Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chowns]

I rise to move new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). I will also speak briefly to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, and new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. She is here and I am sure she will speak.

This incredibly important group of new clauses responds to a glaring absence in the Bill relating to crypto donations. As I will get on to, Rycroft has talked about this and the Government have committed to bringing forward related amendments. I am pleased about that, but it is very important that, in Committee, we take the opportunity to discuss in detail what shape those amendments might take and what the issues are around this topic.

There is consensus across wide parts of the political spectrum that cryptocurrency poses particular risks in relation to political donations. Transparency International has highlighted a number of factors: cryptocurrencies are fast and borderless, there are various exchanges offering anonymity and they are increasingly used for money laundering. There are clear risks with crypto, which makes it a high-risk vehicle for political donations through which foreign actors, who would otherwise be unable to, might be able to donate to political parties and candidates and try to influence British politics. Again, as Transparency International points out,

“it is reasonable to assume there is a strong likelihood that this alternative payment method is being used by hostile actors, such as Russia, to destabilise Western political systems.”

We need to take these warning very seriously.

Indeed, the Royal United Services Institute says:

“Cryptocurrency donations to UK political parties present an urgent and under-addressed challenge to the UK’s electoral integrity and, by extension, to its national security.”

It points out that

“the Bill does not mention cryptocurrencies”,

and says:

“This leaves a critical gap in our foreign interference defences as the pseudonymous, cross-border and decentralised features of crypto enable it to be used as a political money laundering accelerant”.

There are clearly many risks associated with crypto.

Philip Rycroft pointed this out himself and recommended:

“The government should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets, with a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective.”

There is some debate about whether we should have a blanket ban on cryptoassets or a moratorium with safeguards.

I am mainly concerned about the outcome, rather than the particular terminology that is used to deal with this. We must ensure that crypto is not used as a vehicle for the pollution of British politics. One of the key issues is the use of AI to split donations into lots of tiny fragments that go under the radar of any benchmarks or limits, and of the scrutiny of donations. That is a risk, but as RUSI points out, the more significant, under-recognised and under-dealt with risk is the indirect use of crypto.

It is very easy to translate crypto into a fiat currency at the point of donation, so although I am moving new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would

“prevent parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets”,

we actually need a stronger regulatory environment and to recognise that there may be even bigger risks from the indirect use of crypto further down the chain, which could still be used to hide the provenance of funding, even though it may not be in the form of crypto when it enters the coffers of a political party or candidate.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is articulating very real concerns about cryptocurrency and the way it can manipulate our democratic processes. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that, when the Rycroft review was published before the Easter recess, the Government responded pretty swiftly on this, and particularly on a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrency. Does she welcome the Government’s urgent response in the Chamber?

It was clear from Ministers that they intend to get this right. The immediate response to the Rycroft review was about making sure that we get something in place straight away. From listening to Ministers inside and outside the Chamber, I know there is an enthusiasm to make sure this is done right. Does the hon. Member welcome that initial response and, like me, does she look to see how we can tighten up our defences against cryptocurrency in the longer term, however they may be used to try to infiltrate our democratic processes?

[Dr Chowns]

I welcome the commitment that the Government have made. I participated in that statement in the Chamber before Easter. As the hon. Member will have noticed, I even welcomed and congratulated the Government on their positive actions under the Bill without prompting from the Government Benches. It is important to give credit where it is due. It is also important to have the opportunity, in this Committee, to debate some of these details.

If the Government are to bring forward legislation to institute a moratorium, it is important to think about what conditions will be set under which any such moratorium might be lifted in future. That is crucial, because it could otherwise be overturned very easily. I suggest that, at a minimum, the criteria for lifting any such moratorium should be that an adequate regulatory environment is in place for controlling the ultimate risk and that there is triple positive approval from Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority—the three most important oversight organisations on this issue. It will be very difficult and complex to find a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrency; I hope that we just get rid of it from our politics completely. But if the Government are going to introduce a moratorium, the conditions under which that moratorium might be lifted must be included in the primary legislation that puts it in place.

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I will just make some very brief remarks on the record.

I welcome this landmark Bill, which does a great deal to bring our democratic landscape into the 21st century, but I will briefly put on the record some thoughts about new clause 47.

As we digest the Rycroft review, I think that the new clause is worth further consideration, particularly about how we can have meaningful deterrence for the most egregious flouting of political finance rules. If we want to be able to deal with that issue, we also need to have effective prosecutions for serious breaches. My concern at the moment is that there is something of an enforcement gap, and I know that that is a description that the Electoral Commission has outlined as well. I remain concerned that when it comes to the real risks posed by foreign interference, we are leaving that gap open, which would run contrary to the rightful and important aims of this Bill.

The director general of the National Crime Agency highlighted here in Parliament in February that there is a “gap in law” and that

“a foreign state or foreign individual—someone who is impermissible—can transfer money to someone who is in the UK, who is permissible, and that person can give money to a political party or a politician, and there is nothing to stop that. That is perfectly lawful.”

