Kevin Hollinrake

To inform its consideration of the potential impact of a profit test for company donations, the Commission analysed publicly available data about donations reported by political parties and company accounts published by Companies House. The Commission will continue to seek input from political parties to inform the development of its recommendations, including through the statutory Parliamentary Parties Panel. It will also continue to provide evidence-based advice on political finance ahead of the parliamentary debates on the Representation of the People Bill.

The House of Commons Commission does not have responsibility for the APPG Rules. However, page 11 of the Guide to the APPG Rules sets out the following rule relating to secretariats and foreign governments:

Rules relating to foreign governments
A Group must not accept the provision of a secretariat by a foreign government, nor may they accept the services of a secretariat funded by a foreign government. A Group’s officers must undertake due diligence as to whether a foreign government is the eventual funder of a secretariat or other benefit.

The House of Commons Commission does not have responsibility for the APPG Rules.

The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not hold Income and Expenditure Statements agreed to by APPGs. They are either published on a group’s website (if the group has one) or made available on request.

When an APPG has been dissolved, it is the responsibility of the Chair to keep Income and Expenditure Statements for at least five years from the end of the period to which they refer. This is consistent with the Paragraph 8 of Appendix 4 of the Guide to the APPG rules which sets out the requirements for APPGs when they are dissolved at a General Election.

In May 2026 a new AI feature was added to EQM, the digital system which is used by the Table Office for the editing and processing of written parliamentary questions. This AI feature assists staff in identifying duplicate questions by finding and listing questions which have been submitted previously where there is 80% or greater level of similarity. Staff are then able to review the questions to assess whether the rules of order relating to questions already answered are engaged.

The House of Commons Commission does not have responsibility for the registration of Members’ Financial Interests.

Guidance on the registration of donations is set out in paragraphs 14 to 20 of Chapter 1 of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members. The Code does not make specific reference to crypto-currencies.

The Code and Guide form a House-approved document Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules. The Committee on Standards is responsible for overseeing its policy and development, and there is a quinquennial cycle of review overseen by that Committee, with recommendations for revision and re-issue being made to and approved by the House. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards advises the Committee on its review.

It would not be appropriate to publish internal guidance documents which contain comments and track changes capturing the evolving approach to editing questions. There are many sources of guidance on the rules of order for written questions that are already published online. These include the Rules of Order in Chapter 22 of Erskine May as well as guidance on Questions and more detail on the Rules for Questions in the MPs’ Guide to Procedure. For those on the parliamentary network, there is further guidance and training material available on ParliNet. The Head of the Office meets regularly with Members seeking advice on Questions and is happy to meet with any Members who want to discuss any specific concerns or general practice in relation to written questions.

Donations to party members are regulated when made in connection with their political activities within the party. For example, these include campaigning in party leadership elections or candidate selection contests or developing or promoting policies with a view to their adoption by the party. Donations over £500 must be from permissible sources and donations over £2,230 must be reported to the Electoral Commission.

The Electoral Commission has published guidance on donations for party members.

The Electoral Commission can only publish donations to MPs which are offered in connection with their political activities either as an MP or as a party member, and are over the relevant reporting threshold of £2,230 (including aggregations of donations from the same donor). The Register of Members’ Financial Interests is broader and contains information about any financial interest an MP has, or any benefit they receive, which someone else might reasonably consider to influence what they say or do as an MP.

Members must report impermissible or returned donations directly to the Electoral Commission.

There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards which sets out the agreed administrative arrangements between the two bodies. Where the Electoral Commission has reasonable grounds to suspect that an impermissible donation or regulated transaction has been accepted or entered into, and is investigating the matter, it may as part of this work approach the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

The Electoral Commission is responsible for identifying and publishing any donations to MPs that are covered by electoral law. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upholds the Code of Conduct for MPs agreed by the House of Commons and would take action if an MP breaches their reporting requirements. The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards gives the Electoral Commission the information it needs to publish details of donations to MPs and regulated transactions involving MPs.

There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards which sets out the agreed administrative arrangements between the two bodies.

The Electoral Commission has a memorandum of understanding with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which outlines how the two reporting regimes operate in a way which reduces the administrative burden on MPs. The Commission regularly reviews how the regimes operate and makes recommendations to Parliament to ensure the systems work effectively together and minimise the administrative burden on parliamentarians.

The Electoral Commission does not have a memorandum of understanding with the Metropolitan Police. It works closely with police forces to support them in their understanding of electoral law.

The Electoral Commission has not made such an assessment.

There are no requirements in law on the language of imprints. Campaigners may wish to produce campaign material in other languages to reach voters whose first language is not English. The purpose of an imprint is to ensure that voters seeing the material, know who is responsible for it. Providing an imprint in the same language as the campaign material would be one way to ensure transparency for those voters that the material is targeting.

