuals and members associations)—
(a) In paragraph 6A(5), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”;
(b) In paragraph 6B(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”;
(c) In paragraph 13(4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(18) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations, in paragraph 13(4), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(19) In Schedule 19A (reports of gifts received by unincorporated associations making political contributions), in paragraph 6(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.
(20) In Schedule 19B (investigatory powers of Commission), in paragraph 13(3), for “knowingly or recklessly makes” substitute “knows or suspects, or has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting, that he is making”.”
This new clause reduces the threshold for certain offences in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so that where false statements or declarations are made in relation to election expenses, an offence is committed if the person has reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting that they are doing so.
New clause 100—Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount—
“In section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (declaration as to source of donation)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “£7,500” substitute “the specified amount”;
(b) in subsection (2)(B), for “£7,500” substitute “the specified amount”;
(c) after subsection (2), insert—
“(2A) In this section, the specified amount is—
(a) where subsection (2) applies and, to the best of the knowledge or belief of the individual giving the written declaration under subsection (1), the person other than P is not a permissible donor, £500;
(b) in all other circumstances, £7,500.””
This new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration as to its source (rather than the current minimum of £7,500) if the source is not a permissible donor.
New clause 101—Penalties for false declarations—
“(1) Schedule 20 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (penalties) is amended as follows.
(2) In the entry for section 54A(5) (making a false declaration as to source of donation), in the second column, for “1 year” substitute “3 years”.
(3) In the entry for section 83(3)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for “1 year” substitute “3 years”.
(4) In the entry for section 123(4)(a) (making a false declaration to Commission when delivering return), in the second column, for “1 year” substitute “3 years”.”
This new clause raises the maximum penalties for submitting false declarations from 1 year’s imprisonment upon conviction on indictment to 3 years’ imprisonment upon conviction on indictment.
New clause 102—Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding—
“(1) The Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) must each produce and publish an annual report about—
(a) the risk of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations, and
(b) the adequacy of any systems designed to address risks of foreign interference in relation to controlled donations.
(2) The Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) must send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament.
(3) In this section—
“controlled donation” means—
(a) a donation to a registered party, individual or members association that is subject to Part 4 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and
(b) a donation to a candidate or their agent that is subject to Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983;
“foreign interference” includes the commission of a relevant electoral offence to which section 16 of the National Security Act 2023 applies (foreign interference in elections).”
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission and the National Police Service (once established) to make annual reports about the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.
New clause 103—Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After section 54 (permissible donors to registered parties) insert—
“54A Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
(1) A donation received by a registered party by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the party must not be accepted by the party unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this section, section 52(2)(a) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this section;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a registered party;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the registered party;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(3) In Schedule 7 (controls on donations to individuals and members associations), after paragraph 6 insert—
“Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
6ZA (1) A controlled donation received by a regulated donee by way of a transfer of cryptoassets to the donee must not be accepted by the donee unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(3)(b) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a regulated donee;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the regulated donee;
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this paragraph, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(4) In the Representation of the People Act 1983 in Schedule 2A (controls on donations to candidates), after paragraph 6 insert—
“Controls on accepting donations in form of cryptoassets
6A (1) A relevant donation received by a candidate or his election agent by way of a transfer of cryptoassets must not be accepted unless the donation meets requirements specified in regulations made by the Commission.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, paragraph 4(2) (minimum donation to be disregarded) does not apply.
(3) Regulations made by the Commission may include requirements relating to—
(a) the identity of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(b) the nationality and country of residence of the holder of the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent;
(c) the value of a donation that is to be disregarded for the purposes of this paragraph;
(d) the maximum value of the cryptoassets that may be donated to a candidate or agent;
(e) the original source of the funds that were transferred into the cryptoassets donated to the candidate or agent (including information relating to any transactions between the original source of the funds and the transfer of those funds into the cryptoassets);
(f) any other matter that the Commission considers appropriate for the purpose of improving the transparency of donations made by way of a transfer of cryptoassets.
(4) In this section, “cryptoasset” means a cryptographically secured digital representation of value or contractual rights that uses a form of distributed ledger technology and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the definition of "cryptoasset" in subsection (4).
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (5) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed (and section 80 is to be construed accordingly).”
This new clause introduces controls on donations made by way of transfers of cryptoassets to registered political parties, regulated individuals and associations linked to political parties, electoral candidates and their agents. The new clause prevents such donations from being accepted unless the donation or transfer complies with requirements set out in regulations made by the Electoral Commission. This will operate to prohibit such donations until such time as the Commission has made such regulations in order to control cryptoasset donations.
New clause 104—Electoral Commission: Education of young people about electoral information—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After Section (13A) insert—
“13ZA Education of young people about electoral information and media literacy.
(1) The Commission shall promote awareness among people under the current age of registration to vote of—
(a) access to independent and impartial information relating to elections;
(b) media literacy, as set out in section 11(1) (duties to promote media literacy) of the Communications Act 2003; and;
(c) disinformation and misinformation relating to elections, including information generated using artificial intelligence.
(2) The Commission shall perform their functions under subsection (1) in such manner as they think fit but may, in particular, do so by carrying out programmes of education or information to promote awareness of any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).””
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to promote access to information relating to elections and media literacy to young people to support the recognition of partisan information and mis- and disinformation, including content generated by AI.
New clause 105—False statements as to candidates: deepfakes—
“In section 106 (false statements as to candidates) of the RPA 1983, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), making or publishing any electronic communication, including moving images and images incorporating text, that has been generated using artificial intelligence deepfake technology which includes an impersonation of a candidate that depicts the candidate saying or doing something that did not occur commits an offence unless the conditions in subsection (1B) are met.
(1B) The conditions in this subsection are—
(a) any reasonable person would recognise the content of the communication as, parody, caricature or artistic expression; or,
(b) the communication is clearly and prominently identified as fictional, altered or artificially generated.””
This new clause would mean that publishing or making AI generated deep fakes is included in the meaning of “making or publishing any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate” for the purpose of the offence of making a false statement as to a candidate.
New clause 106—Removal of right to vote from Commonwealth citizens—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In section 1 (parliamentary electors), in subsection (1)(c) for “Commonwealth” substitute “British”.