There is an enforcement gap there that I know that the Minister, along with other Ministers and officials, will want to address. It is worth reflecting further on the aims of new clause 47 and how it tries to strengthen this Bill further beyond the work that it already does. As we look to digest the Rycroft review, and the Bill proceeds to further stages, it is important that we give the aims in the new clause rightful consideration, and think about some of those issues around the gap in enforcement when it comes to the most egregious breaches of political finance rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

Broadly, I hugely welcome all measures to improve the risk assessment of donations, which is critical, so I am glad to see those here. I agree that much more needs to be done than is currently in the Bill, as outlined by Philip Rycroft, among others, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to do that. I share the frustration expressed about the fact that we have two processes going on in parallel and so, from my perspective, we will not have sufficient opportunity adequately to scrutinise the proposals that the Government are promising to bring forward in relation to Rycroft. However, I absolutely feel their urgency and look forward to whatever opportunity we do have to scrutinise them.

I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that there are critical missing elements that we could and should be addressing in this part of the Bill: crypto donations, in particular, but also the desperate need for an overall cap on political donations. We will be able to discuss those issues later, when we come to the new clauses, but it seems rather odd that the Government have put nothing in this part of the Bill in relation to those critical elements.

I want to raise two specific issues in relation to this group of amendments. First, the Electoral Commission has made two points about the articulation of risk factors. It would like the list of risk factors to include any other risk factors that a reasonable party would consider relevant, rather than any other risk factors that a political party itself considers relevant, because that would constitute marking its own homework. It seems to me that that small tweak to language would clarify the risk factors. The Electoral Commission also recommends the inclusion of a risk factor relating to a person’s connections to other countries and jurisdictions. That might be a more inclusive way of addressing some of the points about a foreign influence registration scheme. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on those two recommendations—requests, essentially—from the Electoral Commission.

Secondly, in a report produced last month, CenTax—a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the University of Warwick—pointed out that it would be potentially much more sensible to establish a donor registration system operated by the Electoral Commission itself. That would mean transferring responsibility for the risk assessment for “know your donor” checks to the Electoral Commission rather than to political parties, which, depending on their size and longevity and so forth, might have varying capacities to do that. When a donor wished to make a donation to a party above a certain minimal threshold, they would apply to the Electoral Commission for a donor registration number and then use that when making the donation. That would make it much easier to keep track of multiple donations by a given donor, either to a single party over a period of time or to multiple parties.

That seems to me a sensible and workable proposal for improving transparency and clarity in the system, recognising and addressing the burden of compliance requirements that will be placed on parties—including local parties, which, as has been mentioned, are very much reliant on volunteers—and ensuring a consistent approach to donor risk assessment and monitoring. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that recommendation from CenTax that a donor registration system should be established.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Before I speak to clause 58, let me say in response to the hon. Members for Hamble Valley and for Hazel Grove that this game-changing legislation and the Rycroft review have both come in the first Session of a new Government. There is a clear understanding—the Minister has made it known here and in the Chamber—that the threats that we face, whether through foreign interference or foreign money trying to influence our democratic process, are severe, and we have made a robust response to them, through this legislation and by commissioning the Rycroft review last year.

I want to make two points on clause 58. First, a key part of the changes introduced by the Bill is the “know your donor” principle, which will require political parties to take more responsibility for exactly who is funding them. Existing rules do not specifically require recipients to consider the risk that a donor is potentially facilitating an illegal donation. I welcome the fact that that will change as a result of this clause, which will bring about a complete overhaul of the system and I believe will improve the integrity of our democracy, help strengthen national security and help restore trust in political parties across the country.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the clause is important. We do need to have a greater say. He says he supports the clause, and I agree with him, because he is very sensible. But given some of the headlines we have had across the House in recent weeks about the origins of donations and the facilitation of bad donations, why does he not agree with us that foreign influence registration should be part of the risk assessment? Does he share my concern that the Government have rejected that?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I do not believe that the Government are rejecting that carte blanche. As I was about to say—it is almost as if the hon. Gentleman has my notes before him—the Rycroft review commissioned by this Government notes that the “know your donor” provisions are similar to the anti-money laundering checks that are required by thousands of organisations, large and small, in the private sector, the third sector and elsewhere. Those are about ensuring that financial transactions, such as a donation, are indeed legitimate. As we digest the Rycroft review, I hope and expect that the Minister will give careful consideration to what it sets out and look at the idea that “know your donor” checks should more closely mirror the due diligence checks we see elsewhere, particularly in relation to anti-money laundering regulations.

In making my second point, which I think is worthy of further consideration, I think it will be helpful to provide a case study. As Members on both sides of the Committee will recall, earlier this year the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), a former Reform UK MP—I notified him that I would be mentioning him—launched a new political party, Restore Britain. Before that, however, he set up a “political movement”, and he may or may not—we do not know—have received substantial contributions from impermissible sources before Restore Britain was registered officially as a political party. The fact is that we simply do not have a clear understanding, and the current legal landscape means that there are no checks on the funds that a party may hold prior to formal registration.

I should make it very clear that the Bill goes far in strengthening controls on the sources of donations to political parties, and goes a great way to shoring up our democracy against foreign interference. However, I would really welcome the Minister’s thoughts and ideas on how we can ensure that a political party does not seek to sidestep controls on donations and loans by accepting substantial contributions from a potentially impermissible source simply because it has not yet set itself up officially as a political party.

