Representation of the People Bill

Paul Holmes Excerpts

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

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—I know that the Committee has looked at this. The ban will apply retrospectively, ensuring that any donations made after 25 March 2026 will be returned. As I mentioned earlier, we will continue to review the ban on cryptocurrency because this issue has cross-party support. We need to ensure that the money coming into our politics is clean and traceable.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to her position. I know that many people, not only on the Government side, but on the Opposition side of the House, will be delighted that she has been made a Minister. Can I just challenge her a bit further, or ask for her guidance, on the moratorium point? The Government intend for the Electoral Commission to have strengthened powers to try to tackle the regulatory regime that will be created by the moratorium, but does the Minister not share my concern that if those responsibilities are not enshrined and given to the Electoral Commission in the correct way, this issue will not be as solved as we would want it to be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I have given way on this point twice.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

[Katie Lam]

I will. [Interruption.]

[Paul Holmes]

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

Foreign Interference in UK Politics

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and Philip Rycroft for his review. On Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, we Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference, in the light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. However, we have expressed our concerns about the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures, and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties. The Bill should have been introduced after the Government’s response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through.

The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review.

First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason: rules governing political competition should command broad confidence, and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government. The breakdown of these long-standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political perspective. If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow.

Parliamentary questions have shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons—with the Committee on Standards, the registrar, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—despite changes directly relating to the registration of donations by Members, and despite this House’s code of conduct. Yet again, the Government are making announcements, such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations, with zero consultation. Without stepping into matters that are the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I note that it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations that they received in the past 12 months.

There also appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations. It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials the provisions will cover, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Have the Government properly considered with the Electoral Commission the interaction of the new requirements with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the Government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing their response, many of these practical difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage.

To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules governing donations in the period immediately before elections. However, good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires engagement and a willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures whose practical consequences have not been fully thought through.

Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row; who amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage; and who changed the laws on election pilots in complete secrecy. They are now gerrymandering local government boundaries. The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the shadow Minister for his offer to work constructively with the Government on these issues. He and I have worked constructively to date, and we have met on a number of occasions to discuss these issues. The political parties committee at the Electoral Commission is also sighted on the changes. As we go forward, I will meet other parties’ representatives, too. I would have met them today, had we not tabled this statement, but I hope to do so as soon as possible. I underline that the existing standards arrangements are unaffected by these proposals. I look forward to meeting and working with the shadow Minister in the future.

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I welcome the new Minister to her place; I know that she has a background in these issues, and I look forward to working with her in the weeks, months or years ahead. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. He is a great champion for his community. This issue is close to his heart, and given his previous career in local government he is very knowledgeable about it.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned a range of topics, which shows how much he is involved in his constituency and community, ranging from flaws in the banking hub criteria to the aesthetics of our high streets. I know that that comes from his time as leader of a local authority. I am also his Whip; after this morning, he can be guaranteed a good mention in dispatches later.

We have heard some entertaining and knowledgeable speeches from my colleagues. My hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) have shown their in-depth knowledge of the challenges in their constituencies.

Traditionally, high streets have been seen as indicators of the health of our economy, with the British Retail Consortium calculating that retail generates nearly £500 billion in annual sales and nearly 3 million jobs. According to the Office for National Statistics, around 4.4 million people work in businesses located on British high streets, which represents roughly 14% of all employment in the UK.

The contribution of the sector to the UK economy is vital to any Government seeking economic growth, especially regionally driven growth, which I have reason to believe the incoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), is enthusiastic about. This growth will be much better able to sustain communities and help them thrive. It will empower local people, business owners and decision makers to improve the areas they know and love better than any centrally planned project ever could.

As I have said in previous debates, however, the high street is more than a place where cash, services and goods change hands. It is at the heart of our communities—a place where people can come together to catch up over a coffee or a beer, have a natter in the nail bar or have a quiet read in the local bookshop. The value of our high streets cannot be quantified by simple sums of money, or by the business rates or council tax that they generate for the Treasury and local government. They are so much more than that.

As has been outlined this morning, however, there is a sad story of decline on our high streets. Many factors explain that, and colleagues from across the House have touched on many of those, including the rise of online shopping, cost of living pressures, economic stagnation, high taxes on businesses, planning issues, poor local transport links and stretched public services. There are many causes of the problem, and many people lose out from dying high streets.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the impact on young people. Retail has always been one of the UK’s great entry-level employers. It has given generations of young people their first job, taught customer services skills, teamwork and responsibility, and provided a pathway into management and business ownership. As Members will be aware following the publication of Alan Milburn’s report, youth unemployment stands at a staggering 16.2%—an increase of almost two percentage points on last year; at the same time, youth employment has fallen. More than 3 million 16 to 24-year-olds across the country are unemployed and economically inactive.

We should ask ourselves a simple question: how many of those young people have been pushed out of work, or denied work in the first place, by the continuing decline of our high streets? Increases to the minimum wage, the surging cost of employer national insurance contributions and council tax hikes are just a few of the burdens heaped on to businesses, which have been pushed to the wire. In 2024 alone, more than 13,000 high street stores closed, and over the last two years the retail sector has lost almost 250,000 jobs. Every shop that closes represents not just another empty unit but another lost opportunity for someone hoping to take their first step into employment. If we genuinely care about tackling economic inactivity, we cannot ignore what is happening in our town centres and high streets.

The picture is no better for Britain’s pubs. At this point, I had better declare an interest: I like being in pubs quite a lot. Changes to employer national insurance contributions have added around £7,200 a year to the wage bill of the average pub, which employs eight people. Layer on top of that business rate reforms, which were presented as a lifeline but for many businesses have proved to be anything but, and it becomes easy to understand why so many publicans are questioning whether they can continue. The consequences are stark: across Britain, two pubs close every day.

At the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor promised to “permanently lower” business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, telling Parliament that this would help to level the playing field for our high streets. That ambition was welcome, but when the detail emerged many businesses concluded that the reforms would do the opposite. Rather than providing certainty, the changes have raised serious concerns that many larger retailers and hospitality businesses—the so-called anchor tenants that attract shoppers to our town centres—could face significantly higher costs. Those businesses generate footfall for everyone else. When a department store, a supermarket, a major retailer or a large hospitality venue closes, it is not just the business itself that suffers; small independent retailers, cafés and local shops lose passing trade.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Government need to know when to step back and when to step forward. They need to step back by reducing the costs that my hon. Friend has set out, and they need to step forward by restricting where businesses can be located. The Government should be obliging businesses to reinvest in the high street.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. That is something that this Labour Government have never got to grips with.

Businesses already operating on tight margins face £40 billion of tax rises, including substantial increases in national insurance contributions, which will place further strain on them. I am delighted that colleagues on the Opposition Benches mentioned the Leader of the Opposition’s pledge to abolish business rates for most high street businesses.

Alongside the economic challenges facing our high streets, we must also confront an uncomfortable truth, which many Members have mentioned: our constituents are increasingly concerned that some high street premises are being used not as genuine businesses but as vehicles for tax evasion, money laundering and organised crime. Those concerns are frequently raised in relation to certain cash-intensive businesses, including some barber shops, nail salons, mini-marts and vape shops. The overwhelming majority of those businesses are of course honest, hard-working enterprises that serve their communities and deserve our support, but the ones that are not undermine legitimate traders, distort competition and damage public confidence in our town centres.

[Gareth Snell]

The other point that I want to raise—this is the small part of the hon. Member’s speech that I agree with—is that those places also tend to have people who are in indentured work or modern slavery, so there is a human impact as well as an economic one.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I will come to, we welcome the Government’s early actions to tackle those businesses, but we think they could do more, and we offer our support in that.

The Government introduced the economic crime levy, which we support, ensuring that those operating within the regulated financial sector contribute towards tackling money laundering and wider economic crime. It reflected the principle that protecting the integrity of our economy is a shared responsibility. However, there is clearly more to do. Without properly resourced investigations, effective intelligence sharing and robust action by enforcement agencies, there is a risk that the powers will exist only on paper. Trading standards, local authorities, HM Revenue and Customs, the police, immigration enforcement and the National Crime Agency all have a crucial role to play, but they need the resources and capacity to act. Evidence from trading standards professionals is particularly striking: 96% had encountered serious organised crime groups in their work.

My time is fast approaching. I hope there is cross-party agreement on how we can tackle such businesses on our high streets, but there is more work to do. The Conservative party has put forward a platform to enable our high streets to thrive. This Government’s economic policies have damaged them. Maybe that will change when we have our new Prime Minister, but I sincerely doubt it.

Elections: First Past the Post

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this debate on our voting system. She and I do not always agree. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that we more often than not disagree vocally, although in good spirit, I hope. Although I do not share her views on electoral reform, I recognise and respect the sincerity with which she holds them. Her persistence in bringing the issue before the House reflects her commitment to the causes that she champions. She beat me in another forum on Times Radio’s “It’s a Constituency Knockout” for the good people of Richmond Park. And I lost a battle on her private Member’s Bill, but we will see about round three.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is my only ally in this debate, barring what the Minister might say. I am happy to have him as an ally, because he is one of the most respectful Members of this House. He is a braver man than me, as he is surrounded by my old Bill Committee adversaries.

We can all agree on one thing, though: electoral systems shape our politics. It is important that the method we use for catapulting representatives into high office is robust and secure, easily understood by voters, and provides strong local accountability. I believe, as my party has always believed, that the first-past-the-post system achieves that better than any other.

I do not often pay compliments to my Liberal Democrat colleagues, so they are in for a shock this afternoon, but one of their skills is mobilising voters to go to the polls. I have seen that myself on my home patch, much to my and my councillors’ annoyance. One of the clearest criticisms of first past the post is the impact that it has on eroding voter confidence in the electoral system and therefore suppressing turnout. However, I do not believe that that is the case. Voter turnout has been on the decline for generations, but not consistently. It is fair to say that we are unlikely to see the levels of the 80% turnouts of the 1940s and 1950s. Growing voter apathy is a problem, but I do not think that the electoral system is to blame per se. The blame is with us as politicians—all of us. I sincerely believe that if we inspire, we make others aspire. We can all raise our game in this House and as political parties.

I find it slightly bizarre to keep revisiting a debate that the British public have made clear they do not support. First past the post has proven to be the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance—I will come back to that—and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. We want a system that forms a single alternative Government rather than the more fragmented alternative often seen under proportional representation systems. I think that is not just a theoretical point.

In countries where proportional representation is used, we can see the consequences of fragmentation very clearly. For example, in Belgium, proportional representation has contributed to fragmented Parliaments and lengthy coalition negotiations where no single party is able to present itself clearly as a Government in waiting. Clarity of outcome is an important feature in our democratic system.

As Members of Parliament, first and foremost our roles are to represent our constituents and our constituencies here in Parliament. First past the post creates a clear and direct link between Members of Parliament and the people we represent. It provides the voter with clarity over who represents them, whose surgery they can go to, who they can hold to account and, importantly, who they can remove at a general election. Such clarity is a democratic strength and a crucial part of maintaining voter trust.

Why would we adopt a system that weakens the direct link between voters and their representatives? Proportional voting systems where members are elected from long party lists make that relationship less direct and less clear. That direct constituency link is not only a practical strength of the system, but part of a much longer tradition in our parliamentary democracy. I think many advocates for an alternative voting system overlook the historical significance of first past the post. It has been in place since medieval England, and it is the bedrock of our democracy. Changing the way we elect Members of this House is not a minor administrative matter. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly, nor should it be driven by dissatisfaction with a particular electoral outcome.

[Olly Glover]

Given the hon. Gentleman’s faith in the first-past-the-post system, does he have any theories as to why turnout in our elections tends to be significantly lower than in comparable western European countries?

[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.

Park Home Owners

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is a pleasure to see so many Members in this debate. It is always ominous to have my Deputy Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), sitting next to me in a debate—I do not know whether that is an expectation of great things or a sign that there will be a meeting without coffee. Might I say that he made a very, very good speech? I hope the Minister takes it on board.

In all seriousness, I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this debate on Government support for park home owners. He introduced the issue in a humorous way, but also in a very serious, constructive way. I understand that he has a busy day, as he is also introducing a ten-minute rule Bill, which is a testament to the way he represents his Rushcliffe constituents. I suspect he will also have a very busy evening.

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring up this issue, as about 159,000 people live in mobile or park homes across 1,800 sites. We all recognise that park homes present themselves as an attractive choice for some people, and are therefore an important part of the national housing market.

Colleagues across the House have made excellent speeches, but I would like to mention a few from Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) said that everybody would automatically pick a park home site in South Shropshire, but I politely disagree. Given that we have the beautiful Solent on the south coast, I suspect that many people would choose one of the many park home sites in my Hamble Valley constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) rightly mentioned fuel costs, which came up throughout the debate. I will come to that in a minute, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. She spoke about planning enforcement and raised a specific case, and it important that we get that right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) mentioned the lack of expertise in local planning authorities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has done a huge amount of work in this space. In the last Parliament, I was delighted to co-sign his Bill, and I was pleased that the previous Government backed it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) spoke about the huge problems that many park home owners face. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned the sporadic nature of maintenance on sites across the country.

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe is absolutely right to bring this important topic to light. Park homes are an often overlooked part of our housing sector that provide a comfortable living space and a community-oriented way of life. They are particularly valued by our older members of society, who have worked hard and deserve suitable protections and support. I think all of us here can agree that home ownership brings with it not just a sense of accomplishment, but an expectation of security and peace of mind, yet for many park home residents that expectation is not always met, particularly when their home sits on a site run by an unscrupulous operator. We have a duty to ensure that someone who has invested their life savings in a home does not find themselves facing unpredictable costs or unclear rights.