(3) In section 2 (local government electors) for subsection (1)(c) substitute—
“(c) is a British citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland; and”
(4) In section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government electors)
(a) in subsection (1)(c) for “Commonwealth” substitute “British”,
(b) for subsection (3)(c) substitute—
“is a British citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland”,
(c) in subsection (6) omit the words from “Commonwealth” to “such leave”.”
This new clause would remove the right of Commonwealth citizens who are not British citizens to vote in parliamentary elections and in local government elections in England and Wales.
New clause 108—Limitations on postal voting—
“(1) The Elections Act 2022 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 2 (power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters) insert—
“2A Postal voting entitlement restricted to serving members of the armed forces and those unable to vote in person
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no person is entitled to vote by post at a parliamentary or local government election unless the person is a serving member of the armed forces of the Crown or unable to vote in person.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “serving member of the armed forces of the Crown” means a person who—
(a) is a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces (within the meaning given by section 59(1) of this Act), and
(b) is serving with the armed forces on the date of the poll.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the form of declaration or evidence required to establish entitlement under this section.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe the categories of persons who are unable to vote in person.””
This new clause would limit postal voting to serving members of the armed forces and other persons who are unable to vote in person.
New clause 109—Protection against controlling and coercive in-person voting—
“(1) Section 62C of RPA 1983 (influencing voters at polling booths) is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) The presiding officer or a representative of the presiding officer may require that persons, who appear to have arrived at the polling station together, or who are otherwise associating with each other, enter the polling station and cast their votes one at a time in order to ensure that there is no undue influence.
(7) The presiding officer or a representative of the presiding officer may speak to any voter to determine, in general terms, the voter’s ability to understand—
(a) the voting process; and
(b) the English or Welsh language.
(8) If the presiding officer or representative has concerns over the voter’s ability to understand either matter referred to in subsection (7), the presiding officer shall—
(a) place the ballot paper aside, mark it as belonging to the voter, and it shall not be counted; and
(b) inform the voter that the vote has been set aside and of the right of appeal under subsection (9).
(9) The person whose vote has been set aside under subsection (8) may appeal to the magistrates’ court (or, in Scotland, the sheriff court) for an order that the vote be counted, and such an appeal must be made no later than 48 hours after the close of the poll and the court shall list the matter within 48 hours.
(10) A person who does not comply with the requirement of a presiding officer or representative under subsection (6) is guilty of an offence under this section and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months (or both).””
This new clause would allow presiding officers or their representatives to require voters to vote separately and to set aside votes from voters where there are concerns about their ability to understand the voting process or language.
New clause 110—Election expenses for parliamentary by-elections—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) In section 90ZA (meaning of “election expenses”)—
(a) In subsection (4), after “expenses” insert “other than for a parliamentary by-election”
(b) After subsection (4), insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, election expenses in connection with a parliamentary by-election are incurred by or on behalf of a candidate at an election if they are incurred—
(a) by the candidate or his election agent,
(b) by any person authorised by the candidate or his election agent to incur expenses, or
(c) by a registered political party in the name of which the candidate has been nominated, for the purposes set out in subsection (4B)
(4B) The conditions in this subsection are that they relate to—
(a) a candidate;
(b) the constituency in which the election is taking place; or
(c) the by-election;
and are intended to influence electors in the constituency in which the election is taking place.””
This new clause would ensure that national party expenditure directed at promoting a candidate or campaign in a parliamentary by-election counts towards the candidate's spending limit, preventing national party campaign activity from circumventing constituency campaign spending limits.
New clause 111—Cap on donations of more than £5,000 a year from a single individual to parties and candidates—
“(1) After section 56 (acceptance or return of donations: general) of PPERA 2000 insert—
“56A Cap on donations
(1) A registered party must not accept a donation or gift from an individual registered in an electoral register if the value of donations and gifts from that person during the course of the year to any one recipient exceeds £5,000.
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) In paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983, after subparagraph (b) insert—
(a) the person by whom the donation would be made would have made a donation or donations to the candidate or his election agent over the course of the year which exceed £5,000 unless the donation is made by the candidate to themselves.””
This new clause will prevent donations in one calendar year from a single donor to a single candidate or individual party that exceed a total of £5,000.
New clause 112—Ban on donations from companies—
“(1) In section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA 2000, omit subsection (2)(b).
(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make further provision to prevent regulated donees from accepting donations from companies.
(3) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) registered political parties,
(b) the Electoral Commission, and
(c) any other persons who the Secretary of State thinks necessary.
(4) Any regulations made under this section must be made under the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause prevents companies from donating to political parties, and requires the Government to bring forward regulations to prevent companies from donating to other regulated donees.
New clause 118—Education about electoral and democratic systems in schools—
(1) Section 13 of PPERA 2000 (education about electoral and democratic systems) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1B) The Commission shall carry out programmes of education to promote awareness of children aged 13 and over of current electoral systems in the United Kingdom and any pending such systems.
(1C) Programmes under subsection (1B) must include—
(a) information to enable them to register and vote as soon as they become eligible to do so;
(b) media literacy, as set out in section 11(1) (duties to promote media literacy) of the Communications Act 2003;
(c) political confidence and electoral participation among disadvantaged groups, including—
(i) girls and young women;
(ii) people from lower socio-economic backgrounds,
(iii) ethnic minority groups,
(iv) disabled people; and
(v) any other groups facing barriers to political and electoral participation identified by the Commission;
(d) such matters connected with any such existing or pending systems as the Commission may determine.
(1D) The Commission shall carry out programmes of teacher training and continuing professional development for the purposes of providing programmes under subsection (1B).”
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (1B), a system is “pending” when arrangements for giving effect to it have been made by any enactment but the arrangements are not yet in force.””
This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to carry out education programmes for young people ahead of being eligible to vote, and training for educators on providing such information.
New clause 119—Election material only in languages native to the British Isles—
“(1) RPA 1983 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 110 (details to appear on election publications) insert—
“110ZA Election publications to be in languages native to the British Isles only
(1) A person shall not print or publish, or cause to be printed or published, any bill, placard, poster or printed document to which section 110(1) of this Act applies unless the material is in English, Welsh, a language native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats.