The Commission provides guidance to Returning Officers on identifying suitable polling station venues. This includes evaluating the suitability of the polling stations that are available for use in the appropriate electoral areas.

The Commission has recently drawn Returning Officers’ attention to existing security guidance. It also provides accessibility guidance, which outlines the actions Returning Officers should take when assessing the accessibility of venues, including ensuring venues have sufficient space for voting to take place, and considering which equipment may be necessary to support voters, such as ramps or temporary floor coverings.

Individual local authorities are responsible for designating polling places. The Electoral Commission does not hold a central list of polling stations.

Commercial transactions may be sponsorship, if the purpose of the payment can reasonably be seen to be to help the members association meet the costs of an event, publication, or research study. For example, a payment for advertising at an event run by a members association would be sponsorship and the full amount must be treated as a donation.

The Commission will publish updated guidance on sponsorship shortly.

Donations received through personal services companies owned by a regulated donee are likely to be considered as being made to the regulated donee on behalf of the original donor. This is because donations to regulated donees includes anything given directly or indirectly to them through a third person under electoral law.

In these instances, the personal services company would be acting as an agent for the donation.

The Electoral Commission does not currently have an independent Equality, Diversity and Inclusion adviser. The Commission appointed an independent adviser on EDI between September 2022 - September 2023.

The Commission's EDI Strategy is on the Commission's website. It outlines the equalities legislation that applies to the Commission, how it meets its duties, and how it strives to ensure electoral processes are open and accessible to all voters and campaigners.

The Commission does not publish internal documents relating to its regulatory work. It publishes information about recently closed investigations every month, including the possible offences it investigated, the outcome and any further action. An overview of the Commission’s investigation into Labour Together is listed under April 2021 – March 2022.

Questions about consultation on a UK Government document, as in this case, are a matter for the relevant Department.

The Electoral Commission hasn't produced specific guidance on donations that are in foreign currencies.

Political parties must report the value of the donations in Pounds Sterling at the time of receipt if they are above the reporting threshold and check it for permissibility if it is above £500.

Labour Together failed to deliver 27 donation reports within 30 days of accepting the donations. The donations amounted to £739,492. Labour Together was late in reporting all of these donations, ranging from 39 days late to 1,292 days late.

The organisation also inaccurately reported the value of a cash donation from an individual donor. The donation was initially reported as being £18,000 when it should have been reported as £20,000, so it was under-reported by £2,000. The non-compliance existed for three years and three months.

Labour Together also failed to appoint a responsible person within 30 days of each donation being accepted. No sanction was imposed for these offences due to mitigating factors.

Greater Manchester Police are currently reviewing allegations of electoral fraud at the Gorton and Denton by-election. The Commission is in close contact with the police and with the Returning Officer.

Once the review is concluded, the Commission will consider the outcome and any additional action needed.

The Commission has published guidance for political parties that are considering accepting cryptocurrency assets. It sets out that cryptoassets are considered property, which is in line with HMRC and Financial Conduct Authority guidance, and should be treated as a non-monetary donation.

It has always been a requirement for political parties to report the nature and value of non-monetary donations if they are greater than the reporting threshold (£11,800). The Commission’s updated guidance clarified that this applies to cryptoasset donations.

The Table Office cards questions which do not comply with the House’s rules of order. ‘Carding’ is essentially an invitation for the Member, or staff acting on their behalf, to call the Table Office to discuss and resolve the issue so the question can be swiftly tabled or, if necessary, withdrawn. The rules of order relating to questions are summarised in Chapter 22 of Erskine May which provides the basis on which questions are carded. The Office has various internal working documents and training materials providing guidance on operational matters including on questions, motions and the order paper.

The Commission does not disclose details of correspondence related to its investigations , so it would not be appropriate to confirm whether it received representations in relation to this matter.

Since 2021, the Commission has received 16 Freedom of Information requests relating to Labour Together.

The Commission receives a high volume of complex FOI requests, and therefore does not routinely publish all FOI responses on its disclosure log.

The Commission does not have a separate policy relating to the powers conferred to it in the Economic Crime and Transparency Act 2023. Its Enforcement policy sets out how it works with other regulatory bodies, and includes detail on sharing information.

It states that the Commission shares information with other regulatory bodies where it is able to and it is appropriate to do so. Where a matter under investigation includes an offence or offences where more than one enforcement body has an interest, it will liaise with other regulatory bodies or the police at the earliest possible stage to minimise duplication of investigative work.

If the market value in GBP of any cryptoasset received by a party or regulated donee is greater than £500, they must treat it as a donation and check the donor is permissible. If it is greater than the reporting threshold (£11,180), it must be reported to the Commission.

Donations in cryptoassets of £500 or less are outside the scope of electoral law and do not need to be recorded or reported.

The Electoral Commission does not hold a register of members associations, as there is no registration requirement for these groups. Members associations are subject to controls on the donations and loans they accept towards their political activities within their party.