I am proud that the last Government recognised that more had to be done to protect park home owners’ rights and to support residents’ awareness of both their rights and the responsibilities. After a thorough review of the mobile or park homes legislation, the previous Government—this was mentioned on both sides of the Chamber—brought forward legislation to make it a legal requirement for a site owner or manager to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to manage a mobile home site. Too often, park home residents have been asked to pay significant sums, only to find that site maintenance falls short of what they have every right to expect. That is not just disappointing; it is fundamentally unfair. If operators are to charge those fees, they must also meet their clear responsibility to keep sites safe, well maintained and fit for purpose.

As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch promoted the Mobile Homes (Pitch Fees) Act 2023. That delivered important economic relief for park home residents. Changing the basis for pitch fee increases from the retail prices index to the generally lower consumer prices index ensures that annual rises are more proportionate and fairer. That change had long been called for by the Park Home Owners Justice Campaign.

Many Members across the Chamber raised the issue of the 10% commission on the sale of a park home. The last Government began the important process of researching the potential impact of a change to the maximum commission paid on such a sale. I am watching with interest this Government’s efforts to look in greater detail at commission payments and I hope that the Minister will look at that with great scrutiny—I know that he will, given the way he conducts himself. We look forward to seeing what the Government come forward with.

A burden that park home owners face—this genuinely is not a political point, as my party looked into the issue when we were in government, and it was apparent that there was no straightforward fix—is that they are often among the hardest hit when it comes to energy costs. That is largely because many do not have the freedom to choose their own energy supplier, leaving them more exposed to higher prices and less competitive markets. I note that towards the end of last year, Ofgem reignited efforts to look into this issue through a call for evidence on the rules around the resale of gas and electricity and the maximum resale price arrangements. The issue was last reviewed in 2001, so I look forward to looking into the findings when they are published.

We must recognise that energy costs for park home residents are not shaped only by resale arrangements. Unlike households on the mains gas and electricity network, which benefit from the energy price cap, many park homes rely on heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their homes and water, so I welcome the Government’s commitment of £53 million to support households reliant on heating oil, in particular low-income families, who are most affected. It is right that support is targeted where need is greatest. I note that in England, that funding will be delivered through local authorities via the crisis and resilience fund, which came into effect on 1 April. However, I remain concerned that there is still no clear confirmation as to whether park home residents will be eligible for that support. Given the specific vulnerabilities that they face in relation to energy supply and pricing, I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point directly in his response this morning.

We have seen how difficult it can be to ensure that people off grid actually receive and benefit from funding support. That was a lesson learned in 2022, when similar measures to support similar groups were brought in after the shocks from the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hope that the Minister will commit to monitoring the efficiency of funding distribution.

Members here today, particularly the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, outlined several issues that park home owners face and the importance of them receiving the appropriate Government support. Supporting park home owners is about providing more protections and security for the residents who live in these communities, and supporting the wider housing market. It requires cross-party support—something that as a shadow Housing Minister I commit to providing when the Government come forward with their proposals. The Minister gave me a wry smile, but it is now on the record that if the Government come forward with sensible proposals to tackle this issue, then on a cross-party basis we will look at that seriously. It does require cross-party support, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how the Government plan to provide continued and accelerated support, so that park home owners across the country, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley, get the services they deserve for the money they have saved.

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will speak to clauses 70 to 74 first, and we will come to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats later.

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on the UK’s democratic processes. We know that electoral staff faced unacceptable abuse and intimidation during the 2024 general election. That is why we are extending the scope of the disqualification order to ensure that electoral staff are provided with the same protection as candidates, campaigners and elective office holders.

Clause 70 will enhance the disqualification order’s ability to protect those who participate in public life, and those who play a crucial part in the administration and delivery of elections. It will also act as a deterrent, signalling that intimidatory behaviour is a serious matter that must not be allowed to damage our democracy.

It is clear that more must be done to tackle the abuse and intimidation directed at those who participate in elections and political debate. While disqualification orders are a key part of tackling the unacceptable harassment and intimidation of those in public life, they do nothing to prevent those who have no interest in standing as a candidate from engaging in intimidatory or abusive behaviour. Clause 71 introduces a new statutory aggravating factor, which will empower courts to apply an uplift when passing sentence for an offence linked to intimidation. This is where the offender was motivated by hostility towards candidates, campaigners, elective office holders and electoral officials and their staff.

Clause 72 introduces this new statutory aggravating factor in Northern Ireland, and amends the location of the pre-existing Scottish aggravating factor. This is a significant new deterrent for those who seek to damage the UK’s democracy or intimidate those who uphold it, and will ensure that anyone who does so will be subject to appropriate criminal justice penalties.

Let us turn to clause 73. Disqualification orders were introduced in the Elections Act 2022, to be imposed on offenders throughout the UK who commit crimes of hostility against electoral candidates, campaigners and officer holders. Scotland introduced Scottish disqualification orders in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025, which gave similar protection to a fourth category: Scottish electoral officials. The Bill extends the scope of the disqualification order in the Elections Act 2022 to protect electoral officials throughout the UK, but Scottish electoral officials will continue to be covered by the Scottish legislation.

To ensure that there is a fully reciprocal relationship between disqualification orders in Scotland and the rest of the UK, the Bill also applies the effect of Scottish disqualification orders to relevant elective offices throughout the UK. That ensures that if someone is disqualified from standing for or holding office in Scotland, they will also be unable to stand for or hold office in the rest of the UK, and vice versa.

That will ensure a consistent approach throughout the UK for intimidatory behaviour towards those who participate in public life. If a person is convicted of specific criminal offences, motivated by hostility towards candidates, future candidates, substitutes, nominees, campaigners, holders of relevant elective office or electoral officials, they will be prohibited from standing for or holding office for five years across the UK. Clause 74 builds on the measures introduced in clause73, and makes amendments to various pieces of legislation to apply the Scottish disqualification order to relevant elected offices across the UK.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Dame Siobhain; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you for the information about a photographer being present; had I known, I would have had a shave this morning. Normally, we can only be heard in audio and, as my mother says, I have a face that only a mother could love.

We welcome the Minister outlining the parameters of the clauses, and welcome the fact that the Government are taking the safety of election staff seriously. They are public facing, and work with us on an equal basis to ensure that democracy works. We therefore strongly welcome the fact that the Government are extending these protections to election staff. Officer teams across the whole country are very busy at the moment; we know that from our various involvements with election returning officers, and the election staff who are making sure that everybody who is entitled to vote can do so via different methods.

When an officer reads out the results on television, and faces an inquiry from somebody who they do not satisfy, that can spur on the kind of attacks and threats that we receive as publicly elected officials. It is therefore absolutely right that such officers should enjoy the same protections that we do. As I say, the Government should be congratulated on taking this matter seriously.

It therefore makes perfect sense to amend the sentencing code for England and Wales in clause 71 regarding offences that have been committed under the Elections Act 2022, so that going forward this can be treated as an aggravating factor. Of course, it is also perfectly sensible that the provisions apply to Northern Ireland, too.

We strongly welcome the Government’s action on this; it should be supported by everybody. I wanted to put it on the record that the Minister should be congratulated for it.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It was very good to hear from the Minister setting out this group of clauses. The Liberal Democrats are very pleased it seeks to address the hostility towards those who administer our elections. As colleagues on the Conservative Benches and the Minister have outlined, they play such an important part in our democracy.

Amendment 38 and new clause 55 in my name address the need for there also to be protection for the families and staff of candidates. I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference, and I would like to put it on record how pleased I am to see so many of its recommendations in the Bill. We considered in quite some depth the issue of abuse of candidates.

The survey of MPs and their staff highlighted the nature of the abuse and intimidation they experience, and the sad reality that it is not limited to them. Rather, where a bad actor is unsuccessful or unable to silence the candidate directly, they turn to the people around them. That can be partners, children or staff. We firmly believe that should not be deemed to be okay in the eyes of the law, and that it needs to be addressed.

New clause 55 amends the Elections Act 2022 so that relatives and staff of candidates are a protected category for the purposes of hostility-based disqualification and related provisions, defining “relative” by reference to the Family Law Act 1996, and “staff” as people

“employed by or working under the direction”

of a candidate. Amendment 38 amends clause 71 of the Bill to include candidates’ relatives and staff in the list for the hostility aggravating factor.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will support those important provisions. If they do not, could the Minister please outline how the Bill as drafted already covers candidates’ relatives and staff, or what the justification is for leaving such a gap?

--- Later in debate ---

The Government, through the Bill, will also make provision for candidates to complete an optional additional form when completing their nomination papers. The purpose of this additional form is to allow candidates to provide their contact details to the returning officer for the specific purpose of the returning officer then sharing those details with local policing. Once local policing has this information, the relevant force’s elected official adviser will then make contact and arrange relevant security briefings for those candidates. I encourage all candidates, through Members on this Committee and in the wider House, to take up the offer of a security briefing at the earliest opportunity.

[Paul Holmes]

On new clause 55 and amendment 38, I understand why the hon. Member for Guildford, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is attempting to change the legislation.

The Minister may remember that we had a back-and-forth in relation to the security briefings being offered to candidates through Operation Ford, and the Government’s amendments. Has she given any more thought to a statutory timeline, and guidance on making sure that candidates are offered those briefings in a reasonable timeframe so that nobody slips through the net because the police force has not got around to it? That may inform the decision of the hon. Member for Guildford regarding whether to press the new clause and amendment to a vote.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government’s view is that the Electoral Commission is working hard, and that to prescribe timetables would place a restriction on it that we do not feel is required. Given the good, proactive work that it already does in this area, with the Government working alongside it, we do not feel it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Electoral Commission. With JESP, the Department and the Electoral Commission working hard across the electoral landscape, we do not feel that the amendment and the new clause are necessary, so I respectfully ask the hon. Member not to push them to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 71 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 14

Removal of strategy and policy statement

“(1) In Part 1 of PPERA 2000 (the Electoral Commission) omit—

(a) sections 4A to 4E and the italic heading before those sections (strategy and policy statement);

(b) section 13ZA and the italic heading before that section (examination by the Speaker’s Committee of the Electoral Commission’s performance of duty to have regard to strategy and policy statement).

(2) Omit sections 16 and 17(1) of the Elections Act 2022 (which inserted the sections repealed by subsection (1)).

(3) The Electoral Commission is not required to publish a report under section 4B(4) of PPERA 2000 in relation to any 12-month period ending on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This new clause removes provision about the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

Our package of reforms already strengthens the electoral framework in a more effective and appropriate way. The new “know your donor” regime will require recipients of significant donations to undertake risk assessments on the origin of the funds, helping them to identify potential foreign or illicit influence at the point a donation is made.

[Paul Holmes]

I understand why the Minister is concerned about some of the new clauses, and as I said before, she is right that the Government are trying to tighten up the regime. On her argument that the Electoral Commission does not currently have the responsibilities she outlined, however, does she not agree that there is still a problem with two-way information sharing?

The Minister is absolutely correct to say that the Electoral Commission has the power to access Companies House information and powers under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. However, if we look at past examples of registered Chinese Communist party spies giving money to political parties in this House, does she not think it would have been useful if the Labour party, in that case, had known about that via the security services and could have refused the donation? I am not sure whether the Government are filling the hole of two-way information sharing, and that concerns me.

[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 ---

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. I agree with every word she says about there being a very fine balance between a moratorium and a ban—a ban could, actually, be retrograde—but if we have a moratorium we should at least have a regulatory framework that makes sure that cryptocurrency cannot be moved upstream. Does she share my concern that, despite the good intentions of the Minister and the Government, and despite consistent pushing for a timescale for the implementation of the Rycroft review, we have not had that? She is therefore right that the Committee is the perfect opportunity to get the ideas of all political parties, and to hopefully get a better idea of the Government response.

[Dr Chowns]

I share the hon. Member’s enthusiasm and sense of urgency about getting Rycroft implemented as soon as possible. In the spirit of giving credit where it is due, the Government did commission that review—which was good—the review was quite fast, there was an immediate statement, and the Bill is going through. I do not think that we are in a perfect place.

I would have liked the Bill to have longer in Committee to give the Government a chance to introduce amendments that we could properly scrutinise. It is deeply unfortunate that, for a Bill that is about the workings of our electoral system, we are not able to do that core scrutiny in Committee—the crucial line-by-line scrutiny in the Commons, which is the elected Chamber. We are being asked, basically, to take it on trust. It is not that I distrust Government, but it is important to have this discussion now. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.

I have made the point about the importance of including in primary legislation the criteria under which any moratorium might be lifted in the future, and that there must be really strong safeguards. I have also made the point that a ban on crypto donations will not itself stop the risk, because of the downstream issues. We have to think carefully about how whatever mechanism is introduced deals with that.

We have already seen that Ben Delo, who has given £4.5 million to Reform in recent months, has said, “Oh dear, since I am going to be hit by this retrospective moratorium I am going to move back to the UK to evade it.” That is clear evidence of gaming the system by a guy who, by the way, was convicted in the US of impropriety in relation to political financing. He was subsequently pardoned by Donald Trump. We have to be really careful of how bad actors might manipulate any legislative proposals that are introduced.