(2) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(3) In the case of a candidate or election agent, a contravention of subsection (1) is an illegal practice.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
“accessible communications format” means a format which enables a person with a disability to access the information concerned as feasibly and comfortably as a person who does not have that disability,
“language native to the British Isles” means a language specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
(3) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (4) below.
(4) After section 143 (details to appear on election material) insert—
“143ZA Election material to be in languages native to the British Isles only
(1) No election material shall be published unless the material is in English, Welsh, a language native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) commits an offence.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction—
(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine or to both;
(b) in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.
(4) In the case of a registered party or its officers, a contravention of subsection (1) is an illegal practice.
(5) In this section—
“election material” has the meaning given by section 143ZA(1) of this Act),
“accessible communications format” means a format which enables a person with a disability to access the information concerned as feasibly and comfortably as a person who does not have that disability,
“language native to the British Isles” means a language specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””
This new clause would require election material to be published only in English, Welsh, languages native to the British Isles or accessible communication formats such as Braille or BSL.
New clause 120—Donation cap on UK-based donors—
“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as set out in subsection (2).
(2) After section 56 (acceptance of return of donations: general) insert—
“56A Cap on donations
(1) A registered party, recognised third party, regulated donee, or permitted participant must not accept a donation or gift from a person if the value of donations and gifts from that person, during the course of that calendar year exceeds the limit set out in subsection (5).
(2) Where a donation is received which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to donations between registered parties or where the source of funds for the donation are—
(a) public funds within the meaning of section 55(2);
(b) exempt trusts within the meaning of section 162(2);
(c) a trade union’s political funds, subject to the conditions set out in subsection (4);
(d) subscriptions paid by registered societies under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to a registered party; or
(e) bequests.
(4) The conditions for the purposes of subsection (3)(c) are—
(a) that the total amount contributed by members of a union to its political fund during a calendar year is no less than the total donations made by that union during the same year; and
(b) that the trade union is taking all reasonable steps to comply with Chapter VI of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
(5) The limit for the purposes of subsection (1) is—
(a) for the calendar year in which this Act is passed, £500,000;
(b) for the calendar year following the passage of this Act, £100,000; and
(c) for the second and each subsequent calendar year following the passage of this Act, an amount specified by regulations made under subsection (6).
(6) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify a limit for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) within two years of the passage of this Act.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations vary the limit for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) and (5)(b).
(8) Regulations under subsection (6) or (7) must provide a limit for the purposes of subsection (1) at an amount the Secretary of State considers appropriate which does not exceed £500,000.
(9) In considering the level of the limit for the purposes of subsection (8) the Secretary of State must commission and have regard to advice from the Electoral Commission.
(10) Regulations under subsection (6) and (7) may provide for—
(a) requirements to make declarations, reports, and to create and keep records and receipts;
(b) anti-evasion provisions, including the aggregation of donations made by individuals connected to unincorporated associations and legal entities also making donations; and
(c) the amendment, repeal or revocation of any enactment, including provisions within this Act and other electoral legislation, where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of this section.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””
This new clause would ensure an immediate donations cap of £500,000, decreasing to £100,000 in the second calendar year, and requiring the Secretary of State during this time to set an appropriate permanent donations cap by regulations.
New clause 121—Requirement for Electoral Commission recommendation to vary specified sums or percentages—
“(1) Section 155 of PPERA 2000 (Power to vary specified sums or percentages) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) The Secretary of State may make an order under subsection (1) only if the order gives effect to a recommendation made by the Electoral Commission.
(1C) The Electoral Commission must make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (1B) at least once every five years.
(1D) In making a recommendation under subsection (1C), the Electoral Commission must have regard to—
(a) the fairness of elections,
(b) the effect on political parties, and
(c) public confidence in the integrity of elections.”
(3) Omit subsections (2) to (4).”
This new clause would require changes to specified sums or percentages specified in PPERA 2000 to be based on a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which would be required to review those amounts at least once every five years.
New clause 122—Equality impact assessment prior to extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out an equality impact assessment of the proposed extension of the franchise in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.
(2) The Secretary of State must within nine months lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) the equality impact assessment required by subsection (1); and
(b) a report setting out the Government’s formal response to the equality impact assessment.
(3) The Secretary of State may not bring Part 1 of this Act into force until the report specified in subsection (2)(b) has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause is connected to Amendment 152 and facilitates a debate on the equality impact of the proposed General Election franchise change on young people in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK.
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“the age at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which an offence is not committed by selling them alcohol.
Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“the age at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which they may enter into a marriage.
Amendment 56, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “16” and insert
“full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”.
This amendment would link the age at which a person is eligible to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election to the age at which they attain the age of majority, including for the purposes of obtaining a mortgage or owning property.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“the age at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 50, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“the age at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 57, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out “16 years” and insert
“full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”;
(b) in paragraph (3) for “of 18 years” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 51, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”
(b) in paragraph 3 for “of 18 years” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 58, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in paragraph 2 for “the age of 18 years”, in both places it occurs, substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”
(b) in paragraph (3) for “the age of 18 years” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “of eighteen” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “of eighteen” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949”
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 59, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsections (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) in subsection (1)(d), for “eighteen” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969”
(b) in subsection (4), for “of eighteen years” substitute “full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969””.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘of 18’ substitute ‘at which a person may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 53, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘of 18’ substitute ‘at which a person may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 60, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, leave out “for ’18’ substitute ‘16’” and insert
“for ‘the age of 18’ substitute ‘full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘the age at which they may be sold alcohol under section 146(1) (sale of alcohol to children) of the Licensing Act 2003, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 54, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘the age at which they may enter into a marriage under section 2 (marriages of persons under eighteen) of the Marriage Act 1949, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 61, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out from “for” to end and insert
“‘aged 18 or over, or the date of his or her 18th birthday is’ substitute ‘full age as set out in section 1 (reduction of age of majority from 21 to 18) of the Family Law Reform Act 1969, or over, or shall reach that age’”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Government amendments 138 and 139.
