Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Just over five months ago, I stood here and asked the Secretary of State to strengthen the Representation of the People Bill by ensuring that post-tax profits, not overall revenue, were used when assessing the eligibility of company donations. He rejected that plea, as did the Minister in Committee, but I am delighted that this Minister has now agreed to accept that. It was a recommendation from Philip Rycroft and from those working in the democracy sector, and it is a welcome change.

We Liberal Democrats champion a fair and free society, so we also welcome the announcement that candidates will have to declare gifts of over £2,320 in the year prior to their election. That, hopefully, will provide further useful clarity for those who may thus far have been confused about what they do and do not have to declare. We welcome steps towards cracking down on any foreign interference in our democracy, but we still have some way to go, and we urge the Minister to consider banning anyone who has served in a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups, as well as banning donations from those convicted of political violence; that would include those funding the likes of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. People who hold British values in contempt and act as a mouthpiece for those who want to undermine our democratic institutions should have no place in our democracy.

We need a much more transparent system to ensure that the British people have faith in politicians. What the Minister has announced today will close loopholes, but too many will remain. Will she consider exploring the benefits of a cap on donations from UK donors, and year-round spending caps by political parties and candidates? That is the way in which loopholes are truly closed.

Finally, can the Minister gives us some insights into how this important work will be handled across the multiple ministerial Departments and agencies? It involves the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Cabinet Office. The Minister is very able, but she is the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy. Does she agree that a more streamlined portfolio is what our democracy deserves?

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Lady is asking me to consider my job description, but given the sensitivity at the moment, I do not think I will go there.

I hear what the hon. Lady has said about caps. I think that there is a role for political donations in our system: it leads to a thriving and healthy democracy that is funded properly and fairly. The Government’s aim was to legislate through the Representation of the People Bill, but in order to be absolutely sure that we had not left any loopholes, the Secretary of State took the decision to commission Philip Rycroft’s review. He did identify loopholes, we have accepted their existence, and we will be working to close them next week. This is an ongoing issue, and we do indeed work across the Government. I have explained about the defending democracy taskforce, and it is a busy and hectic arena, but I try to keep abreast of my entire portfolio.

Regeneration in Reddish

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for regeneration in Reddish.

It is a pleasure to serve in this debate with you and other colleagues, Mr Western. I thank everyone who has contacted me regarding the status and future of Reddish library and Reddish baths, and more widely about investment across Reddish. The strength of local feeling on the issue is clear.

Reddish grew rapidly during the industrial revolution as canals and railways brought cotton mills, engineering works and brick-making industries to the area. In 1901, it was officially incorporated into the borough of Stockport. Following industrial decline, many factories closed, and today Reddish is mainly a residential area with a thriving community. Reddish is new to the Stockport constituency following parliamentary boundary changes in 2024. I am proud to represent the area.

I welcome the fact that this Labour Government have increased central Government funding for Stockport council: by 2028-29, Stockport’s core spending power will rise by 7.5%. However, that is below the average increase for English councils. I have consistently called on the Labour Government to deliver the fair funding that Stockport deserves after years of under-investment. The uplift marks a clear change in direction compared with the coalition years, when Stockport was hit by deep austerity cuts. I call on the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I am delighted, as I always am, that Stockport is getting rightful attention in this place. Does the hon. Member agree that it is genuinely disappointing that although the Government talked about giving extra money to local councils, and have overall, Stockport has been short-changed? He will know, because it is in his constituency, that Stockport is the least well-off part of Greater Manchester, yet because we missed out on extra funding by 0.1%, services will have to be cut. That was a decision of this Labour Government.

[Navendu Mishra]

In meetings with the hon. Lady I have pushed the Government for more funding for Stockport, and I just mentioned that the Government should go beyond what the 7.5% increase will deliver. I agree that more deprived and lower-income areas across Stockport and Greater Manchester deserve more attention; we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. As a politician, I will make political points, but I hope she sees that my voting record and my record in Hansard show that I do what is best for Stockport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Navendu Mishra]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is extremely important to invest in our high streets and have thriving high streets with independent local businesses, as well as thriving district centres. We are lucky that Reddish has a wide range of fantastic independent local businesses, as I will mention later.

As I said, I call on the Liberal Democrat-run Stockport council to take investment in Reddish seriously, and nowhere is the need for fair investment clearer than in Reddish. Stockport council must not continue to overlook its needs when allocating funding. Reddish faces many issues, including serious health inequalities. In Reddish the average male life expectancy is 78 and the average female life expectancy is 83. That is lower than other parts of my constituency, where the average male life expectancy is 81 and the average female life expectancy is 84.

Residents have consistently raised concerns with me about ageing infrastructure, a lack of high-quality public facilities and the lack of investment in the area. The people of Reddish deserve good-quality public amenities and facilities, and better infrastructure in key green spaces like Reddish Vale and North Reddish park. Under the previous Government, many residents felt forgotten, while more affluent areas of Stockport benefited from sustained investment. Sadly, this is continuing under our Liberal Democrat-controlled local authority. It is purely a political choice, just as austerity was. Can I remind the House that the Liberal Democrats were in coalition with the Conservatives for five long years, delivering truly regressive policies such as austerity, the bedroom tax and much more?

A Reddish resident told me recently:

“It feels like Reddish is a cash cow, the residents pay lots in and get absolutely nothing in return.”

Across my constituency, there has been a string of failures by Stockport council. Grand Central swimming pool, which has provided this country with sporting champions, is in need of investment, with the future of its 50-metre capacity uncertain. Many roads across my constituency are in an unacceptable state, with potholes and ineffective repairs. Stockport Central library has been closed since September 2025, with no timetable or indication of when it will be reopened by the council. The bridge near Harrison’s weir in Reddish Vale is still out of action almost 18 months after it was severely damaged by flooding, with Stockport council producing no timeline for its repair. Charges in council-owned carparks, including at Broadstone Road in Reddish where charges were recently introduced, are hitting residents and small businesses hard.

Turning to Reddish Baths, the site includes the disused baths building, the former community centre and fire station, and Reddish library. The 1908 buildings—library, fire station, baths and mortuary—are thought to be the only configuration of their type in the UK. They were a gift to the people of Reddish on joining the county borough of Stockport and are considered by some to be a symbol of the esteem—or the lack thereof—in which Reddish is held by Stockport council. Reddish Baths closed in 2005 and has stood vacant ever since. For generations, the swimming baths brought the community together, allowed young people the opportunity to learn a vital skill and served as a much-loved facility. Despite that, Stockport council currently has no firm plans to reopen or reinvest in this historic building. I want to pay tribute to Reddish North councillors Rachel Wise and David Wilson, who work tirelessly for the wider community and have done lots of work with me on this issue.

I recently ran a community survey in Reddish, asking residents to share their views on the future of Reddish Baths. Almost 1,000 residents responded, offering crucial insights into the community’s opinion: 86% of respondents placed swimming or fitness facilities in their top three preferred future uses for the site; 50% selected youth activities and services; 43% chose a community café or meeting space. The strongest guiding principles were promoting health and wellbeing, preserving historic architecture and expanding youth and family services. Some 65% of respondents want a plan that brings together the library, baths and community centre into a single, multi-use community and cultural hub. The most frequent expressed hope was clear: reopening the baths.

Many respondents referenced childhood memories, the loss of local pools and frustration at seeing a valued building left unused. There is also a strong desire for a shared community asset that serves all ages. However, residents also raised concerns that future plans could be too expensive for local people, exclusionary for low-income households, older residents or young people, run in a way that limits genuine community access or harmful to the site’s heritage. Some residents also expressed distrust of Stockport council due to previous delays and failed plans. I contacted the chief executive and the leader of the council to reopen engagement on the future of the bath site. I am grateful to the chief executive for visiting the baths with me a few months back. Across five facilities in Stockport borough, the public supply is 2,648 square metres of water. To meet the recommended supply of 12 square metres per thousand of the population, Stockport would need another 990 square metres, meaning that there is currently a clear water provision deficit.

Not only has Reddish lost its baths; we also have serious issues as Grand Central swimming pool in our town centre. Sport England has been less than helpful with my inquiries, which is highly disappointing because it receives a huge amount of funding from British taxpayers. Nationally, swimming outcomes are worsening looking at the 2024-25 statistics, only 73% of year 7 pupils can swim 25 metres competently, and just 67% of children aged five to 16 can swim 25 metres unaided. That is 30,000, or 3.5%, fewer children than in 2017-18.

Turning to libraries, only 19% of children and young people in the north-west read daily in their free time. That is the second lowest percentage in England. Alongside this, research from the University of Liverpool suggests that 1.2 million residents in Greater Manchester could be digitally excluded, with around 450,000 residents being non-users of digital technology. Reddish library was the first to have been purpose built in Stockport. It is also the home to the longest continuous library provision in the borough. Reddish library needs investment in its equipment, staffing and opening hours. The building itself is crumbling with a leaky roof. The library is a vital community asset, supporting people of all ages to learn crucial literacy skills and providing support for members of the community who are digitally excluded with free wi-fi provision, computers and help with digital skills. Many people also rely on our library as a warm space.

I am concerned that the urgent works identified for the library have still not been undertaken, despite the importance of this facility to the local community. I have been lucky enough to hold surgeries at the library, and I remember during my last surgery a few months back that there were lots of buckets out in Reddish library catching the water that was leaking from the roof. It is absolutely unacceptable. It is also deeply concerning that scaffolding has now remained in place at Reddish library for over three years at a cost of over £26,000 to the taxpayer. When including VAT, that cost rises to over £30,000 paid by the people of Stockport.

I am so disappointed that Stockport council made a combined application for four libraries across Stockport borough under the libraries improvement fund, rather than prioritising areas such as Reddish, where the need is most urgent. Reddish north has a digital exclusion risk index score of 4.37 out of 10. That is much higher than other parts of my constituency, where the scores are between 1 and 2.

The local authority, Stockport council, could have made a decision to submit a one-off individual application for Reddish library. However, Reddish was simply one of many bundled into one joint application, despite needing thousands of pounds to stabilise the roof in addition to the other issues that I mentioned. The council did not inform me of this application. Had they done so, I would have been more than happy to lobby the Government and the Minister on behalf of the council. However, communication with elected officials, whether councillors or MPs, seems to be really poor from Stockport council. I recognise and welcome the investment secured from this Labour Government for nearby Bramall Hall, in my neighbouring constituency of Cheadle, including £1 million this year in addition to the £1.6 million previously awarded. Many of my constituents feel strongly that Reddish has once again been overlooked.

To be clear, I welcome investment in all parts of Stockport, not just in my constituency. However, the Liberal Democrats should be honest and upfront about overlooking some parts of our borough and prioritising other areas. I am a proud trade union member and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank Unison members working in Stockport libraries and across Stockport council for all the work that they do and the vital services they provide to the people of Stockport. It has been noted that Reddish has fewer home library service users than other parts of Stockport borough with similar demographics. That is attributed, among other factors, to the extraordinary knowledge, diligence and care demonstrated by Nicki and Belinda, Reddish’s long-serving librarians.

As we mark the National Year of Reading, I also want to recognise the outstanding work of organisations such as Read Easy Stockport, whose volunteers help adults improve their literacy and confidence. Facilities such as Reddish library play an essential role in supporting that work, but they need a roof that does not leak to do so.