I know that this is something that Rycroft seeks to understand at a top level in his review, so I do not expect it to be dealt with in Committee—I think that would be wrong, because we had the review only just before the Easter recess—but I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts, as the Bill proceeds, on how we close down the potential problem whereby political movements, political projects or whatever we want to call them seek to gain donations outside the controls and checks that would apply if they were a registered political party.

[The Chair]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that it is not necessarily befitting of the House to make comment on whether other hon. Members may or may not have conducted matters in a dishonourable fashion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s desire to secure change in relation to this matter, and I can assure him that I share his eagerness to proceed quickly. Unfortunately, the research undertaken by the previous Government was not conclusive as to either the purpose of the commission or the impact of its removal or reduction. The final report recommended further work to clarify the rationale of the commission so that the Government can make informed policy choices, hence the call for evidence, which I hope he and park home owners in his constituency are engaging with.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s new call for evidence. Perhaps unsurprisingly, park home owners across South Dorset continue to be deeply frustrated with the unfair 10% sales commission slapped on all park homes. The current system feels unfair as it punishes one group disproportionately. With that in mind, will the Minister ensure that park home owners are not forgotten and finally end this unfair 10% sales commission charge, and ensure that these reforms sit alongside wider reforms to leasehold?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I again emphasise that I appreciate the frustration among park home owners. Unfortunately, we do not have the evidential basis that we need to act. We will need to make a decision on the basis of evidence gathered through the call for evidence that is taking place, and then take into account the impact on park homes of all sizes to ensure fairness and transparency, but I reassure my hon. Friend that we will act once we have the information and evidence that we seek.

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Lewis Cocking]

Q May I briefly follow that up? Is it your opinion, then, that if we are going to have automatic voter registration, everyone should be automatically registered for the same general election?

Vijay Rangarajan: Yes; there should be some uniformity of registration across the UK and for other elections, or else a voter will be automatically registered for one election and have to manually register for another, which is a recipe for confusion and some nugatory work on their part. We would therefore like to see this in place soon. That does not mean that every voter will be on the register; they have the perfect right to refuse to be on it, and there are systems in place for that.

In some countries, officers will write to a voter, mostly to check the address is correct and to ensure accuracy. If a voter says, “I don’t want to be registered,” or, “I have good reasons”—say, domestic violence reasons—“for not wanting to be on the open register,” they can make that clear. So there are a number of checks built into this; it is not quite as simple as everyone automatically being on the register. This would remove a major barrier to eligible voters being able to exercise their democratic rights.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. The Bill rightly tries to tighten up our defences against the impact of overseas interference in our democratic process. That includes the measure in the Bill to limit company donations based on the company’s annual revenue.

I have a slight concern that that might leave the door ajar to the likes of Elon Musk making a donation to a British political party legitimately via a UK subsidiary company, for example. In the light of that, the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggested that the limit on donations from companies should be tied to their profit rather than their revenue. Which of the two would be a more effective way to stop the international financing of our political parties and democratic process?

Vijay Rangarajan: As I said, I think that profit drawn from the last couple of years of public accounts would be a better metric. It would very much help, because it would show that the company had generated enough taxable profit in the UK to be able to make a political donation. It would also give parties themselves more certainty that the money they are accepting is clearly permissible and above board. Again, it is quite easy to explain to people why that is the case.

As I said, some of the administration of this will need significant time to train party treasurers and all the associations in how to implement it, but we think that using profit as a metric would help.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Finally, very quickly—

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid we have reached the end of this panel. To be clear, I did not set the timings. We thank the witness for his evidence. We have to move on to our next witness.

Examination of Witness

Dr Jess Garland gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good; we even have time for you, Mr Hatton.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q Quickly, what is your analysis of the current landscape when it comes to the perhaps undue impact of corporate political donations, and how do you think this Bill will seek to change the landscape, ideally for the better?

Dr Garland: That is quite a big question to squeeze into our remaining time. I go back to my point about there being no ceiling on donations from any entity, which is a major risk with corporation and individual donations. The size of donations is growing exponentially, and that has a damaging impact on voter confidence and trust.

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank you, Dr Garland, on behalf of the Committee for your evidence.

Examination of witnesses

Karen Jones, Malcolm Burr and Robert Nicol gave evidence.

Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Zöe Franklin]

Q I have a second question. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy recommended a temporary ban on crypto donations until there is statutory guidance. From your perspective and understanding of crypto, do you agree? Expanding a bit more, is there anything you would recommend in any guidance on crypto?

Alexander Browder: I saw that report, which was very good. As I mentioned, cryptocurrency as a whole may only be properly regulated, at best, by the end of 2027. It needs to be established that cryptocurrency can be regulated, and that that can be enforced properly, to stop bad actors like Russia from entering our elections. What also needs to be established is that the people who are donating are not foreign entities like Russia, but are UK citizens. This is a big issue; due to the inherent nature of cryptocurrency, you are not able to verify properly the source of funds.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

Q To build on some of the lines of questioning that have been put forward, I am keen to get your perspective on what the best approach is to make sure we look at the next big challenge that could be posed by crypto donations, particularly if those come indirectly. How do you see us being able to challenge that problem and take it seriously if we find that crypto donations are reaching political parties in this country via an indirect route, particularly via companies or a third party, for example?