Amendment 29, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(1A) A registration officer must register a person who is not, for the purposes of section 4 (entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector) of this Act, resident at any address in the United Kingdom, in a relevant register maintained by the officer if—
(a) the officer is aware of the person’s name and date of birth,
(b) the officer is aware that the person is a homeless person,
(c) the officer is aware of a local connection as set out in section (7B) (notional residence: declarations of local connection) of this Act,
(d) the person is not registered in the register,
(e) the person appears to the officer to be of voting age and entitled to be registered in the register,
(f) the officer has given the person a notice in accordance with section 12B (1) in relation to the register,and
(g) either (or both) of the following applies—
(i) the response period specified in the notice (in accordance with section 12B(3)(d)) has ended;
(ii) during that period, the person confirmed to the officer that the person wishes to be registered in the register under this section.”
This amendment would create a duty on registration officers to automatically register people who are homeless and are otherwise eligible to be registered.
Government amendments 140 and 141.
Amendment 13, page 44, line 26, leave out clause 35.
Amendment 4, in clause 41, page 50, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) After rule 6 insert—
“Enhanced disclosure and barring service check declaration
6AA (1) A person is not validly nominated unless the person makes a declaration that they assent to undertake an enhanced DBS check and obtain an enhanced DBS certificate if elected.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations which make necessary provision for the designation of an organisation from which the DBS check under paragraph 1 must be obtained.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament draft regulations under paragraph 2 before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which the Representation of the People Act 2026 is passed.
(4) For the purposes of this rule, “enhanced DBS check” means an enhanced check with the Disclosure and Barring Service for the purposes of Part V of the Police Act 1997.””
This amendment would require candidates in a parliamentary election to agree to undertake and fund an enhanced DBS check if elected, to be obtained from an organisation to be designated by the Secretary of State.
Government amendment 63.
Amendment 2, page 60, line 1, leave out clause 47.
This amendment is linked to NC14.
Government amendments 64 to 68.
Amendment 31, in clause 58, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) the source and origin of the funds with which the donation was made,
(db) any connections that the person from whom the donation is received has to high-risk jurisdictions and politically exposed persons, and”.
This amendment will require a party to take into account the source of the funds with which the donation was made and any links the donor has to high-risk jurisdictions and politically exposed persons when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58.
Amendment 132, in clause 58, page 69, line 6, at end insert—
“(da) whether the donor, or a person connected with the donor, has at any time been convicted of an offence involving fraud, dishonesty, bribery, corruption or money laundering (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere),
(db) the extent to which the donation, or the funds used to make it, derive from or have passed through a person connected with the donor as mentioned in paragraph (da),”.
Amendment 33, in clause 58, page 69, line 8, leave out “the party” and insert “a reasonable person”.
This amendment would require a party to take into account any other risk factor that a “reasonable person” rather than “the party” considers to be relevant when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58.
Amendment 34, in clause 58, page 69, line 10, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 13 and insert
“only if the regulations would give effect to a recommendation of the Commission.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could only by regulation amend the risk factors that must be considered by parties when carrying out a risk assessment under section 58 if doing so gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission.
Amendment 133, in clause 58, page 69, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(da) and (db), a person is "connected with" the donor if—
(a) they are the donor's spouse, civil partner, parent, child or sibling;
(b) they are a person with significant control over the donor (within the meaning of section 54E or54F); or
(c) they have, directly or indirectly, provided or arranged any part of the funds used to make the donation.
(2B) A conviction is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (2)(da) if it is spent for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, unless the sentence imposed exceeded four years.”
Amendment 32, in clause 58, page 69, line 31, at end insert—
“(f) the definition of “high-risk jurisdictions” for the purposes of subsection 54C(2).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 31 and would require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance on the definition of a “high-risk jurisdiction”.
Government amendments 142 and 69.
Amendment 14, in clause 60, page 73, line 6, leave out
“set out in subsections (2) to (6)”
and insert “follows”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
Amendment 15, in clause 60, page 73, line 7, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
“(2) In section 54 (permissible donors) omit subsections (2)(b) and (2)(f)”.
This amendment would prohibit the acceptance of corporate donations by registered political parties.
Government amendment 70.
Amendment 134, in clause 60, page 73, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the person has nominated a director or partner who is to be personally responsible for ensuring the donation is made in accordance with the requirements of this Part.”
This amendment provides that for donors from corporate bodies to be permissible they must nominate a director or partner who is responsible for compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations.
Amendment 135, in clause 60, page 74, line 2, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 54D (inserted by section 58 of this Act) insert—
“54ZE Criminal liability of nominated director or partner to follow requirements
(1) A director or partner nominated by virtue of section 54(3ZA)(c) commits an offence if without reasonable excuse they cause or permit a breach of any requirement imposed under this Part.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to a fine not exceeding £500,000, or to both.””
This amendment provides that the director or partner who has been nominated to be responsible for ensuring compliance with the legal requirements relating to donations commits an offence is they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.
Government amendments 71 to 76.
Amendment 151, in clause 60, page 78, line 1, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
“(3A) The amount of the person’s remaining available profits at the time of the donation’s receipt by the party is calculated as follows—
Step 1 Add together the person’s profit for each financial year within the relevant period to give “the step 1 total”.
Step 2 Divide the step 1 total by the number of relevant financial years to give “the step 2 total”.
Step 3 Then deduct from the step 2 total the value of each relevant benefit (if any) that has already accrued to the party from the person in the calendar year in which the donation is received.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the amount of the person’s remaining available profits shall not include any profits of any connected persons.
(3C) For the purposes of this section “connected persons” has the meaning given in section 1122 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (“connected” persons).”
This amendment would require the calculation of remaining available profits of a company or LLP to exclude any subsidiaries and be calculated on the average of the relevant financial years.
Government amendments 77 and 78.
Amendment 136, in clause 60, page 78, line 9, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Government amendments 79 to 81.
Amendment 137, in clause 60, page 78, line 23, after “party” insert
“, any other party, regulated donee (within the meaning of Schedule 7) or candidate (see Schedule 2A to the Representation of the People Act 1983)”.
This amendment would ensure that the amount a company or limited liability partnership can donate to a party must take into account any donations it has already made to other parties, regulated donees (which includes members of parties, members associations and holders of elective offices) or electoral candidates.