I want to challenge the narrative being pushed by the Liberal Democrat council leadership in the local press. We are told that this Labour Government, who are trying to address the effects of the coalition years of austerity and cuts, have made a political decision on funding in respect of Stockport. Let me be clear: blaming this Government, who have been in power for less than two years, has become a convenient excuse for years of neglect in Reddish under the Liberal Democrats. The real question the people of Reddish and myself as the local MP ask is: why do some communities always seem to be at the back of the queue? Residents in areas such as Reddish can see the difference for themselves. They can see nearby areas getting investment attention, yet their infrastructure and public realm is left to deteriorate even further. If council leaders are prepared to speak loudly and publicly about funding shortfalls, they should also be prepared to explain their own choices. How have local resources been allocated? Which communities benefited the most, and why do some areas such as Reddish repeatedly feel overlooked and, frankly, invisible?

One cannot claim to stand for fairness while presiding over unequal outcomes; one cannot demand accountability from the Government while avoiding accountability for one’s actions—the “one” being the Liberal Democrat leadership at Stockport council. The leadership at Stockport council should stop looking for someone else to blame and explain to the good people of Reddish why their neighbourhood has been left behind.

[Lisa Smart]

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

[Navendu Mishra]

I have limited time and am already running behind. I may give way later, if I can.

The people of Reddish are not asking for special treatment; they just want fairness. I ask that the people of Reddish get equal treatment, and the same investment and urgency that appear elsewhere in Stockport borough. If money is so tight, why does this neglect never seem to fall equally across Stockport borough?

As an MP, I expect my correspondence and freedom of information requests to be dealt with promptly. The fact that I have had to repeatedly chase responses from Stockport council is unacceptable, and it inevitably leads me to question the level of service that local residents receive. If inquiries from elected representatives such as councillors and MPs are not being answered in a timely manner, it is reasonable to be concerned about the responsiveness and accountability experienced by constituents.

I made a freedom of information submission on 23 April. Stockport council contacted me on 5 May to say that it was unable to respond within 20 working days and needed 40 working days. The deadline for that was 22 June, which has come and gone. Today is 1 July, and I have been told that I must continue to wait for the information. The council cannot even respond to FOIs in a timely manner, which is frankly unacceptable.

It would be remiss of me not to mention Lancashire Hill, a development built with the ambitious vision of creating a thriving community. Despite decades of challenges, it retains that strong community spirit today. Residents look out for one another and demonstrate remarkable resilience in the face of difficult circumstances. However, the buildings are clearly crying out for investment. Constituents regularly raise concerns about ageing infrastructure, unreliable lifts, damp and mould, security issues, antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and the need for major refurbishment to bring homes up to a modern standard.

Lancashire Hill is now recognised as one of the most deprived neighbourhoods not only in Stockport but in Greater Manchester, making its exclusion from recent Government regeneration and recovery grant funding all the more difficult to understand.

[Lisa Smart]

indicated assent.

[Navendu Mishra]

My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), is nodding.

At a time when the Labour Government and the Stockport Mayoral Development Corporation are helping to deliver 8,000 new homes, the case for investment in Lancashire Hill has never been stronger. Growth must be matched by fairness. While we build for the future, we must not overlook existing communities living in ageing housing and facing persistent challenges. Lancashire Hill deserves to share in that vision for renewal, with the investment necessary to modernise homes, improve the local environment and give residents the quality of life that they rightly expect.

Many constituents living on the Lancashire Hill estate feel that they deserve better, and I agree with them. I would welcome the Minister’s attention on the acute challenges facing communities with significant need. I invite the Minister—my good friend—to visit Stockport. I promise to take her to the UK’s only hat museum, which is in my constituency. I would also like to take her to Lancashire Hill to meet residents and see at first hand the issues and challenges facing the community, as well as the extraordinary community spirit that endures there. I want the Government to provide the investment needed to modernise that vital development, so that families can enjoy the safe, secure and high-quality homes that they deserve. Stockport council also has a duty of care to the residents of Lancashire Hill, and I want the council administration to take tangible action for them.

Reddish is a fantastic area with so many wonderful community groups, charities and faith groups. Re:dish provides food, supplies and vital support for local people, the friends of Reddish south station campaign tirelessly and passionately for better transport links, and Houldsworth working men’s club, which was built in 1874, is an essential community hub. Community spirit in this area is alive and well. For last year’s small business Saturday, I ran a competition to celebrate the work of small businesses in my constituency, and the vast majority of nominations came from Reddish, including Reddish Ale, the Last Track coffee shop, Ozzy’s café, Johnny’s café and so many more. You and I are good friends, Mr Western, and you know that I like cider. On your next visit to Stockport, I promise to take you to Reddish Ale for a lovely pint of cider. It was great to see the community spirit coming together to honour their contributions.

I emphasise to the Minister that communities such as Reddish cannot be left behind when future funding decisions are made. The £20 million awarded to Brinnington through Pride in Place is very welcome, and I am so grateful to the Government for awarding it after years of decline and austerity under previous Governments, but it is essential that support is not concentrated in a few areas alone and that places like Reddish also benefit from meaningful investment.

Areas with high deprivation, ageing infrastructure and long-standing under-investment need targeted support if the Government are serious about levelling up opportunity and improving quality of life. If Stockport council’s Liberal Democrat administration is serious about addressing the country’s largest deprivation gap, it must ensure that all parts of our borough get a fair share of funding.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) for securing this debate, and for using this opportunity to highlight so powerfully not only the brilliant things about his constituency and Reddish, but the challenges that need to be addressed.

The regeneration of our towns and cities is at the heart of this Government’s core mission to deliver growth and prosperity in all corners of the country. Protecting and enhancing local areas, including vital community assets such as libraries, leisure facilities and health facilities, is central to that work. I know that that is felt particularly keenly in neighbourhoods across Stockport, including Reddish, which my hon. Friend has spoken about today. Too many neighbourhoods have been let down and left behind after decades of under-investment and many years of austerity—areas such as Reddish have paid a heavy price. I know that political choices have to be made, but the consequences of the choices made in the austerity years are still being felt by people in Reddish.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the impact of years of decline has not been felt equally. That is why it is crucial that this Government are relentless in focusing on growth and regeneration to raise living standards across the country. By working in partnership to invest in and empower all regions of this country, we will kick-start growth and work to address the imbalances that exist between and within regions.

Funds such as the local regeneration fund and the UK shared prosperity fund have helped local areas to regenerate, but there have been limits. I am pleased that residents in Stockport will have benefited from a number of schemes financed by both funds, including for new employment spaces, improved rail access and walking and cycling routes, all of which are aimed at bolstering the local economy, connectivity and public health. However, as my hon. Friend has said, too many legacy funds were pitting places against each other through competitive bidding, which led to places such as Reddish being left behind. Those funds are coming to a close, and the Government have been looking at how local projects are funded, introducing a longer-term approach that provides sustainable and predictable support for local authorities.

The truth is that elected local leaders have the expertise on how to invest in their communities. Having served as a local council leader myself, I feel that very strongly, and I know that, regardless of political party affiliation, the interests of local communities are best understood by local leaders. That is why the Government have committed to a series of new devolved levers and flexible funds to regenerate places, including by introducing new funds for mayoral strategic authorities.

In its integrated settlement, Greater Manchester has been allocated £141 million of local growth funding over the next four years. That enables strategic, place-based investment, meaning that money will be targeted where it is needed most, addressing challenges for areas that need additional support to get projects off the ground. We have also announced city investment funds, which will place money directly into the hands of mayors to deliver new housing and to get existing projects moving forward. Local authorities are, of course, essential partners in that work. We know that mayoral strategic authorities work closely with their constituent councils to shape priorities, as they should, including by co-designing interventions and ensuring that funding reflects local need.

One example of new and locally led delivery is the Pride in Place programme, which I am glad my hon. Friend referred to. Over the next decade, it will deliver £2 million per year directly to the local community in Brinnington, which is just on the other side of Reddish Vale country park. As I say, local people know what changes are needed for their community to thrive. That is why decision making on how those funds are spent sits with local neighbourhood boards. They will decide how to spend that money, whether it is on local arts, culture, heritage, sports, parks or something else that they think is important for their community.

[Lisa Smart]

I strongly agree with the Minister’s point about local leaders being best placed to make decisions. However, does she agree that when £3 of every £4 of Stockport council’s revenue spending goes on social care for children or adults, the number of choices that the council can make is far too limited?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I entirely agree that local government has for too long been underfunded, and we are, as a Labour Government, having to respond to 14 years of deep austerity. Having spent 10 years in local government, I would want to see more if the pot were endless, but politics is full of choices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport said. Before us is the choice being made by this Government to ensure that we target resources at the areas that need them most. Projects such as Pride in Place, and the record amount of money given to local authorities across the country, demonstrate that.

There is much more to do, which is why I welcome this debate. My hon. Friend has highlighted the need for more investment in Reddish. I was pleased to hear that, since the launch of the Pride in Place fund, really good progress has been made, but there is more to do, and I hear his strong representations.

I know that local services, including decent library services, are a lifeline to many people up and down the country, including in Reddish and other parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to the individuals he mentioned in his speech, some of whom contribute on a voluntary basis. If it were not for the voluntary sector, and for individuals who help communities through their activities, we would be much worse off as a country. I pay tribute to those individuals, as well as to local council officers who work in frontline services and care so deeply and passionately about things such as library services.

We all agree that regeneration and protecting community assets are important. Investing in services, particularly libraries, is crucial. So many communities up and down the country want to see more of that. The most effective way to enshrine the needs of our communities in regeneration, to ensure that it works for them, is to equip local leaders with the necessary skills and tools to make that happen, and to ensure that we give them the voice and the levers that they need. I am pleased to see progress in the borough of Stockport, not only through new flexible spending powers granted to the Greater Manchester combined authority, and new funds and announcements to generate growth in the city region, but from empowering the local community to deliver and enhancing areas through projects such as Pride in Place.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the co-operation and co-production of services and regeneration, with the leadership of Members of Parliament, residents, and local authorities—which, in my experience always have good intentions, even if we do not always agree with their political choices—is an opportunity to shape a local place. The Government’s approach recognises that different areas require different interventions tailored to local circumstances. We must not only focus on the immediate challenges, but continue to ensure that funding goes in the right direction for the long term.

I very much welcome and accept the kind invitation from my hon. Friend to visit Reddish and his wider constituency—I would be delighted to visit. I note that I was not invited to drink cider, but I shall invite myself to do that, too, alongside the visit to the hat museum. I thank him once again for securing this important debate and for being such a strong champion for his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Elections: First Past the Post

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this vital debate. Like many colleagues, we have both been vocal, proud advocates for political reform. This debate builds on the important work of my hon. Friend in the previous session, when she won a vote on the Second Reading of her Bill to bring PR to elections for national and local government in England. That was a clear sign that the demand for reform exists across the House and continues to grow.

In her excellent opening remarks, my hon. Friend mentioned the newly re-elected right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) whom I have told I would mention. He is not alone in his support for proportional representation. The right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the deputy leader of the Labour party, has said that she has always supported electoral reform. From a different side of the political spectrum, the Conservative London Assembly member Emma Best has said her party should start thinking seriously about proportional representation. She speaks compellingly, making a strong Conservative argument for PR.