Alexander Browder: There need to be stricter “know your donor” requirements. Not only that, but the enforcement on parties should be greater. If they do not respect the political process, there should be higher fines and stricter policies.

On your last point, through my investigations I have found that Companies House has been abused by cryptocurrency exchanges. In one particularly egregious case, two IRGC-linked companies managed to register here in the UK under false names. They were operating for four years, while registered here in the UK, processing billions for the IRGC. That raises the question whether some foreign actor or criminal could set up a UK-registered company and donate through that? That definitely has to be looked at.

[The Chair]

I am afraid we are out of time for this witness panel, but thank you, Mr Browder, for your evidence this afternoon.

Examination of witnesses

Colin Blackwell, Imogen Tyreman, Richard Williams, Jenny Shorten and Tom McAdam gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am working with the Public Bill Office on an amendment that extends the regulated period. Given the narrow scope of the Bill, that is a way of thinking about that.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q In the interests of full transparency, I have worked closely with Duncan and Susan and knew both of them prior to being elected to this place. I have a quick question that builds on some of the areas we have already talked about. Susan, on the point of how we put into practice checks that could look at people who may be connected to somebody who is politically exposed or to a high-risk jurisdiction, you said that the Bill has good “know your donor” checks but that they need to be strengthened further. How would those be delivered in practice?

Dr Susan Hawley: The Electoral Commission needs to come up with robust guidance on that. It needs to look at industry standards from the regulated sector to tackle money laundering. I want to come back to the donor declaration, because that is also critical to this. We have heard from law enforcement that it is not clear to them that the proceeds of crime are not allowed as donations, for instance. If you have a situation where proceeds of crime can be donated, that is pretty extraordinary. We need a robust section 54A that puts some onus on the donor and makes a false declaration a criminal offence.

I do not know whether that answers your question, Lloyd, or whether you wanted me to talk more about “know your donor”, but I think they complement each other. You have “know your donor”, which is about what parties do, but also the donor declaration, so that you are putting some onus on the donor to actually be honest about where that money comes from.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q Thank you; that is helpful. Another key point that we have discussed in detail is about recent investigations finding that around £6 million in donations through UK-registered companies have ultimately turned out to have been owned by individuals who are not eligible to vote here in the UK, and therefore not permissible donors. Do you feel that the proposed safeguards governing corporate political donations are sufficient, and do you think that this Bill goes far enough to up the ante against that kind of foul play?

Dr Susan Hawley: No. I think it has done a valiant job in introducing the beneficial owner test and a UK connection test, but we know that the Electoral Commission has flagged the revenue test for corporations as a real risk for foreign interference. The way that is laid out in the Bill also does not provide a cap at all; it allows money to be donated to a host of different people.

The revenue test really needs to be looked at again, because we have the Electoral Commission saying very clearly, “There is an increased risk of foreign interference if you keep the revenue test.” You also have tax experts saying that it is actually fairly easy to generate significant UK turnover while having no genuine UK operations. This is the moment to look at that again. It is also not quite clear why a company that owes a lot of tax, or that is making a loss, should feel it needs—or should be able—to donate.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q Shifting attention slightly towards enforcement, we know that, when trying to tackle foreign interference in the democratic process or dodgy donations, enforcement is essential to creating a better, fairer and more transparent landscape. The intention is to increase the Electoral Commission’s fining capabilities to £500,000 per offence, up from the current £20,000, via secondary legislation. Do you think that that shift upwards is sufficient as a strong, robust deterrence against breaking the rules in this country?

Dr Susan Hawley: It is very much an improvement on what we have at the moment; I think everyone would agree that, if you have a multimillion-pound campaign budget, a £20,000 fine is frankly laughable. We would, however, like to see it strengthened in two ways.

First, we would like this to be on the face of the Bill. We have a report coming out next week in which we compare the Electoral Commission’s powers to the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom. Those bodies have this in the legislation, and they also have not just a maximum fine level but a percentage; the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that it should be £500,000 or 4%, whichever is higher. Again, you could argue that, if you have a multimillion-pound campaign budget, £500 k could become a potential cost of doing business, so we need that percentage option to give the Electoral Commission the flexibility to impose penalties in egregious cases.

Secondly, the Electoral Commission has a very high threshold, compared with other regulators, for when it can actually impose penalties. Ideally, we would like to see that looked at again, because no other regulator is hampered by that high threshold.

Duncan Hames: If I may, the problem with enforcement is that it takes a long time, and we are talking about democratic events here; by the time enforcement takes place, the consequences have already happened. People saw Elon Musk giving out cheques to make millionaires of people taking part in an election campaign in the States; they all thought that the rules were being broken and that something should be done about it, but nothing was, and he was at the right hand of the President within weeks of that moment. We ought to be looking at measures that we can take that prevent problems from happening, rather than just chasing things after the event.

Nathan Gill is serving a 10-year prison sentence for bribery offences, which he admitted to in court, that happened nearly 10 years before he was convicted. There is a long lag if you rely on that kind of enforcement to address offending, and the problem that you are trying to stop.