Government amendments 82 to 84, 28 and 86 to 99.
Amendment 1, in clause 73, page 94, line 26, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.
Government amendments 143 to 145.
Amendment 30, in clause 82, page 102, line 11, leave from “appoint” to the end of line 39 and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State must consult with the Parliamentary Parties Panel established under section 4 (parliamentary parties panel) of PPERA 2000 before commencing any provision in this Act.”
This amendment would prevent the Act from coming into force until the Secretary of State had consulted the Parliamentary Parties Panel.
Amendment 152, in clause 82, page 102, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) Part 1 of this Act comes into force once the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses as required under section (Equality impact assessment prior to extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK).”
This amendment, together with NC122, would require the Secretary of State to produce a report in response to an equality assessment on extending the franchise to younger voters in the UK.
Amendment 5, in clause 82, page 102, line 29, at end insert—
“(ga) section 41(3A) (enhanced disclosure and barring service check declaration)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Government amendments 100 and 146.
Amendment 3, in clause 82, page 102, line 31, at end insert—
“(ha) section [Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC19.
Government new schedule 1—Donations in cryptoassets: transitional provision.
Government new schedule 2—Regulated transactions involving cryptoassets.
Government new schedule 5—Loans etc to registered parties by companies and LLPs.
Government new schedule 6—Meaning of “donation”.
Government new schedule 7—Cap on donations to registered parties by overseas contributors: application and transitional provision.
Government new schedule 8—Cap on loans etc to registered parties by overseas contributors.
Government amendments 147 to 150 and 101 to 122.
Amendment 35, in schedule 8, page 158, line 40, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 36 to 39, would require a risk assessment to take place for donations that exceed more than £7,500 to a recognised third party.
Amendment 36, page 159, line 6, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 37, page 159, line 14, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 38, page 159, line 17, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 39, page 159, line 27, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£7,500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 35.
Amendment 40, page 164, line 36, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
This amendment, together with amendments 41 and 43, lowers the threshold at which donations to candidates at elections must undertake a risk assessment.
Amendment 41, page 164, line 39, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 40.
Amendment 43, page 164, line 40, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£2,230”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 40.
Amendment 44, page 167, line 10, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
This amendment together with Amendments 45 to 48, lowers the threshold at which donations to accredited campaigners in recall petitions must undertake a risk assessment.
Amendment 45, page 167, line 18, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, page 167, line 27, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, page 167, line 30, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 48, page 167, line 41, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Government amendments 123 to 131.
Amendment 12, title, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age at which a person may be sold alcohol in licenced premises”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 6.
Amendment 55, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age at which a person may enter into a marriage”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 49.
Amendment 62, line 1, leave out
“extending the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds”
and insert
“linking the right to vote to the age of majority”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 56.
Florence Eshalomi
The Representation of the People Bill is central to our plan for fixing politics. Every one of us in this House has a responsibility to show the value of participating in our elections, but the reality is that too many people have lost faith in politics, and we must address the reasons for that. At the heart of this must come measures to reassure the public that the elections they are voting in are fair and free from foreign interference. We must stand against the unprecedented tide of abuse faced by those who put themselves forward to represent their communities.
The Bill will secure our elections against those who threaten them, protect those who participate, ensure that our democracy remains open and accessible to legitimate voters, and strengthen, preserve and modernise our elections for the next generation. It delivers our 2025 strategy for modern and secure elections. It takes forward the recommendations of the Rycroft review and meets our manifesto commitments. It sets the foundations for elections that are fairer and a democracy that is stronger.
Before I speak to the Government amendments tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, I thank those who participated in the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for her tireless work in getting the Bill to this stage.
Cryptoassets have come up in our debates. Cryptoasset transactions create a new and clear route for untraceable money to enter our politics. These Government amendments therefore propose a ban on political donations made in cryptoassets, in line with the recommendations in the Rycroft review. The ban applies to donations of all values. The specific risk associated with foreign interference and crypto donations is not the same as the risk associated with donations made by bank transfers.
The ban will apply retrospectively. Any donations made in cryptoassets from 25 March 2026 must be returned within 30 days following the commencement of these provisions. This is to prevent malign actors taking advantage of the advance notice of the ban. If recipients fail to comply, they risk enforcement action and, potentially, criminal liability. The Government intend to end the ban once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are satisfied that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance from foreign interference. Ending the ban will therefore require further legislation.
We are also amending the definition of “donation” to include arrangements in which a property is used to pay for the expenses of a recipient.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I offer my warmest congratulations to her on her appointment to the role; she will be a brilliant Minister. She will know that many in this House welcome the update to the legislation proposed by Ministers to ban cryptoassets, but she will also know that the measures that have been proposed by His Majesty’s Government do not go far enough. In particular, they still permit money to be routed through crypto exchanges, turned into fiat and then donated on. Secondly, they still permit donations through things like memecoins. Will she look at the measures in new clause 34, which is supported by 51 Members of this House, so that over the passage of this Bill through this House and the other place, we can ensure that it is as tight and as tough as possible?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that important and valuable contribution. It is right that a number of amendments are seeking to limit donations originating from cryptoassets. We agree that the anonymity of crypto transactions creates a worrying route for illicit actors to channel money into our politics. This is an area that the Government are definitely keen to continue to review, ensuring that we end any unintended loopholes that may still arise.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Minister refers to crypto’s anonymity of source. Does she not agree that it is difficult to know what the attraction of crypto is, other than the fact it allows someone to hide where the money comes from? Why not just be straightforward and simply ban its use? Not a temporary ban or a moratorium—just ban it. Why cannot people simply give old-fashioned cash to support political parties?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I know that the Committee has looked at this. The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned. As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to review the ban on cryptocurrency because this issue has cross-party support. We need to ensure that the money coming into our politics is clean and traceable.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her position. I know that many people, not only on the Government side, but on the Opposition side of the House, will be delighted that she has been made a Minister. Can I just challenge her a bit further, or ask for her guidance, on the moratorium point? The Government intend for the Electoral Commission to have strengthened powers to try to tackle the regulatory regime that will be created by the moratorium, but does the Minister not share my concern that if those responsibilities are not enshrined and given to the Electoral Commission in the correct way, this issue will not be as solved as we would want it to be?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member. It is a shame that we will not get to spar on this now that he has left the shadow Front Bench. This is a really big issue, and the Electoral Commission needs to be given the space to develop the right regulatory framework. As I mentioned earlier, any new additions or changes will require primary legislation, which we will bring back. I am mindful of time, so I will make more progress.