When voices across the political spectrum are saying the same, the Government should listen. I am proud to sit as vice-chair for the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the largest APPG and shows clear cross-party support for replacing first past the post with a proportional system. It is good to see several members of the APPG here today. We have heard from a number of them, so I will reflect on some of their comments. My fellow vice-chair, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), reminded us that PR is fair. We are in a multi-party political system and first past the post, which was set up for two parties, is no longer fit for purpose.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) talked in detail about his experience on the city council, and how PR in Scotland works. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison), said that despite being elected on a minority of votes, he represents well his whole community. That is an urgent issue, to ensure that people have trust in our system. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) talked about how the voting system shapes the way we campaign, focusing on a core number of marginal seats and a group of voters in them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) reminded us that PR is not a panacea—he is absolutely right to do so—but it is a fundamental step in the right direction towards a fairer, better system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) reminded us how PR shapes how we campaign and what we choose to do and not do with our resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)—while doing an impression of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle—gave us examples from overseas and of parties working together in local government. He also reminded us that sorting out the voting system would better enable us to sort out our country.

I know that objections are made to reform. We are told that PR means weaker coalitions, constant instability or Members who answer to a party list rather than the people they serve. To those who have those concerns, I point to the weakness, instability and chaos, frankly, that we have seen over the past decade. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made his case, as he often does; he had a very good go at making arguments that I disagree with, but I am sorry to say that he failed to convince me on this occasion. Seven Prime Ministers in 10 years is not what a well-functioning system looks like.

Our current system is failing, and we have such a great opportunity to push forwards and make positive reforms. Some may look at each change of Prime Minister as a story about one person, one party or one bad week in Westminster, but that just does not cut it. When a pattern repeats again and again, it stops being about individual issues, personalities or failures and starts reflecting the system that produces them. First past the post manufactures large majorities out of modest vote shares, and those majorities are built on such shallow foundations that they can collapse as quickly as they were built. Instability is not a glitch in our multi-party system; it is a feature of it.

There are various forms of PR. I will not try your patience, Mr Turner, by ranking them in order of my preference—I will save that for the Lib Dem conference—but, suffice to say, the Liberal Democrats support the single transferrable vote. It keeps a strong direct link between Members and the place they represent. Constituents have local MPs to turn to, but they would have a real hand in choosing them. That is the price of different voting systems.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as she is my friend on the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am sorry I was not here at the beginning of the debate; I was at a really important statement on Nottingham maternity services in the main Chamber. Does the hon. Lady not agree that, even if some commission came forward and said that STV was absolutely the way to go and that we should adopt it in future, this country should adopt it only if the electorate validates that through a general election where a majority of the parties making that promise win a majority in Parliament, or through a referendum?

[Lisa Smart]

I am not personally a fan of a referendum. They can be quite divisive and they return one of two answers, so I would not support one. The Liberal Democrats have had a fairer voting system in our manifesto since the foundation of our party. I believe that the current Government, whose party the hon. Member is a member of, have put forward some other suggestions that were not in their manifesto in 2024, so it is possible for situations to change. It is possible for the world to move on, and for people of good will to work together for the betterment of our country.

Single transferrable votes for the House and for local councillors in England would mean that communities would not be written off because they were a safe seat, and nobody would feel that their vote was wasted. We could also introduce more nuance into a debate than can be delivered via the medium of bar chart. Consider the previous general election: the Labour party won about two thirds of the seats in the House on roughly one third of the vote. A system that can hand near-total control of the Commons to a party that two in three voters did not vote for cannot honestly claim to speak for the country.

The Liberal Democrats have argued for fair votes for decades, because a democracy in which every vote counts is a better democracy. I do not want to spend my time today just listing what is broken, because the more important point is that we have in front of us a genuine opportunity to put it right. The appetite for reform is no longer confined to the Liberal Democrat Benches; it is growing across the House and across the country. We need to fix our politics so that we can fix our country. An amended Representation of the People Bill could be the vehicle to deliver it and to give this country a voting system worthy of the people it serves. I hope the Minister will tell us today that the Government are ready to take that chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I believe I have already addressed that point: it is because of us, as politicians. I absolutely agree with many of the comments that Members across the House have made today about trust in politicians and the level of discourse, but we need to improve our game. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation between the voting system and turnouts at general elections; I genuinely think that it is normally about whether a voter feels good or not. If the hon. Gentleman’s only issue is voter turnouts and he wants to have a conversation about compulsory voting, then I am up for that debate, but I do not believe that we should move to another system without looking at whether voting should be compulsory or by choice.

It is worth recalling, as I lightly touched on, that the British public have previously been asked whether they wish to move away from the existing voting system for Westminster elections. That was in 2011, and it was a condition of the Liberal Democrats being in government from 2010 to 2015. A clear majority voted to retain first past the post rather than adopt an alternative system. In fact, only 2% of local counting areas wanted rid of first past the post.

[Lisa Smart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the alternative vote is a preferential voting system, not a proportional system?

[Paul Holmes]

Absolutely, and we can talk about that, but that was the system that the Liberal Democrats proposed in that referendum, and they lost the argument when they were in government. When they were last in government, they put a question on reforming the voting system to the country and it was resoundingly rejected. I agree with the hon. Lady; I am not in favour of referendums a lot of the time. But I believe that we have put the issue of reforming our voting system to bed for the foreseeable future—that is, unless a Government come in with a manifesto commitment to change the voting system, in which case we can have that discussion, even though my party would still oppose it.

It is worth saying that 2% of local counting areas voted against the last referendum. I struggle to see why we would reopen a question on which the public have already expressed a clear preference. That, in my view, is the crux of the matter. This debate is not fundamentally about voter understanding or participation; it is about dissatisfaction with how support for certain parties translates into seats under the current system.

Many Members make the case that we should switch to a proportional representation system in order to follow the example of other major democratic nations. I do not accept that. This country has consistently delivered stable Governments—which is slightly ironic, given the last week or so. I also remind Members of the comments made in previous contributions: we vote for Members of Parliament, not for Prime Ministers. That is the key point about the system in our country. The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has been spoken of as the Prime Minister-elect. We do not have that. We elect Members of Parliament, and the party that has the most MPs forms a Government. If they do not have a majority, they try to form a coalition—that has happened in recent history. We do not vote for Prime Ministers. That is why I do not think that argument pushes the case forward for proportional representation.

This country has consistently delivered stable Governments, in contrast to a number of European systems, which rely on complex coalition arrangements. That is not to suggest that we need to compare systems like that to justify our own, but it is clear that first past the post prevents smaller and more extreme parties from having undue influence, which is a respected element of the UK’s democracy. I refer Members to some of the parties elected to the Israeli Parliament, which has a proportional representational system.

In conclusion, first past the post is not a perfect system, but it is a proven one. It delivers a clear link between constituents and their representatives. It provides voters with identifiable accountability, and it ensures that Governments are formed with a clear mandate from the electorate. I utterly respect the case made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I utterly respect the fact that we are likely to see calls for electoral reform in a future Liberal Democrat manifesto, but I dearly hope the voters reject that option. For the reasons I have set out, I believe first past the post is the system to form strong and stable Governments in the United Kingdom.

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Lady very much.

Question put and agreed to.

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

New Clause 60

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

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

(a) after ‘vary’ insert ‘—

(a) ’;

(b) at the end insert

‘, or

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

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

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

New Clause 2

Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration

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

(2) After subsection (2) insert—

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

(a) a member of, or

(b) a politically-appointed adviser to

a foreign administration.’

(3) After subsection (8) insert—

‘(9) In subsection (2A)—

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

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

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

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—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 15—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 mean anyone who has at anytime 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 16—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 17—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

6A (1) A regulated donor 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 proscribe 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

8A (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 38—Permissible donors: foreign citizens—

“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 54 after paragraph (2) insert—

‘(2AA) For the purposes of this section, subject to the exemptions in section (2AB), an “individual registered in an electoral register” does not include a person who is on a register by virtue of being a “qualifying foreign citizen” for the purposes of—

(a) Section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021, or

(b) Section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020.

(2AB) The exemptions in this subsection are that the person is on an electoral register because they are—

(a) a qualified Commonwealth citizen,

(b) a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, or

(c) a citizen of the European Union who would be eligible to vote in local elections under the English and Northern Ireland franchise.’”

This new clause prevents people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 from being permissible donors but are not qualifying Commonwealth, Irish, or EU citizens.

New clause 39—Mitigating the risk of foreign interference in political donations—

“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a consultation paper on how Government will enhance information-sharing between relevant agencies and public bodies and registered political parties to help to identify and mitigate the risk of foreign interference in political donations that are regulated by electoral law.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on how to enhance information sharing between relevant public bodies or agencies and political parties to minimise the risk of foreign interference in political donations.

New clause 45—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 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 funds or assets 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 or assets that may be taxed in the UK which have a value of at least the amount to be donated.

New clause 51—Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding—

“(1) The Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency 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 Crime Agency 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—

(i) 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

(ii) 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 Crime Agency 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.

[Lisa Smart]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Trust in our democracy is not something that we can afford to take for granted; it is earned, and it is increasingly fragile. Years of scandals, sleaze and foreign money flooding into our politics have eroded that trust, and we must act to restore it. My new clauses are designed to restore transparency to our democracy, and to restore that trust.

New clause 2 would ban anyone who is or has been a member of, or a politically appointed advisor to, a foreign Administration from donating to a political party, think-tank or campaigning body. If a person has served in a foreign state in a political capacity, they should not be able to use their personal wealth to shape British politics—that is the reason behind the new clause. The resulting risk of strong potential conflicts of interest, and of foreign influence by proxy, is self-evident. The current permissible donor rules focus on nationality and residency; they do not ask whether a UK-registered donor has served a foreign Government in a political role, which is a gap that a determined adversary could drive a coach and horses through.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increased transparency in political donations. We believe that protecting democracy is a national security policy priority. If Ministers are serious about closing the loopholes that exist, which allow foreign and dark money to shape British politics, they will welcome new clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I completely support the thrust of these new clauses tabled by the hon. Member, in terms of protecting British democracy. I have a specific question in relation to new clause 3. Last year the Government proscribed a protest organisation. That proscription has since been overturned in the High Court, and it is still being considered. Is the hon. Member concerned about her new clause might interact with that particular case? Is there a case for thinking carefully about that issue?

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to wade into such a thorny political issue—and an issue where it is important to stay on the right side of what can be said in discussing a proscribed organisation. The Government should use their powers of proscription proportionately, in all cases, and should be able to robustly back up their decision to proscribe an organisation with very clear evidence that is made public. I am on the record many times as saying that.

The police and any authorities that we are asking to implement the law must do so according to the law as it is at the time. At the moment there is a live case where an organisation was proscribed and there are relevant court cases. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that. Over the weekend, arrests were made in relation to that proscription. New clause 3 is about donations to political parties. If an organisation is proscribed—and it is still proscribed—it would fall under the scope of new clause 3, even if there are ongoing legal processes that have not yet concluded.