A ban on cryptocurrency will not, in itself, stop the risks. We also need a cap on all political donations—we will discuss a group of new clauses relating to that in a bit, so I will save my arguments on that topic until then—plus a donor register, as I spoke about in Tuesday’s sitting. A donor register with donor registration numbers would address the issue of traceability and address the risk that donations are split into many tiny donations to hide the fact that they are all from the same place. Having to have a donor registration number that is associated with a particular, identified, allowable donor would go a long way to addressing that problem. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[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.

[Dr Chowns]

For the sake of the record, I feel duty bound to say, “Me too!”

[Paul Holmes]

I thank both hon. Members. Who would have thought that I could get some agreement from the Liberal Democrats and the Green party? I entirely welcome it: they are absolutely correct. This is not a party political matter; it is a genuine attempt to fill the void that the Government have created through the lack of a timetable for ensuring that we tackle this issue.

The Minister is correct to say that this is a really complicated issue, so we must get it right in this legislation. Electoral reform legislation usually comes before the House only every decade and if we do not get it right, we will allow malign influences into the political process. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously. We stand ready, between stages of the Bill, to have a meeting on a cross-party basis, perhaps through the Parliamentary Parties Panel. The Opposition think that a moratorium is better than a ban, but the right regulatory framework has to be in place. We stand ready to assist.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 4 seeks to make donations made to a registered political party, candidate or agent impermissible if the donation is made wholly or in part with cryptoassets.

New clause 12 purports to take a power so that the Secretary of State may make regulations, drafted by the Electoral Commission, mandating various requirements relating to the political donation of cryptoassets. It seeks to establish that political donations made via cryptoassets would be deemed impermissible unless those regulations were met. It intends to create an effective moratorium on cryptoasset donations until those regulations would be in force. On 25 March, the Secretary of State published the report of the independent review by Sir Philip Rycroft—sorry, I keep knighting him.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, and all other Members who have offered to work on a cross-party basis—if only the hon. Member replied to my letters!

[Paul Holmes]

I don’t think I have had any.

[Samantha Dixon]

He did. I invited him to come and talk to me about the Bill; other Members received their letters and came.

Putting that to one side—I am being slightly flippant—this has been a very fast-moving environment, and policy has been formulated very quickly in response to Rycroft. I undertake to work collaboratively with the hon. Member for Hamble Valley and Members of all parties as we go forward with the Bill—this is not the end of its passage.

I note the comment made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire about having a longer Committee stage, but I am mindful that the implementation of other areas of policy needs to continue—so that we can, for example, introduce votes at 16 in time for the next general election. Although we want to go longer, we also want to go quicker. We will work collaboratively as we go forward.

[Paul Holmes]

I think the Minister is being slightly sneaky, dare I suggest: she did write to me about having meetings, but there were no proposals in the Bill on cryptocurrency and there still are not. Therefore, that issue was perhaps not within the remit of the legislation. When it came to other aspects of the Bill, I presumed that we would have gone through the usual channels and passages in Committee. The Minister is absolutely right that we did not meet, but that did not include the issue of cryptocurrency in this legislation.

[Samantha Dixon]

However, had the hon. Gentleman come along, he would have had the opportunity to raise anything he wanted to discuss, as other Members did— I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Given the assurances I have provided, particularly that the Government intend to table an amendment on the moratorium period for cryptocurrencies, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will consider withdrawing her new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

New clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley), picks up on the 2024 voting reforms that expanded eligibility for around 1.4 million to 3.4 million people—yet of those individuals, only 191,000 overseas voters are registered. I suggest that that is not a lack of interest in democracy, but a failure of the system to make voting workable for those living abroad. What that means practically is that the UK is now near the bottom internationally for how effectively it enables our overseas citizens to vote.

One of the core problems is postal voting, as it does not work reliably for those living overseas. According to the Electoral Commission, only 52% of overseas postal ballots arrive in time to be counted. Following conversations between my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and other organisations—we took evidence on this during the Committee evidence sessions—it is clear that overseas voters are seeking practical changes that would enable them to reliably cast their votes securely and more easily and reliably. The proposed new clause sets out methods for doing so, including secure downloading and printing of ballots and returning ballots to embassies and consulates. It is worth noting that such a system is already used in the Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.

I turn to new clause 7. Another part of the problem for overseas voters is that they are simply not aware that they can register to vote or of how they can do so. One option, discussed in the Committee evidence sessions, is to provide an opportunity at the passport renewal and application stage, when they could be given this information. When a UK citizen applies for or renews a passport, they already provide proof of identity, their overseas address and their last UK address: everything needed for voter registration.

Voters should be simply prompted and given the option to register at that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot is not suggesting that they should be automatically registered, but given that the Bill seeks to roll out automatic voter registration and my hon. Friend has posed the question to the Government, providing an automatic moment to tell people they can register to vote and how to do so would be within the scope of the Bill and an opportunity the Bill could take.

I move on to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). New clause 8 and the associated amendment 3, which is consequential on the new clause and also tabled by my hon. Friend, would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on improving overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024–25 and its review of the general election. With over 3.5 million British citizens abroad eligible to vote, it is important for the Government to use this Bill as an opportunity to break down barriers to voting so that citizens can be fairly represented.

In the last general election, fewer citizens abroad were registered to vote than in 2019, in spite of an historic expansion of eligibility to vote following the scrapping of the 10-year rule. I have already outlined in my comments on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot that ballots can end up arriving too late for overseas citizens to be able to cast their votes, and proxies can be problematic to arrange if they no longer have contacts here in the UK to cast votes for them.

It is estimated that only 25% of citizens abroad know their rights and that they can vote, and only 48% of postal votes were returned; of course, the number varies slightly depending on which organisation we reference. I have already outlined that there are other countries with systems in place that enable their citizens overseas to cast their vote in an easier, secure and reliable way.

So far it appears the Government have been unwilling to take the steps necessary to make things easier for overseas voters. The new clauses are designed to ensure that the Government take steps to investigate how to make overseas voting easier for our constituents. Can the Minister outline whether the Government will support any of the new clauses in the name of my colleagues? If not, can she outline how the Government intend to ensure that overseas voters are able to cast their ballot in a safe, secure and reliable way?

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, Dame Siobhain, but am I allowed to speak to new clauses 42 and 43?

[The Chair]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you very much for your nod of assent, Dame Siobhain, and to the Clerk.

This group of new clauses are integral to the Bill. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford, said they relate to one of the holes in this legislation. As I outlined earlier, electoral reform legislation generally comes to this House probably once every decade, and that is why we should treat it as important and use it to try to right some of the wrongs or deficiencies within our electoral system.

We seriously believe that the rights of overseas voters are important. Let us cast our minds back to what seems like an age ago, when we had the evidence sessions of this Bill Committee. Each of our respective political parties, including the governing party, has honourable volunteers trying to advocate the rights of voters living abroad. At the moment, there is no attempt from the Government to try to right some of the wrongs and include overseas voters in our democratic process as they should be.

New clause 43 is similar to the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Guildford in new clause 8. It would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to grant overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passports. New clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections. We believe that those are proportionate and sensible measures to include some overseas voters.

I understand there may be an intervention that says, “What if people cannot get to consulates or embassies?” We believe new clause 42 would be the first step to ensure a full review of the overseas elector system. We understand that some people could be excluded because of geography, but we believe that it would be a step towards increasing the low engagement rate that we have seen in past elections.

On new clause 43, there is a democratic deficit with overseas voters. We think it should be made easier to register to vote as an overseas elector. Therefore, when people renew their passports, we believe that the new gov.uk one-stop-shop website that the Government set up—I used it the other day—would be a perfect online tool for that. That would help the participation rate of overseas electors, which, as the hon. Member for Guildford said, is notoriously low and something we all want to improve.

The Elections Act introduced a series of measures to support British citizens living overseas. That included votes for life, by removing the previous 15-year cap on being registered. However, the Electoral Commission’s evaluation of the 2024 general election found a series of practical obstacles in the way of overseas voters—we heard from them at the evidence session—especially for those who live a long way away and may be unable to send their postal votes back in time.

Only 52% of overseas postal ballots were returned in time to be counted, and the return rate in Australia was a mere 6%, as evidenced in the Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 UK general election. That is nothing less than tangible disenfranchisement, and that needs to be corrected.

In new clause 8, the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to do that by establishing at least a feasibility study on how we do that. This is very similar to discussions with regard to cryptocurrency; by using those organisations that gave evidence, every party can feed into the review and the feasibility study. That is perfectly admirable, but I argue that that is a longer-term thing. Our new clauses 42 and 43 would bring in practicable steps now to engage that participatory process. As I say, we perfectly accept that it would not solve every issue, but it would include those participation rates.

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Zöe Franklin]

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

As has come up repeatedly in the Committee, trust in elections is in a very difficult place at the moment. As MPs, we really need to consider how we can address the lack of confidence that the public have in our political system and, frankly, in the voting system that is used and whether the results feel representative. While we continue to face a flood of foreign money and powerful actors working to undermine our social fabric and interfere in public life, we must make sure that we are improving the public’s confidence in the face of those threats.

The requirement to consult the devolved Governments is essential, as this law would apply across all four nations, and trust deficits are not uniform. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a voice in assessing the impact in devolved elections. The Government are already taking very welcome steps in the Bill to modernise elections, and we have the opportunity to make further reforms.

One of the most powerful causes of disillusionment within politics is a sense that people’s votes just do not count—that they turn up on polling day and their voice simply disappears into a system that does not reflect it. We believe that any serious review of representativeness has to grapple with that, and that any Bill looking to reform our elections should consider how to change that perception and the voting system to better reflect what or who people are actually voting for.

The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government, but we believe they are grasping it only in part. We need to recognise that the threat is real and urgent. Mis and disinformation and the concentration of power in the hands of too few are undermining public trust. The new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove seeks to address that. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

[Paul Holmes]

I rise to speak against new clause 33, which we contend is overly restrictive. While the hon. Member frames the new clause as a shield for democracy, in reality it is a recipe for bureaucratic paralysis and a dangerous encroachment on the natural administration of our elections. I refer to the reporting mandate mechanism in new clause 33, which demands that the Secretary of State publishes a report on “trust in elections” within just 12 months. That is a purely subjective academic exercise masquerading as policy.

Trust is not a metric that we can legislate into existence; it is a subjective measure. By forcing the Government to constantly review public confidence, we are effectively inviting the Secretary of State or Ministers to politicise the very foundations of our voting system. That may be the intention of the hon. Lady, but I contend that it is just another mechanism for parties who disagree with our voting system to carp on about it every year. I say to the Liberal Democrats and to other parties that might want new clause 33 to go ahead that we have tested public opinion on new voting mechanisms. As I have said on other Bills, it should be for the Government of the day to put forward changes to the voting system and electoral law in this country.

New clause 33 mandates consultation with Ministers across all devolved nations and the Electoral Commission before a report can even be published. While I respect our devolved partners, we have to accept that it is the policy of Governments in at least two jurisdictions to have different voting systems. In fact, we have different voting systems in those devolved Administrations. It seems to me that the hon. Lady is trying to propose a veto by committee structure. If we try to measure trust in politics, First Ministers and Governments will each put forward different views on whether trust has been measured. How do we measure trust? We can poll, and look at local and national election outcomes.

[Samantha Dixon]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that voting is an act of trust?

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is absolutely right. I am a democrat. I believe that every hon. Member on the Committee has the backing of their constituents, albeit not by a margin that the Liberal Democrats, Greens, or other parties, might favour because they want to change the voting system. Each and every member of the Committee won more votes than each of their competitors. That is an act of trust: our constituents elected us under the system that was provided to them. That is the greatest measure of trust that can be portrayed in a result: securing a number of votes to win that election under the guidelines.

I think we are opening something of a Pandora’s box and, if I may say so, entering cloud cuckoo land if we get to a stage where this Parliament is mandating to measure public trust. There are organisations that do that. We have polling companies: in my view too many of them, and too many opinion polls—and that view is not just because the Conservative party are not in front in those polls at the moment. I find it difficult to support a requirement on the statute book for a report on the impact of the Act on trust in elections.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend note, as I do, that the international gold standard for the conduct of elections is set by the Venice Commission: a group of academics and people with political experience from countries across the democratic world who meet to consider measures including voter identification, the conduct of polls, the transparency of electoral material—all those different matters. When I asked the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government whether the Government had considered the input and latest reports of the Venice Commission, it was clear that the Secretary of State had not even heard of the Venice Commission. That is an example of something that would, to a degree, undermine trust and confidence in elections. As my hon. Friend is setting out, the outcome of any poll depends very much on who asks the question, how they ask it and of whom they ask it. Given that the new clause simply cannot set that out in statute, it does not add value to the Bill.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I honestly believe that the new clause does not add any value. It does the reverse. Indeed, the report that would be published within 12 months of the Bill passing could reduce trust in politics. Trust is subjective. We all have different opinions. Let us say that the Bill passes with this new clause and, 12 months after the next local elections or general election, there is a report on trust in elections. There are so many different opinions on the criteria outlined in the new clause that the Government would be reporting on, that there will be many people who disagree with the Secretary of State’s report, thereby undermining trust in the democratic process, whichever side of the coin they are on—on proportional representation, on first past the post, on the Electoral Commission, on the way in which parties were funded and on the way in which they campaigned. A general election itself is the ultimate arbiter of trust in politics.

This is one of the stranger new clauses that we have seen. I do not say that personally to the hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for Guildford, but we should be rolling back legislation. All the way through our consideration of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats and I have called on the Electoral Commission to do more, but we have also called for the Electoral Commission to have the right resourcing to operate the mechanisms for which both we and the Government, in different respects, have been calling. The new clause will add more bureaucracy and more reporting, and it will undermine trust in the electoral system, which is already—I absolutely accept—in a very delicate state.