I turn now to the Government amendments that will impose an annualised limit on the amount that overseas electors can donate or otherwise contribute to the UK finance system. That will apply to individuals who have been resident outside the UK at any time in the current or previous calendar year, whether or not they are registered as an overseas elector during that time.
The Rycroft review noted two major concerns regarding donations from UK citizens resident overseas. First, it noted that investigating and tracing the origins of the funds used for such donations is more complex than for domestic donations. The review’s second concern was democratic fairness. We have to ask ourselves why should a wealthy individual who has minimised their contribution to the UK Treasury be able to make unlimited donations into our political system. The review proposed an annual cap of between £100,000 and £300,000 on the amount that an overseas elector can contribute into UK political finance. The provisions of the amendments seek to cap this at the lowest recommended threshold of £100,000 per annum.
Florence Eshalomi
I want to make some more progress.
To ensure the efficacy of this cap, we are introducing a minimum residency period. That will mean that an individual moving or returning to the UK will be subject to the £100,000 cap for the remainder of the calendar year, plus another full calendar year. Measures relating to overseas electors and those who have been registered as overseas electors will be retrospective to the date that they were announced on 25 March 2026. Again, that will prevent bad actors from funnelling money into our elections in advance of the change in the law. We are also applying the cap and a minimum residency period to individuals who move to the UK after 6 July and were not previously overseas electors. The £100,000 annual cap will apply per recipient on donations and regulated transactions made from 6 July until commencement, after which they will be treated in the same way as former registered overseas electors. Further amendments relating to the declarations required for this will follow in the Lords.
Dave Doogan
Just to develop the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee’s theme, the Minister is taking some steps to control foreign contributions and donations to politics, but why not just ban them? She touched herself on the malign influence of people who would seek to offshore their tax liabilities—not contributing to the business of Government—and then, from some offshore location, direct that Government in how to spend that money, which they will not be subject to the consequences of, and neither will they have to contribute. It is totally unjust. Why is it not banned?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Gentleman and refer him to my previous statement on this area.
Florence Eshalomi
I need to make progress. I have a number of areas and amendments to cover, and many Members want to comment in the debate.
Overseas electors and those who fall under the minimum residency period will be required to provide a declaration of any necessary information to the recipient to enable them to check whether the donation is permissible. This declaration must be provided before the donation can be accepted. The cap will apply UK-wide and will operate consistently across the political finance regime across UK elections.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that important example of where loopholes might exist in this technical area. We will continue to work with the Electoral Commission on that issue as we continue to develop the Bill.
Florence Eshalomi
I want to make some progress.
Government new clause 78 strengthens information-sharing provisions already in the Bill by establishing a reciprocal statutory gateway between the Electoral Commission and relevant public authorities. We have carefully considered recommendation 9 of the review, and we agree that if we are to expect the commission to regulate political finance effectively and respond to the emerging risk, it must be able to receive relevant information from the bodies it works alongside. The new clause enables the commission and relevant public authorities to share information with one another, where doing so assists the performance of their respective functions. The Government also recognise that information sharing must be accompanied by robust safeguards. That is why the gateway is tightly defined. It does not override express statutory prohibitions on disclosure and includes additional protections for sensitive personal information received from revenue authorities, backed by potential criminal sanctions for an unauthorised onward disclosure.
Government amendments 125 to 131 respond to recommendation 10 of the Rycroft review. They give the Electoral Commission greater powers to require the disclosure of documents, information, and the giving of an explanation outside an investigation. They also make minor amendments to ensure that former accredited recall campaigners can be investigated when they cease participation in the recall petition process. Currently, outside an investigation the Electoral Commission can only issue a notice to specific regulated entities requiring disclosure. To issue a notice requiring disclosure from anyone else, there must have been reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence had been committed. That places the commission in an impossible situation: the only way it can get such information is to take the serious step of opening a formal investigation. However, without such information it is unable to establish the reasonable grounds for suspicion that it needs to open an investigation in the first place. The amendments extend the commission’s powers outside a formal investigation, so that it is able to require the disclosure of information relating to the income or expenditure of regulated entities from any person or organisation.
Florence Eshalomi
I must make progress.
Government new clause 114 implements recommendation 7 of the Rycroft review by giving the Electoral Commission clear powers to require campaign spending returns to be submitted in a standardised format across the political finance regime. That will make spending returns more consistent and easier to scrutinise, supporting greater transparency and more effective oversight.
The amendments relating to “know your donor” measures make a series of technical and clarification changes to the aggregation powers in the “know your donor” regime. The “know your donor” provisions require recipients, in certain circumstances, to undertake a risk assessment where relevant, or where controlled benefits reach the specified threshold. In determining whether that threshold has been met, the Bill contains provisions that require benefits to be considered together. These technical amendments clarify the operation of aggregation rules, how the rules apply to the connected transactions, and when regulated transactions are entered into, in correcting a drafting error relating to regulated participants. The amendments also remove the requirements of the weekly donation report under section 63 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to include a declaration about carrying out a “know your donor” risk assessment in relation to donations accepted during the reporting period.
Government amendments 138, 139, 143 and 144 are minor and technical amendments that remove powers granted inadvertently in respect of a reserved matter to Ministers of devolved Governments in Scotland and Wales. The Government have been in constant contact with the devolved Governments throughout the development of the Bill, as well as ensuring they are in touch on specific points. Government new clause 113 closes a gap in current legislation whereby if an overseas elector ceases to be British, they could potentially remain on the electoral register, thus remaining eligible for up to three years. The new clause allows such individuals to be removed from the electoral register as soon as they cease to satisfy eligibility criteria, which essentially allowed them to register as overseas electors.