[Dr Chowns]

Just to be clear, my concern is that literally hundreds of people have been arrested for holding placards in relation to that organisation. Potentially, under the hon. Member’s new clause 3, all those hundreds of people could be forbidden forever from donating to any political party. I am not sure that that is proportionate. It strikes me that there is complexity there, relating to the specific new clause. I am fully on board with excluding promotion of political violence and so forth, but that particular case highlights a complexity, particularly around the hundreds of people arrested for holding placards.

[Lisa Smart]

The arrests were made for support for a proscribed organisation via holding a placard that said the holder supports that organisation. I think we are talking about the same case. I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Proscription of organisations is a tool that the Government rightly uses, although I have questioned the proportionality of the use of that tool. New clause 3 particularly mentions political violence; the hon. Member is talking about peaceful protest, if I understand her correctly. All hon. Members on this Committee, and everyone beyond it, should support the right for people to tell a Government that they think the Government have got it wrong. We should all support that and not make it harder for people to do it. If, however, someone is guilty of a

“prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”,

I do not think that they should be able to financially support a political party. The promotion of an organisation is the same as supporting an organisation. There are ways of supporting organisations and causes that stay exactly the right side of the law. While I am not of the view that the Government have always used proscription rules proportionately in recent months, I do think that, if those rules exist, they should be able to be used in that way by those who are enforcing the law.

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

I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. I have listened carefully to what she said about new clauses 2 and 3. With respect to new clause 3, it would be helpful to consider the treatment of those who may have been opponents of an oppressive foreign political regime who have been convicted in this country of an offence that might be a proscribed offence under mutual recognition arrangements, but where they perhaps sought asylum in the UK. We have seen examples of people who were vocal opponents of the Putin regime in Russia coming to the UK and joining a political party. Those are people who we recognise as good citizens. How would they be treated should that offence be on that proscribed list?

In respect to new clause 2, again, I have sympathy, but I raise the issue of business people undertaking consular roles in other countries. It is quite common, for example, for a British business person who may be the British consul in a particular town to then be appointed by a series of other Governments to act for them as an agent in that respect. Subsequently, on returning to the UK that business person would be caught by the rules in new clause 2, even though those restrictions are in no way intended to target those types of activities. Has the hon. Member given some thought to how those types of roles would be captured and how they might be excluded?

[Lisa Smart]

New clause 3 talks specifically about political violence. While we can sometimes agree with the message that opponents of our adversaries use, it is right that we are against political violence and those who promote political violence. I think that covers his question on new clause 3.

[Dr Chowns]

There are some people who renounce political violence— Nelson Mandela comes to mind. Obviously, he was never a British citizen, but there is a genuine question there.

[Lisa Smart]

We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so.

On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point. I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written.

Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly.

On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability. Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support.

New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree.

This new clause makes transparency operational. It requires parties not simply to accept or reject donations, but to demonstrate annually that they have actively assessed and mitigated the risks of foreign money entering their finances through UK-registered vehicles. Foreign-owned UK entities are a known vector for influence. The public record of recent years—Russian money, oligarch links and opaque corporate structures—makes that plain. An independent annual audit is a proportionate and practical response.

New clause 17 is about prohibiting politicians from receiving payment from proscribed state broadcasters. State-controlled broadcasters have been used as instruments of foreign influence, disinformation and political interference for decades. It would be extraordinary to allow individuals seeking or holding elected office to receive financial benefit from those very organisations. That is not a blanket ban on media appearances—heaven forbid—it is a prohibition on financial relationships with broadcasters acting as foreign propaganda arms.

Moving on to new clauses 45 and 51 proposed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Joint Committee that he chairs noted potential risks around permissible donors being used as “conduits” to channel foreign money into UK politics. It further noted a discrepancy between corporations needing to have a UK connection—for example, generating enough revenue in the UK to cover their donation—and individuals, for whom there were apparently fewer such requirements. The report considered various options, balancing security interests against the risk of creating chilling effects.

New clause 45 would mean that overseas individuals wishing to donate would need to hold funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK, sufficient to cover the cost of their donation. That broadly mirrors the Government’s proposals for corporations to have generated sufficient UK-based revenue.

On new clause 51, the Joint Committee’s report also highlighted the resourcing challenges faced by the Electoral Commission and law enforcement bodies such as the National Crime Agency, and noted that legislative changes will be effective only if there is adequate resourcing to enforce the rules. New clause 51 would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to report annually on the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak briefly to Opposition new clauses 38 and 39 in my name. They are proportionate measures to enhance the legislation and assist the Government in their aim of tightening up on foreign political donations.

New clause 38 would prevent people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020, but are not qualifying Commonwealth citizens, from being permissible donors. We have tabled it because we are concerned that modern changes to devolved legislation have created loopholes in who can give money from foreign origins.

The Labour Government in Wales have given all foreigners the right to vote in local and devolved elections. The SNP Scottish Government have done the same in Scotland. Those Administrations have made those changes through section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act and section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act.

Such legislation has also given foreign residents the right to make unlimited donations to UK politicians and political parties. We contend that that opens the door to Russian, Chinese and Iranian foreign influence. For example, a Chinese “student” resident at a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any UK political entity. We have raised that issue in Parliament, but the current Government have declined to address it. The new clause would essentially ban that from happening, except where a person is a Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizen, as we believe those historical links are much more in keeping with the current electoral guidelines and legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lisa Smart]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

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

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

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

[Lisa Smart]

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

[Paul Holmes]

In the interests of ensuring that you call the right votes, Dame Siobhain, there is no doubt in my mind when the Minister says she is genuinely looking at trying to fix this problem—I believe her; she is a Minister of integrity and I know the Government absolutely want to achieve that aim—but this is happening now and, with no commitment to timescales, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked for in relation to the Rycroft review, I am concerned that it will still be a problem.

I know the Minister will try to implement this carefully, but the lack of information sharing at this precise moment means that money is still being given, despite the fact that organisations that the Electoral Commission is not currently asking could provide that desperately needed clarity and transparency. Given the reassurance that the Minister has given to the Opposition on new clauses 38 and 39, however, I will not press them to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am happy to be speaking in support of new clause 4, and in favour of new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 20, which is in my name, would require parties to declare cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, and I note my earlier comments about the sticky wicket on which the Minister is being asked to play.

The Government’s statement on the publication of the Rycroft review was a rare moment in which they nailed both the timing and politics of an issue, and it was absolutely right to ban crypto from that day to stop any further gaming of the system. However, I completely agree with the hon. Member that this Committee is the place to have a conversation about what that will look like. Future Government amendments will be tabled at a later, as of yet unspecified date. I believe that the Minister is working with officials on the issue, but this Committee is where we can talk about the Bill on a cross-party basis.

The Rycroft review recommended that a moratorium be placed on political donations made in cryptoassets. The Government responded to the review on the date of its publication, but, although other amendments to the Bill have been tabled, there has not yet been a clear indication of how quickly that recommendation will be integrated into it. The Liberal Democrats look forward to getting some further detail, dates and quick action, but we also want the measures introduced in this Bill to be effective in the long term.

Cryptoassets are extremely difficult to trace. The difficulty in tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets, the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets and the advent of AI-assisted technologies that can break cryptoassets into small amounts, below any threshold at which donations may have to be declared, create serious risks for political finance transparency. There is also a real risk of cryptoassets being used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the UK political system, and neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties currently have the capability and expertise to manage that risk adequately. New clause 20 would require parties to declare the cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. Given the clear issues with crypto donations, the public should surely expect transparency on them.

On new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examined the merits and risks of allowing crypto donations, noting that benefits include the potential for greater transparency in some cases, and for regulations to gradually institutionalise alternative forms of payments. However, the Committee concluded:

“Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate. We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.”

Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance, with the Committee report going on to say that

“donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.”

New clause 12 therefore calls for an immediate moratorium on crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance, which should be made using the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to review its adequacy before it is accepted. That guidance could include measures regarding the donor’s identity and location, the original source of funds and maximum limits on the amount of crypto that may be donated.

It is also worth mentioning that, as we have seen in the press in the last couple of weeks, a leader of a UK political party has been promoting the use of cryptoassets and has gained financially from doing so. We should all spend a moment to reflect on why somebody would want to do that, particularly when cryptoassets are not risk-free. Promoting their use, and the use of gold bars as an investment tool, should be beyond what is acceptable for an elected Member of this House. I encourage anybody, particularly people who purport to lead a political party in this country, to really think about the impact of their actions, particularly when it is for financial gain. On that basis, I commend new clauses 12 and 20 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I will touch very briefly on the new clauses that have been tabled. I thank RUSI for the report that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined. I had a meeting with RUSI yesterday, and the fact that it was able to even start to break the ice of my understanding of cryptocurrency and the regulatory framework that is needed was a miracle. It has done a lot of work on this issue, and I congratulate it on coming up with quite sensible proposals and information that goes into detail about the benefits of a ban versus a moratorium.

It is very easy in this House to ban things, but we do not want a ban that creates a worse problem by moving that cryptocurrency upstream. Therefore, as the official Opposition we welcome the idea that there should be a moratorium. We also welcome the fact that the Government implemented an immediate ban pending a review. If a moratorium goes ahead, we need to make sure that an adequate regulatory framework is implemented to prevent some of the exploitative measures that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove outlined in her excellent contribution.

As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined, we are discussing in this Bill Committee probably the most important aspect of the integrity of the electoral process. There are plenty of others in that competition, but the most important aspect of that is foreign interference and donations, including cryptocurrency donations. We are being asked to give the Government our trust—and I do trust the Minister—that these changes are going to happen very soon. The hon. Member is absolutely correct to say that this is the most intense part of the parliamentary process. At the moment, we are being asked to debate new clauses put forward by Opposition parties. We are relying on the Government to give these matters just as much importance, yet they have not given that timescale.

I am torn on new clause 4. I understand the intention of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but at the moment my feeling is that new clause 4 is really not worth agreeing to. That is because of the evidence given to me by RUSI, which shows that preventing parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets does not solve the issue of those cryptoassets getting through to candidates and parties, or interested parties, later down the line.

The briefing that was given to me by RUSI about the potential drawbacks of a ban mean that I am not satisfied that new clause 4 would do anything at this precise moment. I rose to speak because I want to sincerely give the official Opposition’s commitment to assist if the Minister wants to engage on a cross-party basis. That has my contention at other stages of the Bill Committee—we stand ready to assist on a cross-party basis to really speed up the passage of elements of the Bill, including on this matter. I would never speak on behalf of other parties, but I am sure that stands for them as well.

[Lisa Smart]

As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning other parties and as I represent one of those other parties, it is only appropriate that I stand up and agree with him wholeheartedly. Everybody in the Chamber and beyond wants us to get this issue right. It is not a party political point. As the hon. Gentleman is, I and we are ready to work cross-party to get it right. If that means us doing some extra work between the various stages of the Bill, I would be completely content to be part of that.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the hon. Lady.

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

We think these clauses are sensible, but I have a number of questions for the Minister on their implementation. First, has she had any feedback from the Electoral Commission regarding these added responsibilities? Does she think they are within its current operational capacity? Has the commission given her Department any feedback on whether it is happy to undertake the new requirements that the Government are placing on it, and that it is resourced properly to implement and enforce them, particularly those in clause 56?