However, the Minister is absolutely correct. The elections, as undertaken, and the results of the elections, as determined by the democratic will of the people of this country, are the result of trust. There are many organisations that can measure trust; I do not think that it is up to the Government to measure it. It is up to Governments to lose elections if they are not trusted, and it is up to Governments, or the Opposition, to win them if they are trusted. That is the way that things should stay.

[Samantha Dixon]

This Bill is about building trust and confidence in our electoral system. Regarding many of the reforms in the Bill, within a year of Royal Assent—the timescale within which the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause, has suggested the report should come—they either will not have come into force or might not have had sufficient time to bed in and achieve their aims. Therefore, any assessment of impact at that stage could be premature, could risk producing misleading conclusions, and—as the hon. Member for Hamble Valley so eloquently put it—could reduce trust. For these reasons, we do not believe that there would be sufficient benefit in drafting and publishing such a report.

However, I would like to reassure Members that the Government are committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and we anticipate that that will show us whether the policies that are being introduced have achieved their aims, including—where relevant—relating to trust.

We earn trust and I will reiterate my point that voting is an act of trust. None the less, the Government are working hard to generate more confidence in our already trusted electoral system with this Bill.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Paul Holmes]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 25, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—

“section (Statutory Guidance on suspected breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act);”

This amendment is consequential on NC36.

[Paul Holmes]

New clause 36 would require the Electoral Commission to prepare and Parliament to approve statutory guidance to returning officers on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023, and amendment 25 is consequential on the new clause, as I am sure Committee members will know.

As I have said before, given that legislation to change elections comes around so rarely, I believe that this Bill is a huge opportunity to tighten up the systems we have. We should engage people to look at what could be the most significant Bill on the machinery of elections in a generation.

The Government have admitted that: they are reducing the age of enfranchisement, changing how people can register and updating the rules on political finance. Given that we have a patchwork quilt of interpretation at polling stations, it is absolutely right that the Government look to issue statutory guidance on the enforcement of the Ballot Secrecy Act to returning officers. That is particularly relevant, as independent volunteers at polling stations reported concerns over family voting in the recent byelection in Gorton and Denton, on which there was a police investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the moment, on polling days, the law is interpreted differently at different polling stations—I am using polling stations as an example because the most interaction we have with voters is when they cast their ballot, and they should be pleased to do so. Going back to the example of my constituency, different counts and polling stations have different interpretations of the distance at which it is acceptable to display a poster. I have been in situations where down one road, they are allowed right up to the door, and even in the station in some cases, and in other areas they are not allowed in the car park. That is all based on interpretation. The new clause seeks to ensure that we have uniform electoral guidance. That would be produced by the Electoral Commission, which, as the Minister outlined, is an independent organisation that is being asked to take on more responsibilities to assess, approve and give out statutory guidance to returning officers.

Most people drive to and park at polling stations on their journey to vote, and candidates and tellers— I believe in telling, because it gives people interaction with the political parties before they cast their vote—often wait outside. Can any Member say that, in the last election they participated in, there was a uniform code as to what they saw at each polling station? I would say no. Election staff do not have that central guidance to say what should and should not happen. Often, when candidates report inconsistencies, because there are inconsistencies it is much harder to prove that a breach has happened.

In the discussions we have had this afternoon, each and every political party has wanted to ensure that our democratic process is tightened up, whether that is from foreign interference, cryptocurrency donations or donations from this country, and whether we want new people to be able to vote, or want people to give ID to vote—all of those things are contained in the Bill.

[David Simmonds]

To bring my hon. Friend back to where he started, what is so striking about what he is saying is that the moment when the voter goes to the polling station is the key interaction that most people have with our democracy.

The debates that we as politicians are interested in, about the sources of electoral finance and the eligibility of different people to come and vote, while important, are not as salient as what is going on in the mind of the voter at the point they cast their ballot. Their ability to do that with complete faith in the integrity of that process is critical. Does he agree that it is even more saliant to make the point that this review and update are necessary, because for the voter that represents the front door or the window on politics, and that then influences all the other issues that have been brought up by Members?

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. To ironically, yet seriously, relate this to the previous new clause we discussed, I would argue that having a uniform code of guidance where voters are given assurance that everything is run in the same way would rebuild trust in our democracy, the Government and the process.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the difference between us sad political operatives, who look at electoral law and whether everything is being run okay, and the average voter on the street—a term that I hate—is that people out there either have not thought about the fact that there are local elections or do not think about the machinery of how a ballot is run. When they approach a polling station and have difficulty, the trust that they have in the integrity of the system is damaged. Having the reassurance that the Government, regardless of political colour, are looking to give an independent body powers of review, perhaps after every general election, would add to trust and the feeling that there is competence in the voting system.

As we go through the journey of the voter, I know for a fact that there is the odd conspiracy theory about pencil versus pen—some places people can vote by pen, some places by pencil, and people say that their vote could be rubbed out if they vote by pencil. I happen not to subscribe to that theory, as our election staff are people of integrity. But even that is not clarified under central returning officer guidance; if it was, it would allow people to have confidence.

People often look at how others vote in polling stations. I hate to break the news to you, Sir Desmond, but they do. When we stand at a polling station, and a person is voting just there—for the benefit of Hansard, I am indicating that there is another desk to the right of me—we can see how they are voting. That breaches the trust that we need. I say to the Minister, who I know is going to reject this new clause because so far the Government have not conceded on much, that if we are all democrats then we should not be afraid of assessing whether our elections work.

We have a groundbreaking piece of legislation—I am sure when we get to Report stage, the Minister will now say in the Chamber, “the shadow Minister said this is groundbreaking legislation”. It has its bad points and very good points, but I accept that it is groundbreaking—but it could be even more groundbreaking. It could be the key piece of legislation that builds the integrity of our election system, which as the hon. Member for Guildford outlined, is extremely delicate at the moment.

[David Simmonds]

This is one of the most important parts of the debate we will have on this Bill. Most of us, as politicians, will have experienced a voter telling us on the doorstep that they would be willing to vote for our party but that they lack confidence in the secrecy of the ballot, because they know that the ballot paper issued has a serial number on it that could in theory be tracked down later to establish how they voted.

Does my hon. Friend agree that when we look at electoral behaviour, the turnout in, for example, local elections, has been consistent for 100 years, and that debates around trust have not been as material to people’s willingness to vote as trust in politics in general, because confidence in the ballot, and the sense of what is at stake in those elections, really matters? That is really a question of politics, rather than, as earlier amendments suggested, a question of trust. Does he agree that the significance of this is about ensuring the integrity of the process by which democracy happens, as opposed to a wider debate that reflects our political views about that process?

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is not about whether one political party—or one party in government—is more trustworthy than the other; we leave that to the voters. This is about trusting in the integrity of the voters. He is absolutely right that the greatest influence and first right of every citizen in this country should be their ability to participate in the democratic process, pick their Government and pick the elected representatives who stand up for them, but there needs to be integrity.

My hon. Friend is right to outline that this should be seen not in a party political way, but in a process way. The new clause would contribute to that aim by giving powers to the independent Electoral Commission, which, as the Minister reminded us in the previous sitting of this Committee, is governed by Parliament, not the Government. This is a step that the Minister could take, seeing that they are very keen to give the Electoral Commission increased power.

This new clause is crucial and non-partisan, and it would allow us to have a tangible effect on the trust in and integrity of our system. Nobody is bigger or better than the system that we have, but that system can be improved, and we should not be shying away from allowing ourselves to improve it, no matter who is in government, to make sure that every time that a voter walks into a polling station, they know that their vote will be cast in the most secret and best way possible. I hope the Minister will look kindly upon the new clause, although I am sure she will not. I look forward to her remarks in response.

[Dr Chowns]

Ballot secrecy is extremely important. The shadow Minister has talked about family voting. I am deeply disappointed and concerned by the implicitly discriminatory accusations made by some parties in relation to family voting in recent weeks. I wish we saw as much passion about the far greater threat to our democracy posed by the skewing effect of huge donations.

Conservative members of the Committee made no contribution in the discussion on caps on donations or limits on expenditure earlier this afternoon, but have devoted considerable airtime to this particular topic. I ask all of us to consider: what is the greatest threat to the integrity of our political system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 36 and amendment 25 would place a new legal duty on the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for returning officers on how to enforce the offences introduced by the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023. I stress at the outset how seriously the Government take all forms of electoral fraud or coercion, including family voting. It is illegal and unacceptable, and polling staff should feel confident to challenge and report any incidents.

However, I have serious concerns about these amendments. It is essential to point out that the commission can already issue guidance, and it already provides extensive guidance for returning officers. Putting the requirement into legislation would set a new precedent, allowing Parliament to direct how the commission produces its guidance in the future. The Commission’s independence, as we discussed earlier, is central to public confidence in how elections are run. Because the amendments would require Ministers and Parliament to approve or even change the guidance, there is a real risk that people would see that as political interference and involvement in something that should remain an operational matter for the commission.

The extra approval steps could also delay clear guidance for returning officers. If Parliament rejected the draft guidance, the commission would have to start again, creating uncertainty for those responsible for enforcing ballot secrecy. For those reasons—concerns about independence, ministerial involvement, added complexity and the precedent they set—the Government cannot support the amendments.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire made some comments that, I think, questioned my integrity in making my speech.

[Dr Chowns]

Not the hon. Gentleman’s integrity—his judgment.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady says it is my judgment. It is interesting that I am being accused of weaponising an issue because of one aspect where I think there is an imbalance, or a different interpretation of ways of overseeing voting at polling stations. First, that is a subjective term—

[Dr Chowns]

On a point of order, Sir Desmond. The House will note that I did not accuse anybody in particular of weaponising an issue. I observed that the issue had been weaponised.

[The Chair]

The hon. Lady has made her point, and it is on the record.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Lady has made her point, but she said that Members were weaponising issues. Seeing that I was the only Member speaking to amendments tabled by the official Opposition and in my name, I think that we can take her meaning as read.

It is interesting that, in looking at possible infringements of an equal right to vote, the hon. Lady focused on family voting. I focused on many other things, including whether we should ask for an independent review of whether the secrecy of the ballot is being maintained by an independent organisation. I mentioned family voting once. I mentioned the activities of political parties at polling stations. I mentioned whether the desks should be looked at differently.

[The Chair]

Order. There is a danger that we are being repetitious.

[Paul Holmes]

Forgive me, Sir Desmond. I do not think that has necessarily been unique to me on this Committee, but I will draw my remarks to a close. I am being challenged over my intentions in tabling the amendment. It was well intentioned, but it has been said that it is about just one thing and that it is weaponising an issue, which it is not.

[David Simmonds]

I am keen to avoid being accused of being repetitious in any circumstances. Does my hon. Friend agree that the key strength he is advocating for is the integrity of the ballot as the guardian against all these issues? If we have a secret ballot that we can trust, all the issues of corruption, undue influence, family voting or whatever they may be are managed appropriately. If we fail to ensure the integrity of the ballot, things become irresponsible.

[The Chair]

Order. That is definitely a repetition of points that have already been made.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which I of course endorse. Some remarks have intimated that we have not commented on other aspects of the Bill. All I will say is that I welcomed the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on cryptocurrency, and I said to the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson that I would look to support them on some aspects of capping electoral finances. I think we need to be very careful when we speak.

I will push the new clause to a vote and we will vote in favour of it, because anybody on the Committee who is scared of an independent review of whether our system works should not be hiding away from the people who vote for them.

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

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Paul Holmes]

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

This new clause is vital. I would say that, because we tabled it, but it aims to repair some of the imbalance in the tactics that we have seen in recent elections, and to give every voter a level playing field to participate in voting in an equal way.

The new clause relates to the language of campaign materials. It would provide that:

“During the relevant period campaign material must not be promoted or published in a foreign language.”

By that, I mean the short regulated campaign period. If a person were found guilty of an offence because they caused

“campaign material to be promoted or published that falls within subsection (1)”—

in other words, in a foreign language—they would be liable on summary conviction

“in England and Wales, to a fine”

or

“in Scotland or Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.”

I want to be clear why we have tabled the new clause. We are all politicians who campaign in our constituencies, but we all know that politics is becoming more divisive in the messages that certain parties are putting out there. An election leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election was written in Urdu. It said: “Give the Muslims a voice. Punish Labour for their views on Gaza. Vote Green.” Notwithstanding that that is a divisive statement to make, the Green party actively and purposely made it to prey on the vulnerabilities of a community that are not as involved in British society as they should be, and get them to vote Green on one issue: foreign policy and the Labour Government’s decisions on Gaza. Every Government’s first duty to this country is to keep their citizens safe. Regardless of what we think about Gaza, or any one issue, that is the Government’s No. 1 duty. On foreign policy, the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have undertaken those responsibilities. They do that every day. That is what the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are supposed to do.

When campaign materials are published in a foreign language to exploit communities that should be much more involved in British society than they are, that is exploitation for political gain. That skewed the result of the by-election in Gorton and Denton. Let me be clear that I am not contesting the result of that election. My party was never going to win it, so if anybody wanted to intervene on me and say, “It’s because you got a measly 6%,” that would be entirely true. But let us face it: not everybody in that constituency could see what the Green party was saying to those communities about Gaza. The constituency is very diverse; it has a big white working-class community and a big ethnic minority community. I say it again: that was exploitation of one community on one issue, and the Green party was guilty of doing that.