Finally, Government amendments 140, 141 and 147 to 150 extend the maximum duration for postal and proxy postal voting arrangements from three to five years. They also extend the maximum duration for the anonymous election registration to five years to better align with that, and to create a clearly defined reapplication window for postal and proxy postal applications. Together the amendments will make the lives of voters and administrators a lot easier—I speak from experience when returning my postal vote—particularly benefiting vulnerable electors, while maintaining the vital security arrangements that are needed to ensure the integrity of our democratic system.
As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston said on Second Reading:
“We have a vital opportunity in this Bill to strengthen our institutions and processes and to ensure that they work for the people they serve.” —[Official Report, 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 693.]
The Bill delivers a modern, secure and inclusive electoral system that the public rightly deserve, bearing down on those who seek to harm or undermine our elections, protecting those who participate, and opening up our democracy to a generation of new and able voters. This is how we safeguard trust and ensure that every eligible citizen can take part freely and with the safety and confidence that they deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), for his work in this role. He has left big shoes to fill, and I look forward to following in his footsteps as best I can. I would also like to register my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), alongside whom I am so fortunate to be working, including on this Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), who has been incredibly helpful in handing over, and who has worked so hard on this Bill.
In the same vein, I thank the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon) for her work on the Bill, and I pass on the thanks of my hon. Friends, too. I welcome the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith to her place, and I congratulate her. I know she is much liked and well regarded across the House, having chaired the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past few years. I look forward to working opposite her and her departmental colleagues.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Public faith in our democratic system has been steadily eroded. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) provided some statistics on public opinion, and I will provide a few more. More than half of the public believe that politicians almost always lie, while only one in eight believe that we put the national interest above party advantage. That level of disillusionment did not emerge overnight. Broken promises, diminished opportunity and a growing distance from decision makers have left many people feeling unheard. Money and politics have deepened that divide and fuelled the perception that access to power is available to those who can afford it, creating a suspicion that influence can be bought rather than earned.
This is no longer simply a question of public confidence; it is a question of democratic resilience. Hostile states and malign actors seek to weaken institutions and corrode trust. Disinformation poisons debate, blurs the line between fact and fiction, and encourages citizens to doubt what they see and hear. Every loophole in our political finance system is a potential point of entry for those who wish our democracy harm. Questions are also raised when voters see Members earning substantial sums from outside interests: public duty traded for private gain. Taken together, these issues foster a growing belief that politics is something done to people rather than with or for them. That belief has consequences. Where trust weakens, democracy weakens; where democracy weakens, those who seek to exploit division find opportunity.
I welcome the measures in the Bill that seek to address much of the public concern around many of these issues, but rebuilding democratic legitimacy requires more than just tightening a few rules. It requires us to ask deep questions about whether our institutions still deliver the representation and accountability that people expect, and whether, if so many no longer trust the system, the system itself needs to change. For that reason, I hope that the Government will reconsider and commit to establishing a commission on electoral reform, not to pursue a predetermined outcome but to ask whether our political system is working as well as it should, whether it remains capable of rebuilding public confidence and whether it is worthy of the trust that is placed in it. The cure for public disillusionment is not less democracy; it is better democracy. The answer to distrust is not disengagement; it is accountability. The answer to frustration is not to retreat; it is to reform. That is not optional; it is necessary and urgent, and I urge the Minister to take that into consideration.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank all Members who have contributed to today’s debate for their constructive and informed contributions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to face a telling-off from you, so given the timings, I will not reference each amendment but instead talk broadly about the main themes of the debate. I assure Members, who have asked a number of detailed and serious questions, that I have taken note of many of the questions; I commit to writing to them individually if I do not cover those areas in my closing speech.
Florence Eshalomi
All of us need to work to protect the integrity of all elections, not just the next general election. Every election should matter. Local elections, regional elections, mayoral elections—every election should have the same weight when it comes to ensuring that it is free from any foreign interference. That is how we strengthen our democracy.
A number of hon. Members have tabled amendments on candidate safety, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) spoke about her lived experience. Threats to candidates, campaigners and elected officials are totally unacceptable. Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can already be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. The Bill will introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences, and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.
New clauses 58 and 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, would add offences amounting to domestic abuse to schedule 9 to the Elections Act 2022 for the purpose of the disqualification order, and require courts to make a disqualifying order alongside court orders relating to abuse or harassment when the relevant behaviour was aggravated by hostility towards someone’s status as a candidate, campaigner or office holder. This Government take domestic abuse extremely seriously and recognise the devastating impact it can have on victims. I know the extremely difficult personal circumstances faced by my hon. Friend and thank her for her bravery and continued efforts to raise this important issue. I can give the commitment that we will review these laws and ensure that the necessary protections are in place, as my hon. Friend describes. With regard to domestic abuse convictions, the list of offences in schedule 9 can be updated via secondary legislation.
On candidate requirements, the Government recognise that trust in our elected representatives is vital to the effective functioning of our democracy. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill includes a number of measures to strengthen the nomination process for candidates.
New clause 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), aims to require candidates who have been convicted and sentenced under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to declare whether they are required to comply with the sexual offences notification regime. This is a complex and sensitive matter, and we must ensure that any proposals that might restrict or deter individuals from taking part in our democratic system are carefully considered.
Emily Darlington
My hon. Friend is making fantastic progress on protecting our democracy. On criminal convictions, as she will know, I have taken over amendment 4 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). It is about listing on registers of interests, once a candidate is elected as an MP or councillor, that they have undergone a Disclosure and Barring Service check. That would provide schools, care homes and women’s shelters with the clarity that they can feel safe with that person. Will the Minister consider that, as part of ensuring transparency, so that people can understand who it is, and is not, appropriate to invite to particular venues?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important contribution. It is right that we look at the range of different requirements placed on candidates. My understanding is that some people, such as local councillors, are required to have DBS checks, but again, as many hon. Members have noted, there is no such requirement for us as parliamentarians; that is something that we need to test and look at further. I can continue to work with her and other interested Members on looking at this area.
New clause 48 concerns accessibility for voters and seeks to mandate the provision of audio and tactile devices in polling stations. The Government are firmly committed to supporting democratic participation for all eligible voters. I recognise the important work that hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have undertaken to champion accessibility and ensure that disabled people can participate fully in our democracy.