Clause 56 places a duty on candidates to send a copy of their returns to the Electoral Commission as well as the local returning officer. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are political parties and independent candidates of all shapes, sizes, abilities and internal machinery. There are associations of all political parties across the country that are run by a couple—at best—of well-intentioned volunteers, who might not necessarily be at the forefront of new electoral law changes. Has the Minister taken that into account? How will she communicate these regulations effectively so that we do not have the unintended consequence of some well-intentioned candidates and agents falling foul of them, just because of the postcode they seek to represent?

The Opposition have a wider concern about changes like this one, especially in the light of the answer given to a written question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The Government have proceeded with these legislative changes without consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel. Given that clauses like this one will have a direct influence on and consequences for political parties of all shapes and sizes, it is regrettable that the panel has not been consulted at all on the Bill whatsoever.

I urge the Minister and the Government to take a step back in progress with the Bill’s passage and reset their view on consulting the Parliamentary Parties Panel when they are seeking to make changes of this nature. In that way, political parties represented on the Committee can actually be consulted and give the Government their views. It is regrettable that they have not done so. The Minister has rightly brought the clause forward, but she has absolutely no information about the views on these changes of parties—not just the Conservative party but smaller parties and independent candidates—

I hope the Minister takes that as a genuine nudge. It is a complaint from the official Opposition that these changes, and the Bill in general, have changed precedent. When the last Government introduced the Bill that became Elections Act 2022, the panel was consulted because that legislation affected all political parties on an equal basis. This Government have chosen not to do that. That is regrettable. I look to the Minister to change the course of this Government when it comes to future changes to electoral legislation.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. This discussion about part 4 feels slightly odd because we are having part of the conversation but will have a further conversation on Report, for all the good and understandable reasons that we have talked about, after the publication of the review by Sir Philip Rycroft. Many people truly welcome Sir Philip’s work and some of us were fortunate enough to take part in it, but we are discussing the measures under consideration while fully aware that we expect further movement from the Government.

I will speak to the new clauses tabled in the name of the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). We Liberal Democrats welcome clauses 56 and 57, but the JCNSS did a huge amount of work looking at money and interference in our politics, and it has made some recommendations, which are manifested in the new clauses. The JCNSS welcomed the Government’s commitment to commence section 54A of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That section was inserted in 2009 but never commenced. It covers requirements for donors to make a declaration about their donation, but the Committee found that the provisions need more work to adequately address concerns about donors acting as conduits for foreign money. New clause 47 would require the Government to commence section 54A of the 2000 Act within three months of the Bill being passed. The subsequent linked new clauses change the provisions of section 54A to address its shortcomings.

Regarding new clause 48, the JCNSS heard evidence that law enforcement often faces prohibitively high thresholds for taking action on suspicions of wrongdoing, and that part of the problem is linked to the wording of the legislation, which requires law enforcement to prove that actors “knowingly” broke the rules. New clause 48 would lower the threshold and use wording in line with that of anti-money laundering regulations, whereby persons are liable if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are facilitating impermissible donations.

Regarding new clause 49, the JCNSS questioned why it would be appropriate to have such a high threshold—£11,180—for making a declaration. It perceived a gap that could be exploited. For example, a UK donor might receive £11,179 from a Russian source in connection with a planned donation but would, apparently, not need to declare that when making a £11,179 donation. The JCNSS noted the general principle that donations below £500 are largely outside the reporting scope of PPERA and would not need to be reported or recorded. A £500 threshold might therefore prove a more robust basis to guide the level at which money received in connection with a donation needs to be declared. The new clause would require any donation above £500 to be accompanied by a declaration on its source, and whether related gifts have been received. Transparency and consistency are both good things, of which there should be more.

[Paul Holmes]

I wonder if I could urge the hon. Member to change her view. Does she not think that the £500 threshold is very low, if we consider the fast period when a candidate may be fundraising, during the longer term of an election period? Many of our constituents will give money during that period. At £500, the burden placed on candidates and on the person giving the money would be probably too harsh. The threshold needs to be lifted to something more realistic.

[Lisa Smart]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s intervention, and I think that we should talk far more than we do about domestic money in politics, as well as foreign money in politics. Power is concentrated in far too few hands. The price of elections is going up and up, and that is not good for democracy. I would welcome that discussion.

New clause 49 is in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, so I am speaking to it on his behalf. We are talking about £500 during the course of a calendar year, so £50 a month breaches the threshold. I think there is a conversation to be had. As I say, this new clause is not in my name.

On new clause 50, the Committee heard evidence that the current 12-month prison sentence was not an adequate deterrent. Also, the low sentences reportedly limit the type of investigatory tools that law enforcement may use in an investigation. I am content to speak to the new clauses on behalf of the Member who tabled them, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington.

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

I rise to speak to both the clauses and the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove spoke to.

Briefly, commencing section 9 to PPERA, as proposed by new clause 47, is something that was put into legislation 17 years ago, so it feels really quite overdue. Regarding the points that were just discussed around new clause 49, which proposes the reduction to £500 of the threshold for declaring the source of a donation, making such a declaration is not necessarily a hugely onerous process. I imagine that when someone makes a donation and fills in a form, they just put, “Source: my salary”. This is not necessarily a hugely problematic part of the process of creating more transparency. We surely all agree that more transparency is needed in our political financing system, to protect from the corrosive effect of foreign donations, and of huge inequalities and the lack of transparency over domestic donations. I strongly support all the new clauses.

I will raise a couple of additional points, which I would like the Minister to respond to. First of all, regarding the provision in clause 56 and schedule 7 to submit two returns now—to both the local returning officer and the Electoral Commission—I note that the Electoral Commission, in its briefing to the Committee, argued that this provision clearly makes things more complex and problematic, and it argued that the primary responsibility for submission should be to the Electoral Commission. Does that not make more sense? Given that the Bill is introducing a requirement to submit to the Electoral Commission, why do not we just say, “Submit the return to the Electoral Commission”? Then the Electoral Commission can correspond with the returning officer if it wants to. But let us just have one submission and make the process as simple as possible for candidates and parties. Could the Minister respond on that point from the Electoral Commission about the requirement to submit two returns?

Secondly, a point raised by Philip Rycroft in his extremely useful report, under recommendation number 7, is that

“The Electoral Commission should mandate political parties to submit their annual reports and accounts and campaign spending returns in a standardised format.”

Could the Minister comment on whether she proposes to take that recommendation forward? It would be very helpful in improving transparency and clarity in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak to clause 58 and to Opposition amendments 32 and 31, which would require the risk assessment to take into account whether a donor is required to register under the foreign activities and foreign influence registration scheme.

As the Minister outlined, clause 58 would make changes to PPERA to require registered political parties to undertake risk assessments on reportable donations—those more than £11,180. Multiple donations from the same donor within a calendar year would be aggregated for the purposes of the threshold. Similarly, schedule 8 would require third-party campaigners and others already regulated under PPERA to undertake “know your donor” risk assessments. We welcome the Minister’s approach to tightening the regulations around political donations. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove said, we need to talk much more about this issue, including domestic donations. We think that the clause has some really strong attributes to increase transparency and equalise the donation procedure.

I take issue with the Minister’s interpretation of the consequences of amendments 31 and 32, although she recognised that they are well intentioned. I fail to see how they narrow the scope of the risk assessment, when they would actually broaden it. It seems alien that the Government are not willing to broaden the scope of those risk assessments with a system that has been in place since 1 July 2025. If we reject these two amendments, do we not risk creating two frameworks? We would be wilfully leaving out an existing framework when trying to do risk assessments. It would strengthen the risk assessment if we brought into play an existing framework that already undertakes regulation.

Our amendments would broaden the scope of the risk assessment rather than narrow it. When somebody is making a donation to influence the role of Members of Parliament, and they are voluntarily registering themselves under the foreign influence scheme, it is important that that is included in our donations regime. It does not stop the well-intentioned aims of the clause from operating, because this already exists. I fail to understand the Minister’s resistance to the two amendments.

We are discussing very important attributes of the Bill and very important subject matters: donations to political parties. We have all had our bad ones. We have all had our good ones, which enable democracy to take place. We have had a comprehensive and welcome review from Philip Rycroft. The Minister has outlined that the Government will undertake a solid consultation response to that review, but we are pushing ahead with clauses that will, let us face it, be passed in this Committee and then in the House at later stages of the Bill. The Minister will bring forward amendments that will be debated, but there has not been a consultation.

We have always contested that the measures in the Bill could be paused until there is a proper cross-party review of the Rycroft review. If we could come to some agreement on a cross-party basis, the later passages of the legislation could be fast-tracked. It is regrettable that the Minister and the Government—although I do not blame the Minister personally—are coming to this House with important and forward-looking legislation without taking into account a proper review to directly influence the proposals they have introduced. I do not think a general election is imminent—unless the Minister suddenly gives us cause for concern—so a pause would not be detrimental to the passage of the Bill. It could give scope for cross-party agreement on the proposed reforms and speed up the passage of the Bill.

The Bill is a significant piece of legislation, but it has been introduced only at the tail end of the parliamentary Session. I am aware that there is a carry-over motion, and the Conservatives fully support that through the usual channels, so why rush the clauses when we have not had the proper implementation and review of the Rycroft review? It would make far more sense to introduce a consolidated Bill in the next Session after cross-party consultation so that we can have a proper discussion, rather than fast-tracking the Government’s tabled amendments.

I am sure that the Minister will respond to that in her usual courteous way, but I would be grateful if she could outline why she seems to think that amendments 31 and 32 would somehow hinder the operational regulatory implementation of her proposals. They would actually broaden the scope, and, we would argue, back up its implementation through already existing legislation. We regret the attitude that the Government have taken to the importance of the Rycroft review and the consultations with all political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. I remind her that a written question has outlined that there was no consultation on a cross-party basis before the Bill was introduced to the House. We will be push amendments 31 and 32 to a vote.

[Lisa Smart]

We Liberal Democrats support greater scrutiny of the sources of political money. We will not oppose any of these amendments, whether from the Government or His Majesty’s Opposition, but we want to raise some issues because we believe that they could have gone further.

The amendments were tabled, as has been mentioned, following the publication of the Rycroft review, but revisions around cryptocurrency donations are not included in them. In a welcome statement to the House, the Secretary of State talked specifically about banning crypto donations, but there is no mention of that in the Bill. The Government accepted Sir Philip’s recommendation on the day that it was published, so why is there nothing about that in this group of amendments? The Government have a ready vehicle for it in front of them, so the Committee would welcome an explanation of why that is. Can the Minister set out a planned timetable of future actions, including a firm commitment on when a cryptocurrency amendment will appear?

The shadow Minister talked fairly about how this process is running in parallel, making it quite difficult to understand what is ahead of us. The Government are working on a response to the Rycroft review in full, and there are measures in the Bill that they will be keen to ensure are implemented in time for the next general election, including votes at 16 and automatic voter registration. Those will take time to implement, so I understand that the Minister is playing a reasonably sticky wicket, trying to go at pace but in a thorough and considered manner. She has not been dealt an easy hand, but I would appreciate hearing about her planned timetable for issuing further amendments.

I am sure that the Minister agrees about the scale and immediacy of the threat that some of the amendments seek to address, including foreign interference in our elections and democracy. Urgency on those actions is needed. It is important to get these measures in place as soon as possible, but they really should be the right measures. I would welcome hearing from the Minister about when she plans to bring forward further information, and I am sure that we all look forward to scrutinising that in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 59 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Donations by companies and LLPs etc

[Lisa Smart]

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

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 35, in clause 60, page 73, line 8, at end insert—

“( ) 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 if they cause or permit a breach of those requirements without reasonable excuse.