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend has spoken eloquently about the Green party’s shocking behaviour in the Gorton and Denton by-election, but does he recall the evidence that we heard on our first day in Committee from Tower Hamlets? That gave us all cause to reflect that this is not simply about a shocking recent issue involving the Green party; it has been a long-standing concern in our politics. If we want to ensure that everybody has equality of access to our democracy, we need to make sure that we get this right. Using the established languages of our nation is a key part of that.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is one example, but we know there have been issues with electoral integrity in Tower Hamlets. Previous Governments stepped in in Tower Hamlets because there were breaches in relation to some of the election materials that were going out.

My contention is that every voter, no matter where they come from, should be able to have the same access to campaign materials. It is not unreasonable that digital and physical election materials should be on an equal footing in the short campaign—people can do otherwise at any other time—when emotions can be high, polls can be tight and parties are campaigning very hard.

The Government are moving towards trying to encourage translation anyway. The Secretary of State released a social cohesion strategy that is supposed to make every citizen in this country feel or identify as British, and feel safe and at one in this country. The only way we can do that is by increasing funding for translation services and encouraging people, and sometimes forcing people, to learn the languages of this country. Those are English, Scottish, Welsh or the other registered languages in the British Isles. That is not unreasonable. The Government clearly do not think that it is unreasonable, because in the social cohesion strategy they actively promote it. All I am trying to do is make it official that people should be reading their election materials in one of the official British languages.

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

My great grandmother was not a native English speaker; her first language was Scottish Gaelic. In North Lanarkshire, according to the 2022 census, 483 people speak Gaelic in the home, and over 2,000 speak Urdu in the home. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the new clause would make things equal for all, but would it not make things more equal for one, rather than the other?

[Paul Holmes]

No, it would not. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady; we get on, and I believe we are both in this for the same reasons. My explanatory note is very clear about what the new clause would protect, and where it would not have an impact. It states:

“It would not ban campaigning in native languages of the British Islands such as in English, Welsh, Cornish, Ulster Scots, Irish, et al. Nor would it prevent campaigning via the likes of BSL or Braille.”

So no, because that is officially known as a minority language within the British Isles. We have been very careful to ensure that people in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and those who read Braille or rely on sign language, will not be excluded by the new clause. Communities that are not learning English should be able to read the English through translation services, which are encouraged by the social cohesion strategy.

We also have to think about the other side: many people living in multi-ethnic communities receive leaflets in a foreign language, and they cannot read what is being said by a party. That is not a level playing field in the voting system, and I think it is wrong. We have seen examples where that has been used in an exploitative way in recent months, and there is no doubt that we will see it used in an exploitative way in future. That happened in Tower Hamlets, it happened in Gorton, and it will happen again.

If the Minister will not support the new clause, will the Government look at how to streamline the voting system in this country, so that we have, at least, guidance on languages? She may say that it already exists, but we need to toughen the regulations to prescribe, or describe, how parties should treat British languages versus foreign languages. I look forward to her Minister’s response on new clause 37.

[Dr Chowns]

I am going to rise above the party political aspects of the shadow Minister’s comments, but I want to engage with his extraordinary claim that communicating with people in their mother tongue is, in some way, exploitation. He expressed concern about the inclusion of diverse communities in our country. He talked about social cohesion, but what he is proposing is essentially a nativist policy. As was highlighted by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, Gaelic speakers are accepted but Urdu speakers are not. I fundamentally disagree.

Of course, as a country we should provide support to assist people to learn English, but we should not force them, as the shadow Minister argued. If they are not yet fluent, it seems perfectly reasonable—in fact, clearly helpful for inclusion and participation—to provide election materials in the language in which they can be best understood. Indeed, that is what returning officers do. Election officers provide information in multiple languages, so why should parties and candidates not also be free to do so?

Let me quote from the guidance for returning officers on the Electoral Commission’s website:

“Some voters may need assistance in another language because of their limited English (or English or Welsh) language skills. You should consider what support you are able to provide to those voters in your area, such as providing translations of the polling station notices.”

In Gorton and Denton, the polling station provided information in multiple other languages. The effect of the new clause would be exclusionary and discriminatory, and I strongly oppose it.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 37 would ban the use of foreign languages in campaign material during the regulated period—it would make it a criminal offence. A primary purpose of the Bill is to encourage more people across society to engage and participate in our democracy. The new clause would not serve that purpose. It is not for the Government to prescribe the languages that campaigners are permitted to use to engage voters who come from a wide range of diverse backgrounds across the constituencies we represent. It is certainly not for the Government to criminalise the use of certain languages.

Various electoral and non-electoral offences protect against malicious forms of campaign material, which is, in essence, what the hon. Member for Hamble Valley was talking about. For example, it is an offence to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting material that is intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. It is also an offence to improperly influence someone to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. That would include, for example, a leaflet that threatened to make use of force or place undue spiritual pressure on a person in order to induce them to vote in a particular way or refrain from voting. Those offences apply regardless of the language used in the campaign material.

The Government have no plans to regulate the use of foreign languages in campaign material. We are seeking to minimise barriers to participation while safeguarding the integrity and security of elections. The measures in the Bill are intended to restore faith in our politics and ensure that the UK continues to be a thriving and diverse democracy. The new clause is entirely incompatible with those intentions. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Paul Holmes]

I wholly accept the Minister’s comments; I did not expect that she would be looking into this. I acknowledge the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, too. She used the example of returning officers. They are filling things in and conducting a process; they are not using foreign languages to exploit a section of our society against a policy or a party in this country with which they happen to disagree. That is the clear and distinct difference, and that is the example that I used in moving the new clause. Her example is about the process; my example is about using foreign language to exploit a political message in an advantageous way. That is why I tabled the new clause, and I wish to press it to a vote.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Representation of the People Bill (Sixth sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is appropriate for electoral registration officers to use their discretion in the circumstances that he describes. They can do that already, and should continue to do so, rather than the Government prescribing the route that they should follow.

Finally, requiring electoral registration officers to respond to ad hoc requests from political parties, alongside their existing statutory write-out duties, would impose a substantial and unnecessary administrative burden. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 40.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Good morning, Dr Allin-Khan, and good morning to members of the Committee. I suspect that by the end of today I am going to have a super tan, given that sun coming through the window. Thank you to Joe for sorting out the blinds.

I rise to speak to new clause 40 in my name and to talk briefly to clause 48. As the Minister has outlined, the new clause would give registered political parties access to data on expired postal votes. As the Minister said, clause 48 would give effect to schedule 3, which makes various changes to absent voter arrangements. If a voter cannot get to the polling station on the day of the election, they can apply for an absent vote. The Minister has outlined in comprehensive detail the minor amendments to the clause that she has brought to the Committee, and we have no problem with those.

The Electoral Commission’s report, however, on the 2024 general election recommended that postal voting

“should be reformed to improve the service for voters and strengthen resilience”

within the system. The Association of Electoral Administrators has called for a longer electoral timetable, including for UK Parliament elections, and for earlier absent voting deadlines, set at 16 working days before polling day. The explanatory notes to the Bill note the intention to move the postal vote application deadline in Great Britain to three days earlier in the electoral timetable, which will be from 11 to 14 working days before the poll. The Elections Act 2022 introduced a series of measures to tighten the security around postal voting, which included providing that postal vote applications expire after three years. That was to stop the scope for postal vote fraud and error.

However, one of the unintended consequences of that change, which we now recognise with concern, is that the Government have not provided for political parties and elected representatives to have access to postal vote expiry data. Political parties already have access to lists of postal voters, and as the 2022 Act provisions start to bite we are seeing a large drop-off in the number of registered postal voters. It is our belief that all parties should be able to recruit postal voters because of that huge drop-off.

I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne earlier about how, in some areas of my constituency, postal vote drop-off levels are sitting at around 35%. We think that the Government should allow political parties to have access to data in order to play their part in postal vote recruitment if someone has dropped off. The Government have refused to amend the law to allow that, and Labour Ministers have admitted that the Government do not track the number of postal vote renewals or expiries. Amending the law in this way would be a simple step to support democratic engagement and turnout, and provide a level playing field for all parties. There would be no detriment to data protection rights, given that political parties already have access to who has a postal vote.

It is not for me to argue with parliamentary counsel—I would never do so—so I take the steer of officials at the Minister’s Department about the scope of the clause. However, I look for reassurance that the Minister will come back to the Committee about the general principle of allowing political parties access to the drop-off data; we may return to this issue at later stages. All parties, regardless of their infrastructure and machinery across the country, should be able to help the Government by playing their part in increasing the uptake of postal votes if those often vulnerable and elderly people have dropped off.

I have come back to Parliament for a rest after campaigning in the local elections for two weeks, as I suspect most Committee members have. I met many people who did not know that they had dropped off, which is unfortunately an unintended consequence of the legislation that the last Government passed. If the Minister can give a commitment to write to me about how we can amend the Bill to allow parties access, I will be content not to press new clause 40 to a Division. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments; I understand the points he makes. There is a statutory duty for EROs to notify postal voters that their postal vote is due to expire at the end of January that year, and they will be contacting them. The Government’s view is that there needs to be a proportionate approach that does not add a burden in what is already a busy time for EROs. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman to set out current Government thinking in light of his remarks.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that reassurance and I look forward to her letter. The Opposition still think that political parties have a role. Because many elected representatives have access to the electoral roll, we get monthly updates; I know that that is different from what happens in an election period, and I understand that the Minister is concerned about proportionality and the burden placed on election officials. However, we believe that political parties have a role and a right to be able to see the drop-off data. However, for the smooth running of the Committee and to make progress, I will not press new clause 40 to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Absent Voting

Amendments made: 14, in schedule 3, page 118, leave out lines 19 to 23.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 15, in schedule 3, page 119, line 7, leave out from “election” to end of line 8.

This amendment and Amendments 14 and 16 remove a redundant regulation-making power and associated provision. The power would have allowed for provision to be made about circumstances in which a proxy’s long-term postal voting arrangement must be preserved when the proxy is granted a postal voting arrangement for a particular poll.

Amendment 16, in schedule 3, page 119, leave out lines 11 to 13.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 15.

Amendment 17, in schedule 3, page 123, line 37, at end insert—

“20A In section 61 (voting offences other than personation), after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) In subsection (1A), a reference to P being a person who will be registered includes P being a person who has applied to be registered where there is no reason not to register P other than the fact that the objections period has not ended.

(1C) In subsection (1B) “the objections period”, in relation to an application for registration, means the period prescribed under section 10ZC(2) (in relation to Great Britain) or 10A(3) (in relation to Northern Ireland) for making objections to the application before it is determined.’”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This amendment ensures that certain offences in section 61(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 relating to the appointment of proxies apply to the expanded category of people who “will be registered” for the purposes of the absent voting rules.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 49

Power to obtain election-related information etc

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 50 and 51 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

As set out in our manifesto, the Government are committed to encouraging participation in our democracy. To achieve that, it is essential that electors are kept well informed about elections and referenda in their local area and about other pertinent information, such as the candidates running and the locations of polling stations. The clauses will enable us, in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, to improve online information services to provide that information to the public. Although the information is already available to electors, that service will help ensure that electors have access to consistent and complete information via a central service. The information that election officers may be required to provide will be limited to factual information about the poll and will not include details on the policies of candidates or political parties.

Clause 49 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to require returning officers, counting officers, petition officers and electoral registration officers to share specified information relating to elections and referenda. The Secretary of State can require the information to be shared with the Department, the Electoral Commission or both.

Clauses 50 and 51 specify which officers can be required to provide information, and for which types of elections and referenda. That power will be exercised via secondary legislation, so the exact details of the information required and processes for sharing it will be confirmed in due course. At this stage, our ambition is that the information will be collated by the Electoral Commission and shared with the public via its website. Electoral administrators will be supported to provide the required information and for electors to provide their location to quickly find the most relevant information. This is a straightforward and proportionate measure that we believe will greatly improve the electorate’s access to information and support increased engagement.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. Around the country, many enthusiasts for democracy, such as myself, will be shaking with excitement about being able to find all the information in one place. Frankly, I cannot understand why we have not moved to such a system before, and I am happy to credit the Minister for her foresight in bringing forward such a forward-thinking proposal.

Even in the last week, candidates were desperately trying to find out who had been nominated in their counties or boroughs at various stages. The information was supposed to be published at 4 o’clock on the Thursday or Friday, but Hampshire county council had not published the information in time. Such things are important for people participating.

What is particularly welcome in these clauses is the fact that people who have various disabilities will be able to access the support available. Many constituents knocking on doors in the last few weeks have raised questions about the support that they might want. Having a single place where somebody can just stick in their postcode, or where they live, and have access to information about the local or national election that they are entitled to participate in is a very good thing. We will not contest the clauses. We think they are a very good move for elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners, both online and in person, is totally unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democratic process. We want as many people as possible to engage in our democracy, but sadly there are some who seek to deter involvement through abuse and intimidation.

Candidates already have the option to keep their home address from being published on the statement of persons nominated and on ballot papers, but a requirement remains for candidates who act as their own election agent to have their home address published on the notice of election agents. We are removing this requirement, enabling candidates in this position to provide a correspondence address to be published instead of their home address. We are also extending that option to all election agents. These changes will ensure that those who take part in our democracy can feel safe and secure in their home. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

We welcome clause 54, which, as the Minister outlined, will allow candidates acting as their own agent to remove their home address from publication requirements. I reiterate what the Minister said: intimidation and harassment during any kind of political campaign is unacceptable. We had a very good cross-party debate on harassment in the last sitting of the Committee.

