Representation of the People Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister will be pleased to know that I agree with her on this point. I proudly represent my constituency of Harlow, and it is really important that I have that local accountability; that means a great deal to me. Does she agree that we need to take foreign interference in our electoral system really seriously? It is important that the be Bill be—as I believe it is—really solid, detailed and willing to make changes, because we recognise that malign influencers will do anything they can to weave their way into our political system.

[Katie Lam]

It is never anything but a pleasure to allow the hon. Gentleman to put Harlow into Hansard again, and I am happy to repeat his words. He is right: we must be incredibly vigilant. We must not be naive about the extent to which foreign powers are actively pursuing strategies to undermine our democracy, and ultimately, our nation. That must be treated with the utmost seriousness.

While some of the suggested changes are being rushed through in a sweeping way, we feel that the Bill has shockingly little to say about the threats to our democracy that we already know enough about to take decisive action on. This includes the effective disenfranchisement of many British citizens living overseas. Our citizens abroad remain citizens and are often directly affected by decisions taken by this Parliament, but all too often they find it very difficult to register to vote, or to cast their ballot. To that end, we have tabled amendments that require the Secretary of State to make provision for overseas voters to cast their votes in person at British embassies, high commissions and consulates.

Chief among the threats to our democracy today is the rise of coercion, fraud and sectarianism in our democratic process. These are, in turn, most often the result of a poisonous separatism that has taken hold in far too many of our towns and cities. Migration to this country has been far too high for far too long, against the wishes of the British people. Many of those who have come to this country come from cultures with very different norms from ours. At the same time, Britain has been complacent about enforcing our cultural and democratic norms, and far too tolerant of those who weaponise group-based identity politics for their own gain. One consequence has been the rise of explicitly sectarian political campaigning, whereby candidates appeal not to the individual interests of voters, or to the national interest, but to particular ethnic, religious or cultural groups. This is profoundly poisonous, and we must do everything that we can to root it out.

One symptom of this emergent separatism in our society is the rise of so-called family voting, whereby a senior male family member directs other members of their family, particularly women, on how they ought to vote. At the Gorton and Denton by-election earlier this year, volunteers reported

“the highest level of family voting at any election in the past decade.”

Family voting was observed at more than two thirds of polling stations. It may have influenced the votes of more than one in 10 people who turned out to cast their ballot. In Birmingham, at this year’s local elections, polling station staff reported instances of family voting in 50 polling stations. Despite evidence being passed to the police by the council, no further action has been taken

[Emily Thornberry]

The allegations that the hon. Lady makes are extremely serious, and should be based on robust evidence. To be told that “volunteers had reported” is not sufficient, and she must understand the implications of what she is saying, in terms of social coherence and undermining the very status of our democracy. I ask her to be a little more cautious, and to proceed on the basis of evidence.

[Katie Lam]

Polling station volunteers reporting what they have seen in their polling stations is evidence. It is not for us to decide what is appropriate to discuss in this Chamber. It is for us to talk about it, and for the public to decide. They can see this, and it was very well reported at the time.

Family voting is a direct assault on two important principles. The first is that each and every voter must be able to cast their ballot on the basis of their individual beliefs and interests. The second is that those ballots should be cast in secret, without pressure or oversight. These two principles are fundamental to the functioning of British democracy. That we live in a country where we have been able to take these things for granted is no small achievement, but it must be defended vigorously. Any practice that results in husbands instructing their wives how to vote, or allows fathers to instruct their daughters how to vote, is an insult to the liberties enjoyed by women in this country, and it must not be allowed to stand, yet this Labour Government have turned a blind eye. They have rejected Conservative proposals to strengthen enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. Indeed, they are scrapping guidance to local councillors and councils about how to stop family voting. Our proposed new clause 62 would help to tackle this catastrophe.

Another favoured tactic of sectarian candidates is the use of foreign language in their campaign material. To return to the Gorton and Denton by-election, during the campaign, the Green party published leaflets in Urdu telling voters that if they wanted to

“give the Muslims a strong voice, give your vote to the Greens.”

Depressingly, this is far from the only example, although it is one of the most reprehensible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam]

When I have finished this point, I will give way. It should terrify all of us that election material in our country is being produced in a foreign language and designed to drum up support among a particular religious community. Not only does this contribute to a culture of group-based grievance politics, but it makes it impossible for the vast majority of the British public to scrutinise what candidates are saying.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State sees a certain irony in attempting to legislate for linguistic purity in a language that, for over a millennium, has borrowed vocabulary ad hoc from other languages, such as Italian, Latin and French, and in a Bill that talks about elections, referendums, vetoes and manifestos. There is perhaps more than a little hint of irony in what she is proposing.