Amendment 36, in clause 60, page 77, line 14, 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.

Amendment 37, in clause 60, page 77, line 28, 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.

Clause stand part.

New clause 13—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 32—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.’”

New clause 52—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.

[Lisa Smart]

Before I speak to the amendments, I should say that I welcome clause 60, but I do not support new clauses 13, 32 or 52. The overall thrust of these provisions is that the UK is one of the only countries that still allows donations by companies, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she and her colleagues gave any consideration to putting a stop to that altogether.

Amendments 34 to 37 are, again, in the name of the Chair of the JCNSS, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. The Committee’s report identified a need for tighter rules on corporate donations. That includes ensuring that proportionate civil and criminal sanctions can be targeted at those who deliberately engage in wrongdoing.

Amendment 34 would ensure that corporate donors must nominate a director or partner who would be responsible for complying with the legal requirements. Otherwise, the JCNSS fears that there is a risk of inadequate deterrence if accountability can be attributed to a complex corporate structure. The amendment would help to enable the Electoral Commission and law enforcement to hold specific individuals to account for wrongdoing.

Amendment 35 is a linked amendment, and specifies that the responsible director or partner would be criminally liable for breaching political finance rules. To ensure appropriate deterrence, it would raise the penalties from 12 months to three years in prison. Those higher sentences would also enable law enforcement to make use of more extensive investigatory powers when examining potential wrongdoing. The National Crime Agency said that the use of many investigatory tools is curtailed by the fact that sentences are only 12 months.

On amendments 36 and 37, the JCNSS report highlighted a potential Bill loophole relating to corporate donation limits. The Committee supported the Government’s proposal of limiting donations in line with the amount of revenue generated in the UK, but the report highlighted assessments from the Electoral Commission that the upper limit appears to apply to the individual recipients of donations, rather than to the individual company. That suggests that a company could donate its upper limit to a political party and then donate the upper limit hundreds of times over to individual MPs and regulated entities—for example, candidates. The Committee concluded that this unlimited limit is the wrong policy choice and a major issue with the Bill’s drafting. It seeks to fix that loophole with the amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Local Government and Homelessness (Alison McGovern)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It is important for local authorities to work very closely with NHS colleagues, as I am doing in Government, to ensure that we have sufficient adult social care. Otherwise, we will not be able to get people out of hospital and into good homes. I ask his local council to pay attention to that, and I will happily work with him on it.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T4. Lib Dem-run Stockport is the MJ’s council of the year. It spends £3 in every £4 on adults and children, and it includes the most deprived part of Greater Manchester, yet the Government’s funding settlement leaves the borough receiving £52 million less each year than the average across equivalent authorities. That has been made significantly worse this year. What advice would the Minister give to my constituents when they see the council having to make cuts to vital local services?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. We want to see all councils progress towards financial sustainability, and what I would say to her constituents is that the decisions taken over the past 14 years have left councils paying for failure. If we get that right, we will be able to spend on the things that people really prioritise locally.

Representation of the People Bill (Fifth sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

With respect, the hon. Gentleman seems to have a varying acceptance of what is important and what is not. It was 0.8% of people who were turned away at the last general election. Witnesses have said that there was virtually no impersonation at polling stations during the general election. I can give the hon. Gentleman an example from 2022, when somebody in Eastleigh, my constituency at the time, was imprisoned for impersonation—the law punished them. Identification checks should be as strong as possible. In this proposal, we see the Government accepting that premise for someone standing as a candidate in an election, but not wanting to extend that emphasis on security to those voting in elections. I think that is slightly ironic. The Government are strengthening on the one hand, but taking away on the other.

Does the Minister think that photographic ID will be required for candidates to prove who they are when they give their nomination papers to the EROs? If she does not think that photographic ID is required, can she outline at this early stage—we understand that this will be introduced in secondary legislation—whether she thinks a bank card would be acceptable to prove that someone is indeed the person they say they are when they seek to stand as a candidate in a UK election?

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I find it slightly confusing that the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, does not see that there should be a higher bar for somebody to stand for election and represent their community than to vote in an election.

[Paul Holmes]

I do, and that is exactly why I am saying that it is ironic that the Government are watering down the ability to vote in an election, but want to increase the thresholds to stand in one. I believe in a universal approach, and that is clearly what the Government are not pursuing. That is what I meant.

[Lisa Smart]

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

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

[Samantha Dixon]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Withdrawal of certificates authorising candidate descriptions

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

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

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

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

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

[Samantha Dixon]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Banking has advanced to such a great extent that I could pay for my cup of coffee on my iPhone with my bank card showing—nowhere does that card have my name on it. What if people do not have a physical bank card? Although the legislation says that voters have to show a physical form of bank card, there are different cards now. The designs of bank cards have changed, and no two bank cards are of exactly the same design. It is very hard to put the burden of evidence on a volunteer election official at a polling station and expect them to ask the elector to provide their bank card; if they are not satisfied, they will be put at risk.

I contend that, if this measure is implemented at the next election, the number of arguments or attacks at polling stations will increase because of the downgrading of the type of ID required. ID is very simple and very expected, as we first heard at the evidence session. It has absolutely bedded in, and it is well known now, because of campaigns by the Electoral Commission, that voters are to take photographic ID to a polling station. Many people now know that. It is the least we should expect that, when people try to vote in this country, they should show a form of photographic identification.

[Lisa Smart]

The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to make the point about the advertisements that have been around. Does he accept that, according to the Electoral Commission’s report, 4% of people who did not vote said that the knowledge of the requirement to show ID—because of that advertising—meant that they did not turn up at the polling station?

[Paul Holmes]

Of course I accept that, if they do not have a form of ID listed as acceptable in the advertisement, that is a factor. But they are also told that they can go and get a special form of identification to allow them to vote. That is specifically catered for under the Elections Act 2022, and should they not have one of the listed forms of identification, that alternative form of identification to enable them to vote is free of charge.

The barriers being put forward by Members—I do not count the hon. Member for Hazel Grove among them yet; I will wait until she speaks to her new clause—saying that people simply cannot vote because they do not have those forms of ID, is nonsense. There is an acceptable form of ID that is catered for under the Elections Act 2022.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

We will not stray into the issue of online banking, banking hubs and high street banks, but I have some sympathy: I have family members who do not want to do online banking. The hon. Lady’s mother can get a free voter authority certificate from the council, or she could choose to vote by post, and then her signature would be checked and verified by the council. There are two options for her to pick from. I do not understand why we think this is so difficult.

As I said when intervening on my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, I have seen political leaflets from every party represented on this Committee showing what forms of identification people need. That is before we even get to the election day, and way before the deadline that the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield mentioned regarding the voter authority certificate. Voter ID has been in place now for a number of elections. I have been turning up at polling stations since the legislation came into place, and in all those hours I think one person did not have ID—and they came back with it later in the day.

As I said in the evidence session, I question the data that is being collected. It is not clear that we are capturing the data on whether people come back later in the day with their identification. It was also mentioned that people get turned away at the door and might not even make it to the clerk’s desk. How many of those people come back? They will not be captured in that data. Voter identification is a good thing, and I am extremely concerned that we are watering it down. As I said, the Government are putting people who work at polling stations in a very difficult position, because it is not clear what type of name—first name, initials or surnames—needs to be on the bank card. We will have more disputes under the new system that the Government are trying to introduce than we have under the system that we have now.

[Lisa Smart]

It will not surprise anybody that I am not in favour of amendment 30 and will speak in favour of new clause 19. Before I get into that, I will speak briefly in favour of clause 47 and Government amendments 10 and 11. If we have voter ID, it should be as wide and as accessible as possible, so I will not speak against those provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

What the hon. Lady has just outlined has no effect when it comes to a provisional licence, which is photographic ID.

[Lisa Smart]

The point I am making is about bank cards in particular. I want it to be as easy as possible for people to vote, and the Electoral Commission’s evidence was that the barriers put up by requiring photographic ID particularly impacted certain demographic groups, including young people, who often face additional barriers in terms of understanding how the world works.

The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have talked about how they have a number of bank cards and understand the system. That is great, but they are from a demographic group for whom the modern world is built, and it is not the same for everybody. If a person rents, often changes address or does not speak English as a first language, the world is harder to navigate, but everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to vote.

Bank cards are among the most common everyday items, but amendment 30 seeks to restrict that widened category, creating a barrier to entry that mimics a credit score-based franchise. Many legitimate voters, particularly younger people, including the 16 and 17-year-olds who are to be enfranchised, and lower socioeconomic groups, use basic banking services that do not require formal credit searches. We heard in the oral evidence sessions last week from Peter Stanyon, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, who pointed out that the measure would add unnecessary complexity for polling staff, some of whom are volunteers. It would require them to understand the nuances of credit check markers on cards, which would be an impossible administrative burden.

New clause 19 would abolish the legal requirement to show photo ID when voting in person in Great Britain. Liberal Democrats were not in favour of it when it was introduced, and we remain not in favour of it today. I have heard it described repeatedly as a solution in search of a problem. Before the introduction of voter ID legislation between 2019 and 2023, out of tens of millions of votes cast, only 10 people were convicted for personation during a UK election, and yet the scheme saw 16,000 voters turned away, according to evidence from the Electoral Reform Society.

This is not a crisis that required the legislation that was brought in. The Government are now trying to extend that, and it is certainly not a crisis that justifies the Conservative amendment before us. We believe it would make things worse rather than better. Restricting bank card voter ID only to cards issued after a formal credit check would significantly narrow eligibility, and we do not support that.

We believe that voter ID requirements should be scrapped because they are a deeply unfair policy. If bank cards, which include only a name to provide verified information, are seen as acceptable forms of ID, would it not make sense to extend the provision and allow any form of personal ID to be shown at the polling booth? Partial improvements are not enough when the underlying principle and policy remain deeply flawed.

I have mentioned some of the evidence presented to us by the Electoral Commission. Further evidence from the organisation showed that the number of voters turned away was 50,000 at the last election, with 34,000 of those people returning to exercise their right to vote. Meanwhile, the University of Manchester found that almost 2 million people did not have the right ID to vote in 2024. These people are not just a statistic; they are individual citizens who were not able to exercise their democratic right.

I remember knocking on doors at the last election and speaking to somebody who was livid that she could not exercise her right to vote. She had recently been divorced, and she had changed her name as a result. That meant that a lot of her ID was in her old name and so she was unable to cast her vote, which she felt very strongly about. She talked to me about the women—the suffragettes and suffragists—who had died to ensure that we had a right to vote. I remember that conversation on polling day very clearly.

We have talked already about how these measures disproportionately affect some communities over others. Hope Not Hate reported that 6.5% of ethnic minority voters were turned away from a polling booth at least once, compared with 2.5% of white voters. Evidence from the Electoral Commission shows that those in the C2 and DE social grades were significantly more affected, with 8% of lower-income non-voters saying that they did not vote because they lacked the required ID, compared with 3% of higher-income voters. We should not be stopping people who are entitled to vote for want of the correct photo ID. This is a solution in search of a problem—and for that reason, I commend new clause 19 to the Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Dame Siobhain. I support clause 47 and the removal of the requirement for ID to be photographic and the introduction of credit and debit cards as acceptable ID insofar as those are important improvements for accessibility. However, they do not go far enough.