These measures seem very sensible, but I would like the Minister to address something that has just come to me, so is almost guaranteed to be nonsense. When a correspondence address has been given, if impropriety has been found to have occurred in the return of election expenses by either an agent or a candidate, might there be unintended consequences in terms of the paper trail and how that person can be found? For example—the Minister will be aware that this is slightly out there—if a dummy corporation sets up a correspondence address through a PO box, how can we ensure that the agent is held to account through an investigation? The Minister can write to me on that. It just came to me, so I am not expecting an answer now. Other than that, I think the clause is perfectly sensible, and we will not contest it.

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Election agents could use a PO box as a correspondence address, but not as their office address. I hope that gives him the reassurance that any agent behaving inappropriately would be findable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Leave to pay late and disputed expenses claims

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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

A number of points have been made, which I thank hon. Members for. I can reassure the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission on these proposals. All my officials talk to the Electoral Commission constantly, so its capacity to take this on board is understood.

In terms of consultation, we always work with the parliamentary parties panel. However, as I was coming into this position, I reached out to all the leaders of the opposition parties and invited them to come to talk to me about the Bill prior to its Second Reading. Not all took up the offer; however, I was pleased to meet those who did.

Turning to the point about the two sets of returns, it is still important to address the point raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. It is important for returning officers to receive returns and declarations, because having those available for inspection at the local level remains an important part of our democracy. I would not want to see that taken away. That is why we are proposing both the EC and returning officers receive them.

On new clause 47, the Government fully recognise the importance of greater transparency over the source of political donations, and we are already taking that forward. Work to activate donor source declarations is underway as part of our wider political finance reforms, and the Government have been clear that those measures will be delivered in this Parliament. The new clause would not change our direction or add new policy substance. I understand that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is eager to see this implemented quickly, and I want to reassure the Committee that this is a Government priority. However, imposing a fixed deadline risks cutting across the careful sequencing needed to implement reforms coherently.

We need to align commencement with the broader package, ensuring that guidance and systems are ready, and give campaigners proportionate lead-in time. That speaks to the point made by the shadow Minister that this is about not just the established parties but smaller parties as well. A rigid statutory date risks poorer implementation without adding any new substance to what the Government are already delivering. Our approach is to activate donor source declarations in step with the wider package in the Bill, so that parties can have clear and workable rules and the Electoral Commission is operationally prepared. On that basis, I hope the hon. Member will feel able not to push the new clause to a vote.

New clause 48 seeks to lower the criminal threshold for two political finance offences so that a party treasurer or a responsible person would commit an offence when it could be proven that they had

“reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting”

that a declaration accompanying a campaign or referendum expenditure return was false. Currently, prosecutions for such offences are possible only when it can be proven that the offender “knowingly or recklessly” makes a false declaration. That threshold was designed to reflect the seriousness of criminal liability and ensure that sanctions target deliberate and clearly irresponsible wrongdoing.

The Government welcome Philip Rycroft’s comprehensive and well-reasoned report on foreign financial interference in our democracy, which includes relevant recommendations in this space. Any proposal to amend the knowledge test for relevant offences will need to be considered with great care to ensure that party treasurers and responsible persons are not unduly exposed to potential criminal sanctions for administrative errors or inadvertent admissions. It is also important to consider the political finance regime in the round to avoid amendments creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework.

The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose. For those reasons, although we do not support new clause 48, we will continue to assess the review’s findings carefully and will set out a full Government response, including whether making further amendments to the Bill would be appropriate. Given that reassurance, I hope the new clause will not be pressed.

The integrity of political finance depends on measures that are both effective and proportionate. That is why the Bill introduces stronger due diligence expectations and tougher rules for institutional donors. Our general approach has been to address weaker points of the framework where there is greater risk. While the intention behind the new clause is acknowledged, reducing the declaration threshold to £500 does not follow that risk-based approach and could end up weakening the system.

In that respect, I share the views of the shadow Minister because I believe the new clause would create a large volume of low-value declarations and, in doing so, divert the time and energy of donors, recipients and the regulator on to lower-risk activity. We want resources to be focused on higher-risk activity, such as the enhanced due diligence that we want donors to undertake when they receive larger donations. The Government believe that the risk-based approach that we are taking in the Bill is the right one. It ensures that further scrutiny will be applied where it matters most.

New clause 50 seeks to increase the maximum criminal penalties that can be imposed for various false declaration offences under the political finance framework. In the Bill, the Government are acting on long-standing recommendations to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s power and extend its remit to ensure that enforcement provides a clear deterrent against breaking the law, while remaining proportionate. However, we recognise that we cannot be complacent, so we welcome the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy’s recent report and Philip Rycroft’s independent review on foreign financial interference in our democracy. They both include relevant recommendations regarding the enforcement of political finance offences.

Any proposal to increase sentencing for such offences will need to be considered carefully to ensure that criminal penalties remain proportionate. It will also be important to consider the political finance regime and its enforcement in the round to prevent amendments from creating inconsistencies between parts of the statutory framework. The Rycroft review provides a valuable basis for that broader consideration and the Government are actively working through its recommendations to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose.

Noting that new clause 50 covers ground similar to one of Mr Rycroft’s recommendations, we will assess the review’s findings carefully and set out a full Government response, including whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

[Paul Holmes]

Does the Minister see the absurdity of the Government’s strategy in this area of policy? The Government commissioned a huge review—a good review—by Philip Rycroft that they need to examine and consider properly. But we are discussing a section of the Bill where although a direct influence on future legislation is outlined by Philip Rycroft, the Minister is resisting amendments from other political parties, saying she will bring in amendments later because the Government have not considered Rycroft’s review properly. She is not going to accept this, but does she not see that the way the Bill is working is absurd? We are going to have retrospective amendments when it comes to the review, but the Minister will only accept amendments from her own side and not from other political parties.

[Samantha Dixon]

The shadow Minister is, of course, fully entitled to his views. However, the new clauses relate to a very narrow framework in the Bill. The Government are considering the review and its recommendations from a much broader, cross-Government perspective. That requires much broader work. We will bring our response to the review to Parliament in time for proper scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Risk assessments for donations to registered parties etc

--- Later in debate ---

I am conscious that the Rycroft review made a recommendation to include some additional, broader categories of risk factor. We are carefully considering all the recommendations in the Rycroft review and will issue a Government response in due course. Where appropriate, we will table amendments to the Bill. I hope that the Opposition are reassured by those comments.

[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 ---

[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.

Representation of the People Bill (Seventh sitting)

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing 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.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. This is the first time we have met in this Committee, but I know you like good order, so I will be brief.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Hear, hear!

[Paul Holmes]

That is the only time the Liberal Democrats have ever cheered me on, so I am glad we are in agreement.

The Minister gave a comprehensive outline of the proposals in clause 60. I will briefly talk to amendment 34, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) but moved by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. The Conservatives think the amendment is well intentioned, but one of my big concerns—I think the Minister outlined this, but perhaps she will return to it in winding up—is the burden that would be placed on businesses, which already have quite extensive regulatory burdens placed on them by Government. I think all parties in this Committee have intimated that everybody wants more transparency and wants to talk more about donations to ensure that we really tighten up the regulatory regime on political party donations. However, although I am not averse to being radical, I think amendment 34 is probably a bit over-burdensome and we do not support it, but we are content to support clause 60.

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

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Sir Desmond. In clause 60, we are considering company donations in UK politics, and I ask the Minister to consider outright banning them, as happens, for example, in France and Canada. There is no real reason for companies to be permitted to make donations, particularly when we are concerned, as in this Bill, with ensuring that company donations are not a mechanism for channelling funds from outside the country into British politics. Why not make the situation clear and allow only individuals, whose connection to the country can be clearly tested, to donate? Company donations have been nearly half the size of individual donations in UK politics in recent years. These are really significant sums.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

I will keep my remarks brief. As we start the afternoon sitting, it is worth putting on the record that clause 60 goes a significant distance towards finally tightening up the rules around corporate donations, which many campaigners, including in civil society, would argue have been left unaddressed for far too long. What clause 60 seeks to do is effective.

That said, and I will not repeat in too much detail the points made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, it is worth reflecting on the recommendations in Philip Rycroft’s review around revenue versus profits, and how we can tighten things up. So I am keen to understand how, as the Bill progresses, we can potentially take his recommendations into account.

It is worth remembering some of the big case studies that have been a cause for concern. We therefore know that, in some cases, corporate donations can carry a significant risk of nefarious interference in the democratic process. There was much media coverage and speculation about the idea that Elon Musk, the California-based billionaire, could legitimately make a donation to a UK political party via a UK subsidiary of Tesla.

When we look at some of the research conducted by CenTax or Transparency International, we see that around £1 in every £10 that comes via a company as a donation could be because the individual in question could not donate directly themselves. According to that same research, around a quarter of money donated by companies is completely untraceable. So these measures are really welcome.

[Paul Holmes]

I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying; I think he is well intentioned, and his speech is well researched. However, as set out in the House of Commons Library note, the Electoral Commission itself has warned that the provisions in the clause

“would not reduce the risk of foreign money entering British politics through companies”.

What does he say to that? Does he think the Government should do more?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I think there is a difference between corporate and non-corporate donations. However, what would be really interesting is to see how the Bill progresses in taking forward the Rycroft review. That is a really important point, but I will not go over it again, because it has already been well articulated by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

To conclude, the Bill takes serious steps forward in addressing some of the foul play we have seen time and again with corporate donations in the past, and there is a huge body of evidence behind that. However, I would welcome any early advice or opinion the Minister can give us on how we can work on the recommendations set out by Philip Rycroft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

This clause strengthens the electoral regime by restoring a clear, objective test for forfeiture: if an individual donor was not actually on an electoral register at the time of the donation, the donation is impermissible and liable to forfeiture. It responds directly to long-standing concerns from the Electoral Commission that the current framework is open to inconsistency. In particular, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, which allowed courts to consider whether a donor was eligible, rather than actually registered, when assessing impermissible donations and their forfeiture, introduced uncertainty and risked discouraging thorough permissibility checks by campaigners.

The clause removes the ambiguity in electoral law, ensuring that permissibility of an individual is determined on actual electoral registration. It reinstates a simple and objective test that supports consistent enforcement and reinforces the integrity of the electoral regime. Campaigners already must take reasonable steps to verify donor permissibility. The clause simply removes the scope for subjective interpretation of permissibility and strengthens deterrence by ensuring that impermissible donations cannot be retained by campaigners due to ambiguity in the law. By reinforcing the principle that only permissible donors may fund UK politics, the clause provides a clear deterrent for impermissible donations and supports compliance by political parties and campaigners.

[Paul Holmes]

I welcome the Minister’s comments on the clause. It is important that when we have been discussing the nature of this legislation, particularly regarding donations, we have outlined a clear stance that if people want to participate in our political process and make donations, they should have a physical stake in it. Any removal of the ambiguity around campaigners having to look to see whether it is permissible is welcome. It is a reasonable expectation from the Government that there has to be some level of participatory engagement in the political process. We have no problem with the clause; indeed we support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62

Unincorporated associations making political contributions

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 62, page 83, line 17, leave out “£11,180” and insert “£500”.

This amendment, together with Amendments 89 to 94, would bring the reporting threshold for donations from Unincorporated Associations in line with the permissibility threshold for donations to political parties.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, the Government believe that the Bill already strikes the right balance of stronger transparency and accountability where UAs engage in significant political financing, without imposing disproportionate burdens on low-risk activity. I therefore invite the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for her remarks. Once again, I would like to say on the record that the Government are making great strides in this area and are trying to strengthen the legislation and the regulatory regime around donations. We agree with her that the amendments—particularly amendment 88—for the reduction to £500 on the reporting threshold for donations from unincorporated associations is simply too low. There could be a debate on whether it should be lowered from what the Government are proposing; I think actually unifying the regulations between companies and unincorporated associations is a sensible thing to do. It removes ambiguity and creates a more uniform system. The burden placed at £500 would create an unnecessary reporting regime.

[Lloyd Hatton]

It has already been outlined by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, but I am interested to know whether the official Opposition spokesperson agrees that the previous Government’s decision in the Elections Act 2022 to inexplicably increase the threshold for UAs was wrong, and that the intention of this Bill, which is to reduce it, is the right way forward?

[Paul Holmes]

I have already said that I think the Government are being sensible in creating a unified or level playing field between companies and unincorporated associations. I was not an expert on the previous Act when it was passed, but in my view it is sensible for the Government to be taking this action, now that its consequences are clear, because the Act obviously did not work. If Members across the House look at some of my previous remarks on some of the proposals brought forward by the last Government, I am not ashamed to say that sometimes—I only say sometimes—we got it wrong. That is the nature of democracy.

The changes that the Government are making are sensible and my contention is that some of the amendments—especially amendments 88 and 90—use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They create an overburden compared with the Government’s good intentions and what they want to get out of the proposals.

We would not support amendment 88 and we certainly would not support amendment 90, but we do welcome the strides that the Government, and the Minister, are trying to take in tightening up the regime.

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 79, in clause 62, page 83, line 28, at end insert—

“(h) create offences of—

(i) giving an unincorporated association false information about a gift that may be used to make a political contribution, and

(ii) withholding information about such a gift with intent to deceive.”—(Samantha Dixon.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 85.

Clause 62, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS MAKING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Amendments made: 80, in schedule 9, page 168, line 2, at end insert

“, unless it already has one (see sub-paragraph (6A))”.