Alex Sobel
I know the Minister has long supported changing the system of election to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister has also committed to it. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are actively considering changing the system from first past the post?
Florence Eshalomi
I will come on to my hon. Friend’s remarks later in my speech. To come back to accessibility, we agree with the principle outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) in her amendment, which is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who has lived experience of this, and many other Members. We will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and other interested Members from both Houses on a suitable amendment that can be tabled in the Lords.
A number of Members from right across the House have mentioned electoral reform. In the spirit of transparency, I should say that a number of Members know my position on electoral reform. The Government’s priority is a politics that works for all people in all places, not some people in some places. The Prime Minister remains committed to electoral reform as a way of supporting that objective. However, this is a complex constitutional matter, and it is premature to legislate now for one approach. I would be happy to meet Members from across the House to hear their views, look at how we can work on strong proposals, and discuss next steps.
On new clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Government recognise the importance of ensuring that the rules on third-party campaigning are clear, proportionate and workable in practice. On new clauses relating to spending limits, we are of the opinion that an independent assessment is needed of the adequacy of current spending limits in electoral law. We agree that the Electoral Commission is best placed to provide that assessment. That is why the Secretary of State and the First Secretary of State wrote to the Electoral Commission on 29 August, asking it to expand its review of spending limits to include candidate limits. That builds on the Government’s current ask of the commission to provide recommendations by July 2027, and will ensure that the electoral spending framework is scrutinised and fit for purpose for the modern campaigning world.
Lisa Smart
It is welcome that the Government have asked the Electoral Commission to look at spending limits. I love a task-and-finish group almost as much as I love a taskforce or a sub-committee, but will the Minister put a little more meat on the bones, and say what she is doing on donation caps, specifically on timing, and on whether things will be in place ahead of the next general election? I would not want a Member to press for a separate Division on an amendment because there was not enough meat on the bone.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson. I cannot stand here and unilaterally write the terms of reference for the taskforce, but I would be happy to discuss with her at a later stage what the taskforce would entail. She also spoke about voter registration provisions. We will move towards more automated voter registration, but that takes time. We hope to use existing powers or non-legislative approaches as part of that.
The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes. Although there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining AI-generated content, we will continue to explore solutions and are taking the first steps forward. Several amendments relate to social media and elections. The Government agree that we must protect the integrity of our elections from malign influence, and greater transparency is part of that. We believe that the way to achieve that is through a new targeted transparency regime. That is why we are strengthening the imprint framework through the Bill. We have taken steps to tackle a range of threats from foreign states that are actively seeking to disrupt our political system. We are alive to the issues that Members have raised in this debate through their amendments, such as those on deepfakes and online harassment, and the Government are continuing to assess the best way to mitigate those concerns.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I chair the all-party group on schools, learning and assessment, and we conducted an inquiry on votes at 16. We were speaking directly to young people, and they are delighted that the Bill will empower them with the vote. However, they are equally concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and having the tools that they need to engage in the democratic process. Does the Minister agree that that is a key issue, and that if we are to empower young people with the vote, we must also empower them with the tools that they need to use that vote in an informed and engaged way?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my hon. Friend for that important contribution. The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, which I chaired formerly, will continue to consider such issues, and many hon. Members will continue to feed into our proposals as we develop them.
In conclusion, I wish briefly to reflect on the purpose of the Bill. Many Members will recall the toll that the last general election took on those who stood for election. The Electoral Commission’s research told us that more than half of candidates faced harassment or intimidation in the course of campaigning.
The Speaker’s Conference heard worse: families targeted, tyres slashed and campaigners driven away from the streets where they were trying to represent candidates. Women and candidates from minority ethnic backgrounds bore this disproportionately. I know from conversations I have had with Members from across the House, including with those who sometimes do not want to discuss the issue because doing so can invite further abuse, that this was not confined to the doorsteps—it reached people’s homes and their families. This is not robust political debate—it is organised intimidation and it strikes at the willingness of good people to stand for office, or even not stand.
A democracy that cannot protect those who offer themselves for its service is not in any sense one that is secure. This Bill will not fix that on its own—no legislation could—but it takes this House further than before, extending disqualification for hostility motivated offences to cover election staff as well as candidates, adding a new aggravating factor for such offences, and working with the Electoral Commission on a code of conduct and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates alike. The Bill will sit alongside a wider purpose: trust in our elections is not owed to us as parliamentarians, but earned through the integrity of the system we ask people to trust.
The Bill secures a system against foreign and elicit money, closing routes that hostile actors have sought to exploit through crypto-currency, opaque company structures and unlimited overseas donations. It protects the people who make our elections happen—candidates, campaigners and electoral staff alike. It keeps our democracy open to legitimate voters, including for the first time those aged 16 and 17, a change that I have long campaigned for and I am glad to bring to the House as the Minister now responsible for it. It modernises the machinery of registration and absent voting, so that participating in our democracy is neither harder nor more confusing than it needs to be.
The next stage of the Bill is shaped by extensive engagement, by the Rycroft review’s recommendations, which the Government have accepted in full, and by many Members across the House who have brought expertise and lived experience, in some cases at a personal cost, to this debate. I thank all colleagues involved in getting us to where we are at this stage, and to state again that the Government remain committed to doing whatever is necessary. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 72 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 76
Entering into of regulated transactions under Part 4A of PPERA 2000
“(1) Part 4A of PPERA 2000 (regulation of loans and related transactions) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 71F (regulated transactions), after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) A reference to a regulated transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a regulated transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.”
(3) In section 71L (offences relating to regulated transactions), omit subsection (12).
(4) In Schedule 7A (control of loans etc to individuals and members associations), in paragraph 1 (operation and construction of Schedule), after sub-paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) A reference to a controlled transaction being entered into includes a reference to the terms of a controlled transaction being varied so as to increase the value of the transaction.”
(5) In that Schedule, in paragraph 8 (offences), omit sub-paragraph (12).”—(Florence Eshalomi.)
This new Clause would make amendments relating to the circumstances in which a regulated transaction is entered into for the purposes of Part 4A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and takes the place of amendments that are currently made by Schedule 8 to the Bill.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.