I want to speak in favour of new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Green party believes that we should be scrapping voter ID. Mandatory photographic voter ID was introduced via the Elections Act 2022, despite there being no evidence of a need for it in the first place. It was widely criticised at the time as a blatant act of voter suppression by the utterly discredited Johnson Government, who were presenting a solution looking for a problem—as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said.

We have heard today about the importance of defending the safety and integrity of our democracy, but I would contend that there are numerous other, far more pressing threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy: the influence of dodgy donors; the widespread prevalence of disinformation; the giving of covid contracts to mates; the stuffing of the other place with political appointees—including donors; and parties breaking election law without adequate penalties or prevention.

There are many threats to the safety and integrity of our democracy. I would contend that the threat of personation, which, as we have heard explained several times, is a numerically tiny and very rarely occurring offence, is not the main one. I very much hope to see a proportionate level of passion expressed by some colleagues in other parties when we come to discuss the urgent need to clean up political finance and stop disinformation later in discussion of the Bill.

Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I was grateful to meet Philip Rycroft as part of this important and urgent work.

The threat that we face is not new. Back in 2020, the Intelligence and Security Committee said that Russian influence in the UK is the “new normal” and that the Government then were not doing enough. Since then, we have seen Reform’s former leader in Wales being convicted for accepting pro-Russian bribes.

We have said before that the Representation of the People Bill is not nearly ambitious enough, so I very much look forward to working as part of the Bill Committee to incorporate the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the Government intend to accept just the two recommendations that he has focused on in his statement, or all of them?

On overseas donations, a cap is welcome, but does the Secretary of State accept that if this reform is made without wider changes, a malign actor could get around it simply by donating via a UK company? We strongly support the moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency, but much more is needed to really seize this opportunity to clean up our politics. We should ban anyone who has served a foreign Administration from donating to UK political parties, think-tanks or campaign groups A significant opportunity remains for those who have been political appointees in hostile Governments to funnel donations into the UK.

We should also ban politicians from receiving payment for participating in the propaganda of foreign adversaries, on broadcasters like Russia Today and Iran’s PressTV. Will he also address why calls from the Liberal Democrats for Donald Trump’s Administration, and their explicit policy of interference in our democracy, to be included in this review were ignored? Will he order a stand-alone probe into that?

[Steve Reed]

Let me thank the hon. Member for her and her party’s engagement with Philip Rycroft’s review. She is right to point to the growing threat; it has been evolving over recent years. She mentions the case of Nathan Gill, which underscores the nature and the gravity of that risk. Today I am accepting the report in general. We are bringing forward two provisions now, because had I not done so, a window for evasion would have been left open. We will provide a detailed response to all 17 recommendations. The amendments that we table will be open for parliamentary scrutiny and debate in the usual way. I look forward to her and her party making their views clear as we go through the process.

Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. The Liberal Democrats support clauses 15 and 16. I will speak to new clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. Her explanatory statement is clear that it

“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”.

Both the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner made some good points about ensuring there is not the postcode lottery that we are in danger of. I look forward to their support for this new clause.

As I said earlier, the Liberal Democrats are strongly in favour of votes at 16 but enfranchisement must be meaningful. Not only does the Bill make provisions for votes at 16 and 17, but it allows for pre-registration on the electoral roll from age 14. We rightly support that, but if we are asking teenagers to enter the democratic system at that age, we must consider how we support these young people to be properly informed and prepared.

New clause 44 is modest. It does not delay enfranchisement or obstruct the Bill. It simply asks the Secretary of State to report within 12 months on how the extension of the franchise will be supported in practice. Civic education should never mean telling young people what to think. We want our young people to understand institutions and elections and to have media and democratic literacy. We need a joined-up strategy because we do not want a postcode lottery for civic education. Some schools and local authorities may do civic education really well and others may not. Young people across the country should not have significantly different levels of preparation for participation, depending on where they happen to live or study. I would include those who are in the care of a local authority very strongly in that. National enfranchisement reform deserves a national implementation plan. In the modern world, media literacy is very important alongside basic democratic literacy.

The Bill already recognises that practical support matters. Clauses 15 and 16 are important because they make clear that simply extending a legal right is not in itself enough. Placing duties on public bodies to raise awareness of voting rights and to assist certain young people with registration is a welcome step, and we support that principle. But if we are to create a new franchise, it is right to think about whether those who are newly franchised are able to exercise it. That is why new clause 44 is reasonable—it follows that principle.

Clauses 15 and 16 are welcome, and we recognise the necessity of targeting relevant young people, but it is yet to be determined which part of the system will take the lead on preparing young people for participation—schools, local authorities or national bodies. The new clause asks the Government to set out in much more detail how that responsibility will be approached.

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

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the chair, Dame Siobhain. I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 44, which, as the hon. Member has set out, is a very reasonable and modest proposal. As I said, I very strongly support the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, but it is crucial that investment in developing political literacy and supporting civic education goes alongside that. That is a message I have heard from young people themselves; from those who have come to Parliament to campaign for this, and those in my constituency who have also called for this.

I strongly urge Ministers to make sure they take this crucial opportunity to invest in developing trusted and accessible spaces where young people can explore political ideas, through the formal education system and other structures and spaces that work with young people. The role of youth organisations and youth workers in supporting democratic participation is crucial to remember.

We need to do everything possible to build young people’s confidence in navigating democratic processes and in forming their own political ideas. We need to give them support in navigating an increasingly complex political landscape of political information, misinformation and disinformation. That civic education part is a crucial component of, and complement to, the extension of the franchise itself. New clause 44 absolutely strikes the right balance here. This is not about delaying the extension of the franchise. It is simply about saying, on the face of the Bill, that we recognise the importance of civic education alongside the extension of the franchise, and that we ensure there is transparency and sufficient attention given to developing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I can offer hon. Members that reassurance. I have worked with DFE colleagues to consider the independent curriculum and assessment review. That review will take onboard democracy, government and law being part of the curriculum going forward. As I mentioned, citizenship will also be introduced in primary schools. As we go forward, the wide collaboration of not just this Government but devolved Governments, local authorities and others will support schools, colleges and youth groups to roll out practical civic education. I mentioned that this is not a singular act but an ongoing task. A report of a proposed activity offered a year after the Bill becomes law will be little more than a snapshot of a much longer-term programme of work. For that reason, the Government do not support the new clause.

[Lisa Smart]

I very much welcome the Minister’s comments about how we need a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that young people are equipped to exercise their right to vote. She talked about devolved Administrations, schools and others. There are non-governmental organisations and charities working on that approach: Shout Out UK and My Life My Say are two really good examples.

The Minister is right that this is an ongoing process, but the extension of the franchise will be a one-off. There will be a single point in time when the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. The new clause, which would provide for a report after 12 months, has been tabled to ensure that the necessary work is done to look at what has happened and what needs to happen to make sure that our young people are properly equipped and empowered to use their vote.

[Samantha Dixon]

I accept that the hon. Member has a deep appreciation of civic education. However, we feel that a report after 12 months adds little value to the ongoing work that needs to continue over a number of years and a whole cycle of electoral events.

--- Later in debate ---

I have made my position quite clear. I look to the Minister to reassure us that if the Government are going to push forward with automatic voter registration, it is at least done for everybody at the same time for the same general election, so we can have a strength of feeling that our general election is conducted in a fair and appropriate manner.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats are in favour of automatic voter registration; it is a long-standing commitment of ours. As such, we support clauses 17 to 19, and we oppose amendments 26 and 27.

Some Opposition Members said they feel that the current system is doing okay and expressed satisfaction with it. I disagree. It is not okay that 65% of private renters are registered to vote compared with 95% of homeowners, according to Generation Rent. It is also not okay that young people or members of the global majority are far less likely to be registered—someone being black or brown should not mean they are less likely to be registered. Therefore, the Liberal Democrats support AVR.

International research by the Electoral Integrity Project found that the UK is ranked in the bottom half of countries in Europe for the extent to which elections empower citizens. Research from Manchester University shows that the UK has one of the hardest registration systems for voters of any liberal democracy. In democracies around the world, AVR is the norm, and has been proven to lead to more accurate—not less—electoral registers. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire quoted the Electoral Commission, and she was entirely right to do so. The commission said in its report:

“From the evidence available, nearly all of these additions to the register appear accurate”.

We should listen to the experts on this matter.

The Liberal Democrats always have concerns about privacy and civil liberties, and we want to ensure that any roll-out of AVR keeps control of the data with the individual. I agree with and support the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley about people being able to opt out. One of the measures in this part of the Bill is around data-sharing powers, allowing electoral registration officers to use existing Government records to register or update voters without requiring an application. Some of the evidence we saw from Unlock Democracy recommends clear opt-out communications and privacy safeguards. People may not fully understand that they are being registered unless they are proactively informed, so we support those recommendations.

We heard from Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia and the Electoral Integrity Project. He raised concerns that the open register means that people placed on the electoral roll may not be aware that their data can be sold to third parties. People who never sought registration to begin with may be especially unaware of that. Those are concerns we should all hold dear.

Amendment 26 seems to frame accuracy and inclusion as a trade-off. We do not agree. Triple verification would create administrative friction and disproportionately block the groups with the lowest registration levels, such as young people and private renters. We believe other safeguards are in place. The amendment is a blocker, so we do not support it.

Amendment 27 would delay the implementation of automatic voter registration. The review mentioned in it does not have a timetable, and the piloting framework in clauses 20 to 25 will already test the implementation of AVR. We do not support amendments 26 and 27; we support clauses 17 to 19.

[Samantha Dixon]

Voter registration is the bedrock of our democracy and is foundational to participation in elections; without it, we cannot exercise our right to vote. As hon. Members have pointed out, the Electoral Commission estimates that between 7 million and 8 million eligible citizens are either incorrectly registered or not registered to vote at all. We will address that registration gap by moving towards a more automated voter registration system.

Clause 17 will create a new process of registration without application, also known as direct registration. We believe that that will enrich our democracy by making voter registration as simple and easy as possible. It creates a new duty for electoral registration officers to add those who are unregistered directly on to the electoral register without those people having to go through the process of applying to register to vote, provided that certain conditions are met. That will be the case only if the ERO is satisfied that the person should be registered, on the basis of data obtained by the ERO. Those who are directly registered will be informed through a notice that it is happening. On the points made by the hon. Members for Broxbourne and for Hazel Grove, they will have the right to opt out of the process during the response period.

In conjunction with regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, clause 17 will open a world of opportunities for our brilliant EROs to use new data sources, both national and local, to get unregistered but eligible citizens on to the electoral register. It should also better streamline and hopefully, in time, reduce the administrative burden on EROs—for example, by reducing the need to send invitations to register and by softening the registration surges we see around election times.

We understand that direct registration is not appropriate for every kind of voter. As mentioned, there will be exemptions for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish to be registered in this way, or that they intend to make an application for registration. There is also an exemption for those who tell the ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application. There will also be an exemption where the ERO receives an application for registration of that person during the set response period.