This amendment, and amendment 81, amends the new provisions on responsible persons for unincorporated associations to make it clear that an association is not required to appoint a responsible person when it already has one in place, but that the Commission must be notified that the responsible person is willing to continue to act.

Amendment 81, in schedule 9, page 168, line 30, at end insert—

“(6A) Where an unincorporated association would be required by sub-paragraph (2) to appoint an individual to be the responsible person in relation to the association but an appointment of such a person is already in force, the notice under sub-paragraph (3) must inform the Commission that the responsible person is willing to remain as the responsible person in relation to the association (and sub-paragraph (4)(a) is to be read accordingly).”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 80.

Amendment 82, in schedule 9, page 170, line 7, after “within” insert

“any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of”.

This amendment prevents unincorporated associations from being permissible donors in relation to other unincorporated associations: it is intended as an anti-avoidance measure to prevent gifts being channelled through chains of unincorporated associations.

Amendment 83, in schedule 9, page 170, line 20, leave out from “within” to end of line 22 and insert

“any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 54(2),”.

This amendment makes similar anti-avoidance provision to that in amendment 82.

Amendment 84, in schedule 9, page 170, line 24, at end insert—

“(4) Section 162 (meaning of exempt trust donation) applies for the purposes of this paragraph as if, in subsection (2)(a), for ‘27th July 1999’ there were substituted ‘7th April 2026’.”

This amendment modifies the meaning of “exempt trust donation” for unincorporated associations by providing that a trust set up before 7th April 2026 (i.e. the date of tabling this amendment) is a permissible donor to an unincorporated association.

Amendment 85, in schedule 9, page 173, line 11, at end insert—

“(c) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

‘(3A) A person commits an offence if—

(a) they knowingly give an unincorporated association any information relating to—

(i) the amount of any gift to the association, or

(ii) the person or body making such a gift,

which is false in a material particular, or

(b) with intent to deceive, they withhold from an unincorporated association any material information relating to a matter within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii),

in circumstances where they believe that the unincorporated association may use the gift for the purposes of making a political contribution.’”

This amendment creates a new criminal offence where a person knowingly provides an unincorporated association with false information, or withholds information with intent to deceive, about a gift that they believe the association may use for the purposes of making a political contribution.

Amendment 86, in schedule 9, page 173, line 15, at end insert—

“(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b)(iii), at the end insert ‘or 3A’.”

This amendment inserts a missed consequential amendment so that paragraph 7(2)(b)(iii) of Schedule 19A to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 refers to the new paragraph 3A inserted into that Schedule by paragraph 9 of Schedule 9.

Amendment 87, in schedule 9, page 174, line 9, at end insert—

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 64 amends section 54 of the Elections Act 2022 to enable the Electoral Commission to make minor corrective changes, such as updating platform names or fixing broken hyperlinks, without requiring the approval of the Secretary of State and Parliament. That will allow the commission to issue timely and accurate guidance, ensuring that regulated entities benefit from clear, up-to-date guidance, while retaining ministerial and parliamentary oversight for substantive changes, such as those involving changes of interpretation or scope.

[Paul Holmes]

Does anyone on the Committee intend to speak to new clauses 10 or 24?

[Dr Chowns]

indicated assent.

[Paul Holmes]

In that case, I reserve my right to speak until after the hon. Member for North Herefordshire.

[Dr Chowns]

I will speak to new clauses 10, 24, 25, 27 and 28—I will rattle through them. First, new clause 10—tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), whom I thank for her work on this—relates to guidance on the law regarding digital communication offences in relation to elections. We need this clause and, although it is more complex, one word explains why: deepfakes. This new clause is, to a significant degree, about deepfakes.

Tackling deepfakes is complex, but we can take practical steps now to modernise election law and improve our ability to regulate in this area. Both the Electoral Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service have highlighted the need for clearer guidance on whether deepfakes fall within existing election offences. Unfortunately, the law on digital election offences is currently unclear. That uncertainty creates confusion for candidates, platforms and law enforcement, weakens democratic protections and leads to inconsistent enforcement.

New clause 10 would require the Government to address that gap by publishing clear guidance within 12 months of the Bill’s passage, setting out how digital communication offences apply during elections, so that expectations are clear and enforcement is consistent. In terms evidence for why this is needed, we all know that deepfakes and manipulated content targeting politicians are already circulating, including outside election periods. Existing laws may technically cover those harms, but their application in digital context remains unclear.

Recent examples include a deepfake video in October last year of a Conservative MP, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), which falsely claimed that he had defected. I was part of an event where he explained that, under the Online Safety Act 2023, he could potentially make a complaint about that, but would have to demonstrate that he was psychologically terribly damaged by it. That is not really what this is about—it is politics that is damaged by the proliferation of such material, so we should take our collective responsibility to deal with it very seriously.

In October 2023, a deepfake audio of our current Prime Minister went viral and has repeatedly resurfaced. In Ireland last year, an AI-generated video disrupted a presidential election. Those cases and many others demonstrate the growing risk. Clear guidance is needed to ensure that the law can be effectively applied during election periods. The new clause is very reasonable. It does not require the Government to commit absolutely to something right now; it simply requires the Government to publish guidance to clarify the situation.

The Government, in their response to the Speaker’s Conference report published recently, said:

“The Government recognises that there are potential issues with Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are reviewing how this legislation should apply in a modern electoral setting. Where necessary, we will take appropriate action to clarify the scope of Section 106, particularly to ensure that it captures emerging technologies (such as deepfakes and other AI technologies) and is future-proofed.”

Where better to do that than in this legislation? This is the point when the Government should action the commitment that they have already made.

New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. Such advertising plays a key and increasingly central role in election campaigns, but remains significantly less transparent than traditional campaign materials. Voters are often unable to see who is targeting them, how much is being spent or whether messaging is consistent across audiences. Campaigners are able to use targeting on social media platforms, for example, to make very targeted adverts, so that nobody can see what material is going to whom.

That lack of transparency creates real opportunities for misinformation. It undermines trust in the democratic process and leaves the system vulnerable to manipulation by foreign or domestic actors, as well as opaque funding sources. While the Bill, as it stands, makes progress on digital imprints, it does not go far enough to ensure meaningful, real-time transparency.

New clause 24 would address those gaps by requiring the creation of a comprehensive, publicly accessible repository of digital political advertising and strengthening existing disclosure requirements. The reasons for that are well understood. Digital adverts can be micro-targeted to specific groups without wider scrutiny and there is currently no single public record of what ads are being run, by whom, at what scale or with what funding. International evidence, including from elections in the US and Europe—and, I would argue, in the UK—has shown how online political advertising can be exploited to spread disinformation and obscure funding sources.

That issue was addressed by Philip Rycroft in his very useful report; I note that, on page 47, he says:

“Strictly speaking, this issue of advert libraries strays beyond my remit”,

but that he has

“heard enough evidence to suggest that there would be considerable benefit”

from establishing this practice, and he calls on the Government to take action. I welcome that point and very much hope that the Government will consider this new clause, a practical and proportionate transparency measure that would align digital campaigning more with offline political advertising.

New clause 25 relates to the Electoral Commission’s powers to obtain information outside formal investigations. That is something we heard about in oral evidence and Philip Rycroft speaks about it specifically in his recommendations 9 and 10. The regulation of digital campaigning requires timely access to information, especially during very fast-moving election periods. At the moment, the Electoral Commission can effectively gather information from online platforms only through formal investigations, which can be initiated only once there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. There is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation there—a significant gap.

The Commission cannot proactively monitor or respond to emerging risks in real time, including the risk of foreign interference or bot activity—a growing problem that we have seen in previous elections. As election campaigns increasingly take place online, that reduces the effectiveness of enforcement. Philip Rycroft has made a clear case for that change, so I do not need to labour the point. I very much hope that that is one of the recommendations that the Government will take away and come back on, and I would welcome some warm words from the Minister on that.

New clause 27 would require a Government review of regulated periods in relation to elections—again, something addressed in the Rycroft report, which covered the need to ensure that transparency requirements apply year round. Philip Rycroft is clearly seriously concerned about the risk of gaming the system. Currently, because regulation applies only within the regulated period, but expenditure applies during the entire year, there are strong incentives for political actors to front-load expenditure just before the regulated period kicks in. There is huge evidence of that; I have seen it from another party in my own area, with huge chunks of spending coming in just before the regulated period. That is a clear loophole.

Philip Rycroft draws attention to that issue, stating that high spending limits,

“combined with unlimited spending possibilities outwith the regulated period, drives a sort of arms race among political parties and actors to out-raise and out-spend their competitors.”

The net effect is extremely problematic for our politics. He goes on to state:

“Reducing the spending limits and introducing such limits across the whole electoral cycle could potentially relieve some of the fund-raising pressure, in turn diminishing the inducement to look to non-permissible sources to stay ahead.”

Rycroft acknowledges that the issue was beyond his direct remit, but it is useful that his report comments on where issues to do with foreign influence overlap with broader questions about how we regulate finance in our system. He states:

“The issue of spending limits and wider caps is one for the political class as a whole to consider if it wishes to restore confidence in the political process and to keep big money out of UK politics. This might be something that could be usefully debated during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill.”

Indeed—so today is our opportunity to debate it. I am saddened that the Bill, as it stands, does not address the need for year-round spending limits or for caps on overall donations—we will come to that a bit later—but this is the moment when we can and should respond to Philip Rycroft’s call to discuss this issue. I challenge the Minister on this: there is a clear need for regulation outwith the regulated period—for year-round regulation of political expenditure—and I hope that she will address that and take it forward.

Finally, new clause 28, also in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central, is essentially about labelling AI-generated material. Just in the past 24 hours we have seen a global controversy over the use of an AI-generated image, posted by a person who shall perhaps remain nameless. It is clear that AI-generated material is widespread in politics. Sometimes it is easily spottable, as in the case I have just referenced, but at other times it may not necessarily be so. Legislation has not yet caught up with that issue. This new clause, like new clause 18 on the same topic, which I suspect the hon. Member for Hazel Grove may speak to shortly, is a much-needed step to improve transparency so that we know when material is produced using AI.

The Electoral Commission briefing raises some questions about the specifics of how the issue is addressed, and makes the point that there is a need for similar approaches to be taken across digital and non-digital formats. I take that point broadly, but I do not think it is beyond the wit of civil servants to come up with a form of words that will address the issue. The use of generative AI has been particularly prevalent in the digital space, so this is a real opportunity for regulation to catch up. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on all these very useful new clauses.

[Lisa Smart]

I support clauses 63 and 64, and I warmly welcome the comments from my colleague, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, on new clauses 10, 24, 25, 27 and 28, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central. A number of us who have been concerned with the issues that we are talking about today and which the Bill seeks to address were very pleased to see some of the measures that the Government put in the first draft of the Bill. But we were disappointed by what was not there: the lack of discussion of regulated periods, generative AI deepfakes, and mis and disinformation felt like a missed opportunity. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State spoke of the need to ensure that regulation keeps up with digital reality, and this legislation feels like the opportunity to address some of those issues.

I will not repeat what has just been said, but a number of the new clauses overlap slightly, in trying to fill in the gaps that quite a few of us feel are present in the Bill as drafted. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire and I are pleased to be co-vice chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, which is the leading organisation within Parliament campaigning for reforming the electoral system—of which there is no mention in the Bill. We spent some time today discussing some measures around getting dark money out of politics, and we hope that the Government move further on that. We look forward to the Minister introducing the Government’s response to the Rycroft review, and also to stopping mis and disinformation in our politics.

I would like to test the mood of the Committee by pushing new clause 18 to a Division. We need to see action on these issues ahead of the next general election, and it feels like this piece of legislation is the opportunity to do that. We have talked repeatedly in this Committee about trust in our electoral processes being already very fragile—too fragile. We have seen years of scandal—of varying sorts—tarnish our political structures. Confidence in our politics and democratic processes is vital, and we should be doing everything that we can to bolster that confidence, which is too low. We should not be allowing new systems to be adopted in these structures and used to undermine our politics. Existing systems can be used to show voters completely fabricated content; some recent examples of AI-generated content that is damaging in different ways have already been mentioned. Transparency is the foundation of democratic legitimacy, and new clause 18 seeks to protect that foundation.

On deepfakes, we are deeply concerned about the increase in AI-generated material that is produced to harm individuals and our broader democracy. We should be ensuring that there is transparency and accountability within political campaigning, and we need to limit the level of mis and disinformation that could be spread through AI-generated material. Requiring that political campaign material be properly labelled when it includes AI material feels like a sensible and moderate step. This is the time for us to protect our election integrity in the digital age, and I hope that the Government accept new clause 18 and take the opportunity before it is too late.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire did not mind that I gave up speaking to enable her to do so, but I wanted to check whether someone would speak to those new clauses. I wanted to allow her to elaborate the argument so that I could come in with some of my thoughts at the end.

As the shadow Minister, I was intrigued, in various meetings that I have had, as we have all had, with outside organisations about the Bill, by the ideas outlined in new clauses 10 and 24. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central for tabling them; they are substantive new clauses that I think are very well intentioned. The number of Members who have supported them on the amendment paper shows the importance of tackling some of these issues in a cross-party and urgent way.