Members associations must report to the Commission on any donations or loans they accept. Reports must be made within 30 days of accepting the donation or entering into the loan. These reports are published on the Commission’s website.

The Electoral Commission collects data on allegations of electoral fraud from all police forces across the UK, and publishes data on its website annually. Due to the way data is provided, it is broken down by police force, not by local authority. The Commission expects to publish 2025 electoral fraud data by the end of March.

The Commission’s guidance for candidates and agents includes an overview of electoral offences. It sets out that a person is guilty of treating if either before, during or after an election they directly or indirectly give or provide any food, drink, entertainment or provision to corruptly influence any voter to vote or refrain from voting. Treating requires a corrupt intent, and does not apply to ordinary hospitality.

Allegations of treating are a matter for the police; the Commission supports the College of Policing with its guidance for policing elections, which includes information on how offences such as treating are investigated.

The finances of an APPG are a matter for the officers of the group.

The Guide to the APPG Rules provides the following guidance:

80. APPG Secretariats must not hold APPG funds themselves, all funds must only be accessible by an officer (or officers) of the APPG.

81. Chairs are strongly advised to ensure that any money the group receives or holds is in a bank account in the name of the group and controlled by officers.

97. If an APPG chooses to disband, it must publish an income and expenditure statement within 28 days of the date on which the APPG was closed down.

The Electoral Commission has not used the powers conferred on it under the provisions in the Economic Crime and Transparency Act 2023, in relation to the Company House data.

During the cyber-attack in 2021-2022, hostile actors were active in the Electoral Commission’s systems which held our email, our control systems, and copies of the electoral registers. The Commission cannot be certain whether any data was copied or downloaded.

Information, evidence and analysis relating to investigatory matters, along with donations and loans data was held in a separate system not affected by the attack.

The Commission has now significantly strengthened its systems against cyber-attacks and has secured Cyber Essentials Plus accreditation.

In line with guidance issued by HMRC and the Financial Conduct Authority, donations in crypto assets are treated as non-monetary donations. Recipients are required to identify the nature of non-monetary donations. For crypto assets, this means identifying the type and amount of crypto asset. This will be underlined in the forthcoming update to the Commission’s guidance.

The Commission was first made aware of the UK Government’s proposals on the same day as the publication of the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement on 4 December 2025.

The Electoral Commission’s guidance states that candidates must report all monetary and non-monetary donations they accept or return as impermissible, including donations in crypto assets. The Commission will shortly publish updated guidance for parties and candidates on the reporting and valuation of donations in crypto assets.

The House of Commons Commission has no responsibility for issuing such guidance.

It may be helpful to know that the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules on Registration does not directly reference crypto currencies.

Paragraphs 14 to 20 of the Guide to the Rules on Registration set out the requirements for registering donations under Category 2: Donations and other support for activities as a Member of Parliament.

Electoral Commission Guidance on political party donations and loans in Great Britain includes guidance on cryptoassets and says:

“The same rules apply to donations received in cryptocurrencies as any other donations. Sufficient information must be collected to check permissibility. There must be a means of valuing the donation given in any cryptocurrency.”
Political party donations and loans in Great Britain

The Electoral Commission was not consulted by the Government regarding the timing of mayoral elections in 2026.

The Commission’s view is that scheduled elections should only be postponed in exceptional circumstances. Voters must have a say on those that represent them at local government, and county council elections are still scheduled to take place in these areas in May 2026.

The Commission will work with the Government to better understand its plans for the polls so that it can support voters, campaigners and administrators to prepare.

The Electoral Commission has not been told that any further elections scheduled for May 2026 will be postponed, other than the elections for Surrey County and District councils. The Commission is working with the Government and will continue to support the electoral community as it prepares for scheduled elections in May 2026.

The Commission is required to report on its use of investigatory powers, including disclosure notices, investigation notices, and applications for inspection warrants. These are published in the Commission’s Annual Reports and Accounts.

The Commission has reported that it issued eight disclosure notices and 50 investigation notices since its investigatory powers came into force in December 2010. It has not applied for an inspection warrant. A breakdown by year is in the table below.

The Commission only uses its investigatory powers where it is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to do so. In most investigations, it receives relevant information on a voluntary basis.

The Government is committed to commencing Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections.

Office for Equality and Opportunity officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision under Section 106, including the specifics with regards to data collection. Officials will consult with stakeholders, including political parties, in due course.

The Electoral Commission has had discussions with MHCLG officials about the proposals for local government reorganisation and the implications for elections.

The Commission has said that delaying elections for more than one year can affect the legitimacy of local decision making and risks damaging public confidence. Scheduled polls should only be postponed in exceptional circumstances when no alternative options are available.

The Commission understands the Government is working with councils on their reorganisation plans, and in the meantime, continues to support the electoral community as it prepares for the scheduled polls next May.