We are not replacing the current system of registration, but are simply providing another means of registration. That will add a new, modernised mechanism that reflects the realities of how public bodies hold and use data today, and how individuals interact with those services. Direct registration offers many opportunities, but is not an overnight process. As will be covered in relation to clauses 20 to 25, it will take time to explore and test different data sources to ensure that they best identify eligible citizens. It will also take time to pilot and test the overall effectiveness of direct registration. There are significant opportunities here to move towards a more automated registration system that narrows the registration gap and builds a fuller and fairer democracy.

Amendment 26 proposes a new condition that must be met before the ERO registers someone without an application—that the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching. I appreciate the spirit behind the amendment, and of course share the commitment of the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to ensuring that only eligible individuals are registered.

Under the Bill, an ERO must directly register someone only if they are satisfied that the person is entitled to be registered. We are robustly exploring and will rigorously test different Government datasets that could be used to aid EROs in their new direct registration duties. As part of that, we are exploring which datasets will provide EROs with sufficient assurance to determine that a person is entitled to be registered. We do not agree with specifying a minimum number of datasets that should be used to determine someone’s existence. As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove pointed out, there is the potential for one or two robust and well-tested datasets to provide sufficient assurance. In those cases, it would be unnecessary and inefficient to require an ERO to consider further datasets, so I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley to withdraw his amendment.

Clause 18 is similar to clause 17, but focuses on a new process of direct alteration. It aims to improve the accuracy of our electoral registers in the simplest and easiest way possible for the voter. It will create a new process of alteration without application, also known as direct alteration. It creates a new duty for EROs to update people’s name or address details in their electoral register, where data shows that those have changed. Just like with direct registration, those whose details are directly altered will be informed through a notice that that is happening, and they will have the right to object during the response period.

The clause, alongside regulations made under clause 36 on data sharing, will enable EROs to use new data sources to identify people whose registration details are incorrect and update their entries without those people having to submit an application of alteration. That will help the accuracy and integrity of the register, and will make things easier for EROs, who might otherwise contact voters at the wrong addresses or using the wrong names. It will also help to prevent people from missing out on their right to vote, by ensuring that the right details are recorded for them.

As mentioned previously, there will be an exemption for those who inform their ERO within the set response period that they do not wish their entry to be altered in that way. There are other exemptions, including for those who tell their ERO during the response period that they wish to be registered with an anonymous entry, a declaration of local connection, a service declaration or an overseas elector’s declaration. Instead, those people will be able to independently submit a relevant application.

We are not removing the ability of individuals to contact their ERO to update their own details. Clause 18 will create a new, modern process that will be tested and iterated over time. It will allow EROs to use data in a common-sense way to improve the accuracy of the electoral register.

Clause 19 introduces schedule 2 and makes further provision in connection with clauses 17 and 18 for registration without an application and for the alteration of certain registers without an application. Schedule 2 makes a number of amendments to the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Representation of the People Act 1985 to allow for direct registration and alteration, and to build safeguards into the process.

I draw the Committee’s attention, in particular, to paragraphs 16 to 19 of schedule 2, which aim to ensure that if a person is an overseas elector or is applying to be one, a registration without application is disregarded if they did not ask for it to be made and they are still eligible to be an overseas elector. The clause aims to reduce the risk of a new entry being created without an application, which could then invalidate the registration or declaration of an overseas elector. That is needed to ensure that overseas electors do not inadvertently lose their right to their status as an overseas elector—for example, in the unlikely event that an ERO directly registers that person at an address at which they are not resident, and they miss the registration notice while they are overseas. We think the risk of that happening incorrectly is low, but we want to include safeguards in case it happens.

Amendment 27 proposes that direct registration and alteration duties for EROs—meaning registering someone or altering their registration details without that person submitting an application—and other, related provisions should not commence until after the Secretary of State has published an independent review. That review would look into the steps needed to avoid non-qualifying EU or Commonwealth citizens being directly registered. The amendment involves inserting a requirement for a review into clause 80, the Bill’s commencement clause.

Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Lisa Smart Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view, but I do not think, if he looks inside himself, that he genuinely believes that 16-year-olds should not be allowed to stand in an election but should be able to vote in them. In his intervention, like many on the Government Benches, he arbitrarily decided in his head what a 16-year-old can do and what they are not quite ready for. I suggest that is intellectually at variance with what the Government are saying about a 16-year-old. I take his intervention with a pinch of salt because he himself is saying they are not ready.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also said they are not ready to stand in the election. It is a big difference for someone to be able to represent the community they live in—but they can vote in it and elect someone to represent their community on their behalf. To put it mildly, that is intellectually at variance with the Government’s position, and I suggest that Labour Members do not really believe it is the case. Labour Ministers have not yet justified that variance—though that is understandable as the Minister has not yet spoken on this—other than to say that a lower voting age is about building long-lasting engagement.

The right to vote is one of the most important responsibilities in a society. It should be granted when an individual reaches full legal adulthood—when they are entrusted with the full range of rights and the responsibilities that come with them. We in the Conservative party contend that that age is 18. Lowering the voting age to 16 undermines that principle, introduces inconsistency and fails to deliver the benefits that its supporters promise.

Amendment 33 would prevent part 1 of the Bill coming into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review of the consistency of the age of majority with the age of voting set out in the Bill. It is not a troublesome amendment; this will have such profound impacts on other Government Departments and public services, and I genuinely do not believe the Government have thought of them. For example, each of us are privileged to represent a constituency in this place. We all go and visit our schools and younger people and we advocate, hopefully impartially—I am the biggest recruiter for the Hamble Valley Labour party that there could possibly be, and they all go and join once I have spoken to them.

When we go and speak to our younger people, we do so because we want to get them interested in politics, but nothing that this Government are proposing in this legislation would improve the education system to make sure that people have proper citizenship lessons and get that proper education through the national curriculum. Our teachers are doing their best, but many young people I talk to in schools are not getting that full, rounded citizenship education from the very early age that they should be if the Government are to implement these provisions.

That is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach, so we think there should be a review on a cross-departmental basis to see what that age of majority should be and what resources, from any Government Department, should be working towards if this legislation is passed and the voting age is reduced. That is the aim of amendment 33. We have set out our position, perhaps not as clearly as I would have hoped, but we have had a good debate on it. We will oppose clause 1 because we do not believe that the voting age should be 16; we believe the age of majority is 18, and that that is where it should stay.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. The Liberal Democrats support the general direction of the Bill and want to help the Government to get it right and, where we feel it falls short, be more ambitious. We remain particularly disappointed that the Bill contains no steps towards electoral reform and feel that it fails to take the opportunity that the moment presents. However, we will conduct ourselves in a constructive manner throughout this Committee.

The Liberal Democrats strongly support extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Young people can work and care for family members and are profoundly affected by policy decisions. In every single manifesto since 2001, the Liberal Democrats have supported votes at 16. In the 2010 policy paper “Free to be Young”, which was voted on by the party conference, we decided that

“when you are old enough to get married or join the armed forces, you are old enough to vote”.

We also affirmed that the Liberal Democrats,

“would empower young people with full political rights at 16”,

and we reaffirmed this most recently in our 2024 manifesto.

We will not support amendment 33, tabled by the official Opposition. We feel that it is an attempt to delay and obstruct votes at 16, which is a long-standing Lib Dem policy. We believe it is a delaying mechanism and not a genuine policy question. We feel that the age of majority argument is a red herring, as 16 and 17-year-olds already exercise significant legal rights and responsibilities. Inconsistency in voting ages is not a new problem requiring a review, as the voting age already differs across different types of elections, whether local, devolved or national. Voting at 16 applies already in Scotland and Wales for devolved elections; I have not spotted a particular constitutional crisis brought about by that. The amendment implies a problem that does not exist, and the Liberal Democrats will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome the Minister’s speech on this clause, and we agree entirely with her remarks.

Clause 2, as the Minister has outlined, extends the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners to include 16 and 17-year-olds detained in youth custody. It is consistent with the long-established principle in UK law that individuals serving custodial sentences have temporarily limited civic rights. The extension to youth detention simply aligns 16 and 17-year-olds with the framework that already applies to adults, ensuring that the law treats those in secure detention in a consistent manner, regardless of age. While 16 and 17-year-olds are generally recognised as sufficiently mature to vote under the legislation, that recognition does not automatically override the legal consequences of being placed in detention, where participation in normal civic life is restricted for reasons of accountability, public protection and rehabilitation.

We believe the Government have made the right decision. If the Bill goes through and the voting age is reduced, it is absolutely right to align it with the legislation that extends to such people. When someone commits a crime and faces a custodial sentence, I believe that there should be rehabilitation and education, which are crucial parts of the prison system. However, the fundamental right to participate in civic life is taken away when someone receives a custodial sentence in this country, which includes the right to vote and participate in electing a Government. That punishment has been sacrosanct within the criminal justice system for hundreds of years, and the Opposition believe that it should continue, so we wholly welcome the alignment of the Bill with current legislation.

I turn to new clause 9, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry). The Minister rightly outlined that it would extend the franchise to those serving a custodial sentence not exceeding four years, and who would ordinarily be eligible, and I think her response was absolutely spot on. No member of this Committee, or any Member in the main Chamber, would ever say, “Once you go to prison, you do not have the right to restorative justice, or the right to make something of your life again.” There is a fundamental principle in UK society when we make a mistake: you do the crime, and you do the time. We pay our debt back to society, and we then have the right to rehabilitate ourselves and make the most of our lives.

There is a fundamental difference if someone is put in prison for a custodial sentence, particularly one of up to four years, as the person has likely committed quite a serious crime to deserve that. It seems right to me that a punishment for that is the person being removed as an active participant in society, including having the right to vote for an elected Government or locally elected representatives.

This issue has been contentious for many years. When I worked for the last Conservative Government, before I was elected as the MP for Eastleigh, the European Union made an overt attempt to punish the United Kingdom for not aligning our custodial laws and voting laws with its mainstream recommendations; that was vehemently resisted by the Government at the time. Correct me if I am wrong—I am looking to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to help me out—but I think that happened during the coalition Government.

We resisted that attempt to punish the United Kingdom, because we believe a dividing line is that, if someone goes away and is put in prison for a crime, they should not be able to participate. The Opposition wholly stand by clause 2, and we do not support new clause 9. If the new clause is pushed to a Division—I know the procedures mean that votes on new clauses will happen another time—we will vote against it.

[Lisa Smart]

The Liberal Democrats believe that voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege to be earned on release. We champion the right to vote, and we are opposed to this disenfranchisement. We also believe that every unnecessary restriction on the franchise weakens democratic legitimacy.

Prisoners serving short sentences will, in most cases, be released within the lifetime of a Parliament, so they have a direct stake in the laws passed by the MPs they help to elect. Denying that stake feels arbitrary. We are also committed to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, and we believe that other laws we pass here should sit comfortably alongside them.

On new clause 9, we feel that the proposed threshold is arbitrary, and we are unclear why four years has been chosen as the cut-off. If the hon. Member for North Herefordshire could explain that, it would be extremely helpful. As things stand, without understanding why four years has been chosen, we will not support new clause 9.

We believe that the rules that apply to the franchise should impact 16 and 17-year-olds in exactly the same way that they impact those who are 18 and above, so we will support clause 2.