[Lloyd Hatton]

Q I have a very quick final question, taking a step back and responding to what you have just said. You feel that in the current landscape no single law enforcement body has overarching responsibility for enforcement, and particularly enforcement of electoral finance laws. It feels a bit patchwork at the moment: sometimes it is the police; sometimes it is the commission. Do you feel that is something that we need to look at overhauling so that we can have a much more comprehensive response that works more robustly, and hopefully more swiftly, in response to the issues that you just mentioned?

Dr Susan Hawley: We really welcome the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—published today—that there should be a specific unit. I think that there is growing recognition within law enforcement bodies that that is required. Up to now, the problem has been that those law enforcement bodies will argue that they do not have the laws or the sentences that would empower them to use the serious investigative tools that they have at their disposal to get to the bottom of some of this behaviour. That is why the criminal offence in section 54 and section 54A really needs to be looked at. We welcome the amendment recently tabled by Matt Western to address the knowledge test so that it is not set too high.

We also need to look at sentences because we hear again and again from law enforcement that if you do not have a serious crime-level sentence, you cannot use the skills that you can deploy for serious crime for this kind of offending. If we are talking about foreign interference, those are the tools that need to be deployed against impermissible donations.

[Dr Chowns]

Q You have answered many of the questions that I had. Thank you all for your work. Briefly, do you have a view on where the cap on political donations should be, or how it should be set? That is a question for each of you. And should we have a cap on annual spending, to get away from the gaming of the system around regulated periods that Dr Power referred to? Where should it be set, and how?

Duncan Hames: We propose that a cap of £50,000 annually from any one donor is reached by 2030. That would still be much higher than in a number of other jurisdictions that have introduced donation caps, such as Canada, France, Italy and—from July—Australia. If it were phased in, with a cap reducing year by year between now and then, that would provide time for political parties to adapt.

We have done our own modelling, which I would be happy to share with the Committee, in which we look at the effect of that cap on overall party fundraising. I think you will find that, although we have recently had an arms race in campaign spending—not least because the spending limits were raised so dramatically just before the last general election—political parties fought all sorts of elections and referendums in the previous decade without needing anything near the kind of money that was available in the last general election, when nearly £100 million was spent.

Dr Power: I agree that we absolutely need a cap on donations. I am less wedded to a level as much as to the idea that there needs to be a cap that people can get around the table and agree to, and which seems fair. To not have a cap on donations risks much more than to have one. It is absolutely essential. We have seen the effect that can have in countries that do not have caps on donations, particularly the USA, and the effect that the very rich can then have.

What I mean by that is not an effect on the outcome of politics but an effect on the process of politics. You end up with about 400 individuals accounting for 75% of total party donations. Given that we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill, that is not a situation in which people are represented. It is essential that we find some way—in a Bill called “Representation of the People”—to fix the system properly such that the people feel represented. A cap on donations is essential and well within the remit of the Bill.

On a cap on spending, I align with the 1998 CSPL review, as well as Jack Straw when he introduced the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. He said that there has been an “arms race” in spending and that we should always set a spending limit below the extent to which we expect to spend at an election. Until 2023, that limit was set at £19.5 million, if you stood a candidate in every constituency, which does not happen. If we say that the limit was £19.5 million, that should have been the baseline, and there was no good justification for it to be uprated in 2023—in fact, I think there is a good case for bringing the limit down further still. It would not have an effect on the good that money does in a system, which is to enrich debate and to allow political parties to get their positions across.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

The big driver of how we are allocating funding is deprivation. We are taking a slightly different approach in Scotland, where we have also looked at other indicators, including health indicators. As I said, we are working closely with the Scotland Office and local partners to ensure we are getting the Pride in Place programme into the areas that need it, and we will be announcing that allocation in due course.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

15. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure adequate levels of accountability of estate management companies.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)]

This Government are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and we will publish consultations before the end of this year on how we best implement the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, on new consumer protection provisions for residential freeholders and on options for reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. We are also committed to ensuring that residential freeholders and leaseholders are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous property agents.

[Lloyd Hatton]

At a recent public meeting, people living at the Chesil Reach and Greys Field development in Chickerell told me about the problems they had been facing with the estate management company FirstPort, with large increases to the service charge, little transparency and a failure to fulfil even the most basic obligations. It is all made so much worse because FirstPort is truly terrible at responding to concerns when they are raised by the public. With all that in mind, can the Minister outline what steps are being taken to hold FirstPort to account for its many failings? How can we deliver much stronger protections for everyone living in properties managed by FirstPort?

[Matthew Pennycook]

As my hon. Friend may be aware, in response to widespread concerns raised in a recent debate on property service charges, I met Martin King, managing director of FirstPort, on 17 November. In our meeting, I pressed Mr King and his associates on a wide range of issues stemming from reports of poor service, and I left him in no doubt that in the Government’s view, FirstPort’s performance is not good enough. I intend to write to FirstPort to follow up on the issues raised, and I will happily deposit a copy of that letter in the Library.