[Katie Lam]

The fact that English takes words from other languages does not mean that an English voter, or indeed any British voter, would be able to read election material in Latin. The point is that our voters must be able to understand the election literature that is being produced, and if it is not produced in a language of the British Isles, they cannot.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Could the hon. Lady confirm to the House whether the Conservative party has ever published election leaflets in particular constituencies or wards in languages other than English? I have a vague memory of seeing Conservative party election literature in community languages during elections in various parts of the country, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has memories of that as well.

[Katie Lam]

Our proposal is clearly intended to be one rule for everybody. The Conservative party position is that all election literature should be produced in the languages of this country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam]

I have given way on this point twice.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will. [Interruption.]

[Paul Holmes]

Seeing as this is my amendment, I think I am allowed to intervene to speak on it. I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her position, and I know she will agree that the reason why we tabled this amendment was that the Green party’s leaflet said, “Punish the Labour party for Gaza—vote Green.” It has every right to say that, although I would argue that it is divisive, but can I assist the shadow Secretary of State by saying, in response to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), that it is Conservative party policy not to produce election literature in a language other than English during the short campaign, and that the Conservative campaign headquarters dismissed some of our candidates for doing so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way for a constructive question?

[Katie Lam]

I will give way one final time on this point.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the hon. Lady for her patience. Does she see the conflict between addressing problems with family voting, which may well be caused by members of a family not having English as their first language, or as a language at all, and therefore needing to be informed in a language that they are comfortable with, and taking steps to restrict information being produced in a language that enables a family member to understand the arguments that are being made in an election? We can all agree that understanding the English language, which the vast majority of us speak, learning it and having access to it is important for integration, but does she not agree that these measures will have two conflicting outcomes? One is to restrict communication with all members of a family; the other is to ban their influence.

[Katie Lam]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and I understand his point, but it is a deep, frightening and fundamental problem if we have people in this country who cannot operate in the shared language of our nation. I understand what he is saying, but there are two possible ways to deal with that problem, and I believe that the one he is suggesting will ultimately be deleterious to our nation and our democracy. We must make a choice—I think that is part of the point he is making—and I am making a different choice.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Katie Lam]

I have given way many times on this point, and I would like to make some progress.

The fundamental point about producing election literature in English or another language of the British Isles is that the public must be able to scrutinise what candidates are saying. We must put a stop to election literature in foreign languages once and for all. We have therefore tabled an amendment that would require that campaign material published during the regulated election period is not promoted or published in a foreign language. Instead, campaign material must be published in English or another native language of the British Isles. Those who engage in our democratic process must do so in the common language of public life—that much is the bare minimum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I begin by welcoming back the Secretary of State to her place. I very much look forward to working opposite her.

As Conservative Members have set out so well throughout the passage of the Bill, this legislation professes to strengthen our democracy, but our democracy is not strengthened by proposals rushed through with too little time for proper scrutiny. Our democracy is not strengthened by allowing candidates to campaign in foreign languages, and to escape accountability as they build campaigns based on group-based grievances.

I was amazed to see on Report the reaction on the Government Benches to the Conservative policy that election campaign materials should be produced only in English or in native languages of the British Isles. An election is a fundamentally important part of our conversation. It should be a matter of universal agreement that that conversation should happen in a language that everybody can understand. Our democracy is also not strengthened by allowing men in particular communities to direct how the women in their families vote, or by making it difficult for our citizens overseas to cast their ballot.

As I said on Report, when we make changes to the way our democracy functions, those changes must always be designed to make sure that the British people can better hold their representatives accountable, that would-be representatives can meaningfully put their case to the British people, and that our democratic process is conducted according to the national norms and practices that have made this country such a successful democracy for so long. Given the importance of those aims, any such changes must be developed and proposed carefully and thoughtfully. The Bill fails those tests.

Conservative Members will always remain open to measures designed to genuinely strengthen the integrity of our democracy, to protect our democratic process from foreign influence and to ensure that our hard-won and dearly held liberties are extended to every citizen of this country, wherever they may be. Those duties are incumbent upon all of us as elected representatives of the people. We do not believe the Bill before us reflects them, and we will oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of her point of order. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the Chair, I am not responsible for the content of speeches of Members, Secretaries of States or shadow Secretaries of State. It is up to them to be responsible for the content of their speeches. The shadow Secretary of State may wish to respond as I notice that she is in the Chamber. We do not wish to prolong the debate, but a quick response would suffice.

[Katie Lam]

It is an established fact that observers reported widespread concerns about family voting at the by-election that returned the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) to the House. It is up to every Member, and to the public, to decide what to do with that information. The hon. Lady is within her rights to dismiss it, but I do not.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not wish to prolong the debate but both points have been put on the record. I will leave it there.