Supporting High Streets

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate for the very simple reason that my first job was on the high street in the town centre, in Weymouth, where I grew up. I do not like to talk about it too often, but it was at the particularly popular and well-loved fish and chip shop, the Marlboro. It is clear to me that the high street in Weymouth has struggled in the time since then. A lot of the challenges facing the high street began before the covid pandemic. It is right to acknowledge the pandemic’s devastating impact on high streets, but much of the damage was delivered before it, by the previous Conservative Government. If the House will indulge me, I will set out in a little more detail exactly how I feel we can revitalise our high streets, especially in Weymouth town centre and on Portland.

First, the Weymouth Museum Trust received over £40,000 of new funding in September, paving the way for it to be able to maintain a temporary pop-up museum in Weymouth town centre. I am grateful that the Labour Government chose to invest in Weymouth museum, which is a fantastic hub that celebrates our history and heritage, showcasing everything that is special about our town. However, that funding is just a short-term solution. We urgently need to move Weymouth museum back into Brewers Quay in the heart of Weymouth—a much more suitable permanent home for it. I look forward to working closely with the developers, Dorset council, local businesses, the museum trust and, of course, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to do just that. I know that we can return the museum to Brewers Quay. It is clear that, if we want to revitalise our high streets, including in Weymouth, we need effective partnership between businesses, charities, the council and national Government in backing our local museums.

[Dr Gardner]

Does my hon. Friend agree that increased accessibility for people with disabilities is a crucial aspect of town centre regeneration that would unlock the power of the purple pound? If we make the high street accessible for disabled people, we make it accessible for everyone.

[Lloyd Hatton]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Making places in the town centre accessible—be they local museums or other institutions—is essential to making them a success.

I know that Ministers understand the importance of supporting heritage and our local museums, so I look forward to working closely with them and cracking on with the important work of restoring Weymouth museum at Brewers Quay.

Secondly, I have been working closely with Treasury Ministers finally to deliver a world-class attraction in Eden Portland—or MEMO Portland, as it is officially known. That project has been in the pipeline for many years—successive Conservative Ministers unfortunately failed to recognise its huge potential—and it could breathe new life into the economy on Portland. If delivered, the project could boost Portland’s small businesses, attract new visitors to the island, secure well-paid jobs and create a truly unique attraction that celebrates our Jurassic coast and educates visitors about biodiversity.

It is clear that Eden Portland could be a significant anchor institution, attracting new visitors not just to Portland but to the whole of Dorset. The brilliant Eden Project down in Cornwall is a proven success story, so I am eager to see the Eden Portland proposals delivered so that we can realise similar benefits in my part of the world. Local businesses across Weymouth and Portland tell me time and again that Eden Portland could create a year-round visitor economy, meaning that shops, cafés, pubs, hotels and restaurants feel the benefits of increased visitor numbers outside the summer season and school holidays. If built, Eden Portland can be the anchor institution that we desperately need in Weymouth and Portland, delivering year-round benefits to the local economy. I will continue to do everything I can, working alongside the Treasury, to secure the funding needed finally to deliver that exciting project as soon as possible.

I look forward to working with this Labour Government to finally deliver a Weymouth cultural and visitor centre at the Old Rectory building. Years of under-investment in Weymouth by the previous Conservative Government mean that we have never had a dedicated venue to showcase art, music and culture. We urgently need a stand-alone space in our vibrant town to do just that. If opened, this centre would be a landmark venue offering a year-round programme of exhibitions, performances and community and educational events. If you have been to Dorset, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that there are so many successful artists, musicians, photographers and creatives who all richly deserve a venue like this in Weymouth. Many other seaside towns have celebrated and leant into an art and culture offering.

[Ian Roome]

As a frequent visitor to Weymouth, I have seen the dog-friendly sticker scheme in the businesses on the high street. Does the hon. Member agree that making high street businesses dog-friendly helps to increase their profits? It has certainly cost me a bob or two when I have gone into shops that allow me to take my dog in with me.

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank the hon. Member for his custom and for investing in Weymouth. As the proud owner of a Newfoundland, I know that dogs get us out, get us spending and get us on the high street.

To conclude, towns like Margate, Folkestone and Falmouth have championed art and culture, and it has boosted the high street and drawn visitors into those seaside towns. I now want to see the same happen in Weymouth. Unsurprisingly, I will be banging the drum for a new cultural and visitor centre at the Rectory building in Weymouth. This project is just another way that we can breathe new life into Weymouth’s town centre and attract new businesses and visitors to our town. As I have hopefully made clear today, there are so many exciting projects on the cards.

[Gregory Stafford]

I have listened to the hon. Member’s speech very carefully, but I think I missed him mentioning the £19.5 million of levelling-up funding that Weymouth got in 2023 under the last Conservative Government.

[Lloyd Hatton]

That money went unspent by the previous Conservative administration at Dorset council. It now falls to me and the new administration at Dorset council to spend that money wisely, which we are doing. I remind the hon. Member that this Labour Government have just invested £20 million in Weymouth as part of the pride in place programme.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Political Finance Rules

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises that loopholes in regulation allow for opaque funding of political parties; expresses concern over the prevalence of substantial financial contributions from corrupt individuals and foreign governments, which render political parties susceptible to manipulation and undue influence; acknowledges the risk these opaque funds pose to national security and the health of our democracy; further recognises the need to strengthen the powers and independence of regulators to help the regulation of political donations; and calls on the Government to tighten the law on permissible donations to make clear that political parties cannot accept money from impermissible sources or from companies that have not made enough money in the UK to fund the amount of their donation or loan.

Before I start my remarks, I pay tribute to everything that was said from the Dispatch Box in the last debate by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). This House and our Government are stronger, more effective and more compassionate because of her contribution and her work.

I begin by declaring an interest: I am a member of a political party. I have spent many years actively involved in party politics as a campaigner, a local councillor and now as a Member of Parliament, so I know that political parties sit at the centre of our political landscape and that they are key pillars in our elections and our broader democratic system. Of course, those parties need funding to fulfil their day-to-day functions and to contest elections. Our pluralistic democracy depends on lively and active political parties that can campaign and engage with the public. Indeed, tomorrow evening I will be back out on the doorstep, clipboard and leaflets in hand, listening to voters and campaigning with my local Labour party. Those very activities would be impossible without political donations.

However, far too often the financing of political parties involves suspect donations making their way into party coffers. And the numbers are not small. Research by Transparency International found that �115 million in donations�almost �1 in every �10 of reported donations �came from unknown or questionable sources between 2021 and 2024. How has that been allowed to happen? Unfortunately, the UK�s political finance rules, designed to block foreign donations and dirty money from seeping into political parties, are ripe for abuse and riddled with loopholes.

Hostile state actors, kleptocrats and international billionaires are easily able to sidestep the UK�s permissibility rules and funnel money, via UK-registered shell companies, into our political parties. As it stands, a British company is permitted to make donations using money raised overseas, even if the company has not generated sufficient funds to support that same donation. That means that foreign actors or any mystery donor could legitimately use shell companies as a conduit to channel money into political parties here in the UK.

This is symbolic of a much bigger problem. It should not be that easy to pump money into British politics behind a layer of corporate secrecy. Donations that could come from anyone, anywhere pose a significant threat to the security and integrity of our democratic system. Foreign interference in British democracy and elections is a direct attack on our sovereignty, our national interest and our vital democratic institutions.

We have been warned about the problem for many years. A series of independent review bodies and the security services have sounded the alarm time and again. They have made it clear that risks are posed by opaque donations coming in from overseas. In 2020, a report by Parliament�s Intelligence and Security Committee identified that multiple members of the Russian elite with links to Vladimir Putin had tried to donate or successfully donated to British political parties.

Later, in 2022, MI5 warned that an alleged Chinese agent had sought to influence parliamentarians on behalf of the Chinese Communist party. In 2023, concerns were raised in Parliament about alleged links between the Chinese Communist party and party fundraising. The then Minister of State for Policing, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), noted that

�all political parties need to be alert to the danger of representatives of hostile states seeking to infiltrate or influence their activities.��[Official Report, 19 April 2023; Vol. 731, c. 249.]

I fear that our unhealthy dependence on a handful of large donors also poses a risk of undue influence and capture by narrow vested interests. We know that of the �85 million of private donations made in 2023 alone, two thirds came from 19 mega-donors, each giving well over �1 million. Just recently, one would-be mega-donor dominated headlines for that very reason. Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and not a British citizen, was giving �serious thought� to donating millions of pounds to a British political party�Reform UK. As a South African-born billionaire who lives in the United States, Elon Musk cannot legally make a personal donation to a British political party, but, as we know, he could easily go through the UK subsidiaries of his various companies.

Although that rumour has not yet come to pass, the risk that it poses to the integrity of our democracy cannot be overstated. I repeat: it should not be this easy to pump money into British politics, especially from halfway across the world. Our democratic institutions and elections should never be the plaything of a billionaire who cannot even vote in a British election, and a UK-registered company should not be a convenient vehicle to allow them to make such a donation. Even the perception that our political parties are captured by those with deep pockets has a corrosive effect on public trust in politics and in us as politicians. At a time when that trust is regretfully at a historically low level, we need to tackle that perception head-on and show that our politics is not for sale and cannot be unduly influenced.

How do we go about toughening up the rules? First, we close the loopholes I have outlined once and for all and ensure that companies are able to make donations only from profit made in the UK in the last two years, as well as introducing a requirement for political parties to identify the true source of donors� funds. Secondly, we need to have a tough deterrent for those who break the rules, because even if Elon Musk were ever to breach election law, why would he care? The maximum fine that the Electoral Commission can impose is just �20,000�not even small change to the world�s richest man.

Unfortunately, the previous Government only made matters worse when they stripped the Electoral Commission, which is tasked with regulating political finance, of its independence and further opened the floodgates to mega-donations by drastically increasing spending limits during election periods by around 80%. Strengthening the rules around donations to political parties is a manifesto commitment of this new Government. I know that the Government and Ministers are committed to restoring trust and protecting British democracy, so I hope they will act swiftly on that commitment by restoring the independence of the Electoral Commission and empowering it to impose much larger fines.

The Government should also look closely at capping donations and spending, perhaps in line with recommendations put forward by the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. Smart tweaks to existing regulations, such as increasing fining powers, lowering reporting thresholds and capping spending limits, do not require primary legislation. Those changes could be enacted quickly and still have a significant impact on cleaning up our politics and ensuring that our parties are all free from suspect donations. Finally, I sincerely hope that Ministers will look closely at the role that shell companies play in allowing opaque donations to be made here in the UK, often originating from overseas.

I am proud that this Labour Government were elected on a mandate to restore integrity in politics. As the Prime Minister rightly stated in his victory speech in the early hours:

�The fight for trust is the battle that defines our age.�

I wholeheartedly agree with him, and I look forward to hearing from the Government and from hon. Members here today exactly how we can win this crucial battle. Only by doing so can we protect democracy, clean up our politics and rebuild trust with the public.

[Several hon. Members rose�]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton]

I thank all Members for a thoughtful and constructive debate. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) for their particularly thoughtful contributions, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) for his powerful remarks about the relationship between donations and public trust, and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for his consensus-driven contribution.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) for outlining the urgent need for change�we cannot keep waiting for reform to materialise�and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for setting out the important context of our global responsibility to fight dirty money and clean up politics. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), who is no longer in the Chamber�[Hon. Members: �Yes she is!�] Oh, she is. Apologies�she has been playing musical chairs. I thank her for highlighting what is at stake if we fail to defend our vibrant democracy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for outlining robustly the risks posed by Russian oligarchs and their dirty money. We must stand up against it.

Before I bring my remarks to a close, I gently say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that this is an important discussion�I think we all agree on that�but we must always be driven by facts and evidence. Oversimplifying the arguments means that we will not get the right outcomes. I believe that one can support a policy such as increasing defence spending to 2.5% without somehow being in hock to or in the pocket of the military industrial complex, as he put it. That is a gross oversimplification, and I gently remind him of that.

Finally, I thank the Minister for her contribution. I welcome the Government�s commitment to setting out their thinking on this important issue later this year. I thank her for reconfirming that foreign donations have no place in British politics and for making it clear that the Government agree about the need for stronger safeguards. The Electoral Commission will play a crucial role in this. We must ensure that it is fully independent.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that loopholes in regulation allow for opaque funding of political parties; expresses concern over the prevalence of substantial financial contributions from corrupt individuals and foreign governments, which render political parties susceptible to manipulation and undue influence; acknowledges the risk these opaque funds pose to national security and the health of democracy; further recognises the need to strengthen the powers and independence of regulators to help the regulation of political donations; and calls on the Government to tighten the law on permissible donations to make clear that political parties cannot accept money from impermissible sources or from companies that have not made enough money in the UK to fund the amount of their donation or loan.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)]

That is exactly the reason that there was £3.7 billion of new money for adult social care in the Budget.

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T5. Eden Portland is an exciting proposal for my community and, much like the Eden Project in Cornwall and Morecambe, it would be a hub for education and ecology. If delivered, it would boost investment and create well-paid jobs. I know that Ministers agree that this could be a real success story, so will they meet me and the team at Eden Portland, alongside colleagues from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the council, to discuss how we can deliver this exciting project?

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

I welcome the exciting Eden Portland proposals and I enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend to hear further from him. It is clear that it would be great for the area’s economic regeneration, for tourism in the region and for supporting greater understanding of biodiversity loss. Colleagues at DCMS are working closely with the proposers and with officials in my Department, but I would be happy to involve myself in whatever way is useful.

High Street Rental Auctions

Lloyd Hatton Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), a fellow Dorset Member of Parliament, for securing this important debate, and I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce high street rental auctions.

My constituency is no exception to the trend of closing high street businesses and vacant properties that we have sadly seen up and down the country. My first job growing up was serving fish and chips at the Marlboro, a popular fish and chip shop by the harbour in Weymouth. Since that time, and following the pandemic and the rise of online shopping, it has been depressing to see town centres such as Weymouth struggle to maintain their vibrant culture and footfall. Many businesses are understandably concerned about what the falling footfall means for their viability. They are calling for innovative solutions to breathe new life into our town centres, and that is exactly what high street rental auctions will help to deliver. They will revitalise our town centres and put the community at the centre of the revitalisation.

The local business improvement district in Weymouth and Portland and the chamber of commerce have been working tirelessly to rejuvenate Weymouth town centre. They have had a great deal of success so far, but they are clear that we must go further. High street rental auctions are just one tool in our box, but they cannot be the only way to empower local businesses and business groups, such as the BID and the chamber of commerce, to revitalise the town centre.

I am really pleased that the Government have given local councils direct powers to rent out vacant properties. That will enable local people and businesses to shape the future of the high street, and to make sure that it serves local needs and preserves and champions existing businesses. In particular, I am pleased that this measure could deliver targeted support for community ownership. That means that, with Government guidance, councils can identify assets that are most likely to deliver social, economic and cultural benefits locally with a community ownership model. That is a really welcome move, and I hope to see that in my South Dorset constituency and town centres right across the country.

This Labour Government are acting now to revitalise our town centres, placing local communities at the centre of that change and making sure that high streets like mine in Weymouth continue to be the beating heart of our communities.