On new clause 10, on the guidance on law relating to digital communication offences in relation to elections, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined the problems that we are currently having. Digital communication offences are becoming a bigger problem, and they cause harm to people. The current duty is to demonstrate that the person has been harmed emotionally. She used the example of the deepfake that went out of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk, showing him saying that he was leaving the Conservative party and going to Reform. Although that has not necessarily been a strange development in the last couple of months, anyone who knows my hon. Friend knows that that is incredibly unlikely. It would also cause a great deal of distress to many of us moderate Conservatives for it to ever be thought that we could go to Reform. There is serious point behind that, which is that for anyone harmed by something like that, there should be laws relating to digital communication offences.

We do not think that new clause 10 would be arduous on the Government. It asks them to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences, and it does not ask for immediate action. It allows the Minister and the Government to go away and provide guidance. The Minister has said many times today that she is considering, for example, the Rycroft review, and that she will come back with suitable guidance and proposals. The new clause is in that spirit. It would allow her to go away and look at what we need to do in this increasingly concerning area of election campaigning. The call from the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central is eminently sensible, and so we will support new clause 10 if it is pressed to a vote because we want that guidance to be brought in.

New clause 24 proposes a repository of digital political advertising. I do not expect Committee members to remember the questioning in the oral evidence sessions—particularly my questions—but I was really quite fascinated by the proposal. Like the hon. Member for North Herefordshire and other members of the Committee, I have met some organisations that have advocated for it. I do not think that we should be fearful, as politicians and members of any political party, or of none, of standing by the things that we put out in elections. Therefore, instead of going in the bin, as some of mine do, they should be kept online to ensure transparency and accountability through a simple repository regime.

The Government have repeatedly proposed to put more burdens—more regulatory responsibilities, I should say—on the Electoral Commission. I do not think this proposal would be a particularly bad burden to place on it. There is a question about resourcing the Electoral Commission, but I know that the hon. Lady and the various organisations that are advocating for new clause 24 are pretty relaxed about who would manage holding the information and transferring it to the National Archives, so I think that is something that the Government should explore.

I was interested that the hon. Lady outlined that she is concerned about misinformation, manipulation and the exploitation of the electoral process by foreign actors. I hope that when we come to new clause 37, she will be equally concerned about the exploitation of votes using foreign languages in electoral literature. I hope she will look as favourably on that proposal as I am on this one, because I believe that is equally exploitative of various communities in the country.

We support new clause 24, which we think is radical, but sensible and transparent. If we stand by what we put out there, we should not fear the people who elect us holding us to account for what has been put out, so I think that is actually quite an exciting prospect for democracy.

That is where the consensus between me and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes Central and for North Herefordshire ends. I have a number of concerns about new clause 27, not because I am opposed to having a general conversation about the regulatory period. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is right that parties of all colours front-load and send out a lot of stuff before the regulated period starts. The regulated period is inherently there to protect the smaller parties from the bigger parties and to give everybody a level playing field.

I know that when the regulated period starts—and we are all currently going through the start of one—every party has equal right to put out an equal amount of election literature to people in our constituencies, boroughs or counties. All parties are held to the same standard and it can be proved if there has been—I hope not—manipulation of the election expenses. The regulated period is there to protect parties.

Do not get me wrong: in my constituency five Liberal Democrat “in touch” communications go out every year. It drives me mad. I do not like it. I do not like its content, but the Liberal Democrats have every right to communicate with their residents. Putting an annual limit on the amount of literature that can be put out is anti-democratic. It is quite good to have some element of competition, where many parties can put out election communications throughout the year. I worry that having an arbitrary annual cap on the amount of literature that we can put out will harm independent candidates and local parties—they may exist: we have the Eastleigh borough independents, of whom three were successfully elected councillors. They should not be held to the same standard as national parties, which can absorb the cost. I am slightly concerned about the unintended consequences of that.

New clause 27 does not outline whether it covers material related to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which some of we elected representatives, choose to put out. We have a budget to communicate to our constituents. Are we going to be held to the same reporting threshold for those IPSA communications, which are not party political but are elected literature? [Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Herefordshire like to intervene to correct me?

[Dr Chowns]

I will pick up the hon. Member’s points in my summing up.

[Paul Holmes]

I am not being adversarial; there is an argument that although the literature that goes out via IPSA is not party political, as an elected official, IPSA is giving me the ability to send out literature that would not be included within the threshold. Other parties that oppose me at the next general election should be entitled to put out resources to match those, and I do not think that should be governed within an annual spending limit.

It worries me that if we get to a period in which we are controlling smaller, larger, regional and local political parties and holding them to the same standard in election spending as national, established parties such as those that hon. Members on the Committee represent, that would start to erode free and fair democratic access to the people who elect us and elect our colleagues in local government across the country. I am uncomfortable with that, although we could have a conversation about the lengths of regulated periods.

[Lisa Smart]

I am genuinely intrigued in several ways by the shadow Minister’s contribution. He talks about a level playing field. Most of us would always agree with a level playing field, in pretty much all circumstances. Does he think that the national spending limits for the larger political parties should be brought down significantly? He expressed real concern about smaller parties, whether localist parties or groups of independents, that do not have a national political machine with a multimillion-pound budget at a general election. If I understand correctly what the shadow Minister says, he would not see that as a level playing field. Does he agree that spending limits for local candidates should probably go up a little but spending limits for national parties should come down significantly because, after all, people put a cross in a box next to an individual’s name, not just a political party?

[Paul Holmes]

We are discussing a new clause that starts a conversation about the regulated period and would create a year’s limit on the amount of literature that can go out, outside of an election period. That seems different from what the hon. Lady is describing, which is the regulations and limits on political parties, and candidates not in a party, during an election period. Those are two very different things. I am quite happy with the fact that I have to raise the money to stand for my seat at a general election, and that national parties have to account for that.

The new clause includes provisions not just for general elections but for outside election periods. What I find concerning is that council groups—such as those of the hon. Lady’s party in Eastleigh, or my party’s in Fareham, Hampshire and all across the country—would have to be accountable for putting out communications to people who end up putting councillors in their jobs. I do not think that we should get in the habit of limiting political parties outside an election period, because I think that is an entirely different prospect, and an entirely different area from how we are governed in an election period.

I am perfectly okay to start talking about funding levels during an election period, but I do not want to do so for candidates who wish to start a campaign before the current regulatory period. As the hon. Lady will know—she is a very successful politician, both locally and nationally—we do not begin to build an election campaign just in the regulated period. Many of us started trying to get involved in politics a long time before we were elected, and I think that limit is a very dangerous thing in today’s democracy.

However, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am open to a conversation about election financing. I am looking at my Whip—my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—who is probably horrified by me saying that, but I am not against that argument or discussion. I just think that this goes a bit too far, and it does not sit well with me. After that rambling oratory, I just say to Green and Liberal Democrat Members that, if they choose to push new clauses 10 and 24 to a vote, the Opposition will support them, but we would vote against new clause 27.

The Opposition also think that the accountability in new clause 18 is very sensible. If we use AI, we should be honest about it—it is as simple as that. If any politician wants to put forward an AI-generated image, I first think there is a question about why they would want to do so anyway. We all think that our constituencies are beautiful, and we would not want to change them. We also all know that politics is acting for ugly people, so why would we want to change the way we look?

I do not understand why someone would want to use an AI-generated image, but if they do, they should actually be big enough and strong enough to own it. Therefore, it is important to have some extra regulation, particularly as some people might not be au fait with AI-generated images, as some are very believable—not the one of Donald Trump pretending to be Jesus, but the more sensible ones. People cannot necessarily pick that up, so if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove chose to push new clause 18 to a vote, the Opposition would also support it.

[Samantha Dixon]

New clause 18 seeks to require digital campaigning material, in scope of the digital imprint regime, that contains images, audio or video generated or materially altered to include a statement that such artificial intelligence has been used. The Government fully recognise the challenges posed by AI-generated content, including deepfakes, and the risks they present to democratic processes and public trust in the online information environment. We agree that helping voters understand the authenticity of digital campaigning material is an important objective.

However, AI technologies are developing at pace, and there is not yet a reliable or widely adopted technical basis for determining when content has been generated or materially altered by AI. That would make enforcement by the Electoral Commission and the police difficult in practice, and it would risk undermining campaigners’ compliance with the rules.

The new clause, as drafted, would also create uncertainty and disproportionate legal risks for campaigners. For example, it would create a new criminal offence for failing to include a statement about AI use, even where the AI involvement may be trivial, automated or outside the campaigner’s knowledge or control. Further consideration would also be needed on how liability for offences should apply to those who republish material.

There would also be a considerable chance of the new clause quickly becoming obsolete. AI is evolving rapidly, so adopting a definition of “generative artificial intelligence” in primary legislation might struggle to keep pace with technological developments and it could quickly become outdated. Although we share the intention to strengthen transparency in digital campaigning, the Government do not believe that the new clause is currently workable or proportionate. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently announced that the Government will establish a taskforce to put forward proposals for Government on best practice for labelling AI-generated content, with an interim report to be published in the autumn. I urge Members to follow the progress of that taskforce.

I turn to new clause 10 and amendment 4. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central for those and for her commitment to strengthening online protections. I know Members feel strongly about that area. I share the objective of seeing the powers of the Online Safety Act 2023 being fully and effectively utilised. With that in mind, the Government have carefully considered new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish guidance on the operation of certain offences relating to digital communications, as they relate to candidates and elected officials.

Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope service providers are already required to have effective systems and processes in place to identify and remove illegal content. That includes content that amounts to the two offences identified in new clause 10: the “false statements about candidates” offence and the offence of undue influence. Those duties apply equally to AI-generated and manipulated content where such material meets the threshold of either offence.

As the independent regulator, Ofcom issues codes of practice that provide clear guidance on what action providers should take to manage and mitigate illegal content. The codes recommend various measures across risk management, user reporting and content moderation. Ofcom has already produced guidance to assist providers in making judgments about whether certain content is illegal, and such guidance includes usage examples where possible. As the independent and expert online safety regulator, Ofcom, not the Government, is best placed to offer such guidance.

The Government have no plans to widen their role within the Online Safety Act regulatory regime by issuing guidance on matters within Ofcom’s remit. Introducing a new duty for Government to publish parallel guidance on two specific offences, and committing to regularly updating that guidance, would blur the lines between Government and the independent regulator, undermining the model for which Parliament has only recently legislated.

The Government remain firmly committed to ensuring that protections keep pace with evolving threats to democracy, and I welcome continued engagement with parliamentarians on that important issue. As Members will know, Rycroft made recommendations in his review supporting the principle of advertising libraries and suggested that the Government could use their convening power to work with social media companies to extend the practice of advert libraries to achieve consistency in how they are presented. That is not the same as setting a legal requirement for a repository of digital political advertising, as intended by new clause 10. None the less, we are carefully considering all of the recommendations in the Rycroft review and will issue a response in due course.

New clause 24 seeks to establish a repository for paid-for digital political advertising. Digital political advertising plays an important role in supporting democratic engagement. It remains one of the most accessible and cost-effective ways for political parties and campaigners to connect with the public and have their message heard. However, the Committee will be aware that the European Commission introduced similar requirements to new clause 24 in 2024, including mandatory transparency notices containing information such as spending and targeting, and the requirement for platforms to upload all political adverts to a European repository.

In response, major platforms such as Meta and Google chose to cease hosting paid political advertising entirely in the EU, citing operational complexity and uncertainty as to whether compliance by platforms and campaigners was realistically achievable. If the UK were to adopt comparable measures without fully understanding their operational impact, we could see similar unintended outcomes here.

The potential removal of political advertising from major platforms in the UK could risk reducing political pluralism online by restricting the ability of political parties, civil society organisations and candidates, many of whom rely on digital platforms to engage effectively with the public. Smaller, newer parties and independent candidates may be disproportionately impacted by such an outcome, losing an affordable channel to reach voters, while larger, well-followed parties and campaigning groups would likely be less affected. That would make campaigning more challenging for newcomers, potentially undermining the level playing field.

The Government agree that transparency in digital campaigning is important, but any reforms must be carefully balanced to protect freedom of expression and avoid placing undue burdens on campaigners and platforms. This is a complex area, and the implications need detailed consideration to avoid replicating the unintended consequences seen in other jurisdictions. In the meantime, we welcome the steps already taken by platforms such as Meta and Google, which have created publicly accessible political advert libraries. We encourage other platforms to do the same.

The measures in the Bill will extend the scope of digital imprint rules and place enforcement on a clearer and more proportionate footing, ensuring that voters can continue to make informed decisions on digital material in elections and referenda. We will continue to keep wider policy relating to electoral campaigning under review.

I turn to new clause 25. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of protecting our elections from online interference, including concerns about how algorithms, such as recommender systems, can amplify harmful or misleading content. The current legal framework to tackle online electoral mis and disinformation has the Online Safety Act 2023 as its core pillar. New clause 25 would risk creating overlap and confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act.

Under the Online Safety Act, in-scope services must take action in relation to any content that amounts to existing election offences during an election period. The Online Safety Act already provides Ofcom with extensive powers to gather information from services and scrutinise how algorithms operate as well as a mandate to require services to conduct illegal content risk assessments. That includes assessing the likelihood of users encountering illegal content through algorithms, how systems may exacerbate or mitigate those risks, and what safeguards are required. From 2027, categorised services will also be required to report information about their algorithms, including how they influence the display, promotion or recommendation of content. Creating overlap or confusion with Ofcom’s responsibilities under the Online Safety Act also increases the risk of regulatory uncertainty. For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clause.

That said, the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that the commission has the tools it needs to enforce compliance with the regulatory framework it is responsible for enforcing. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review to consider whether political finance rules and their enforcement can be strengthened in the light of emerging risks, including covert funding and foreign interference.

As Members know, we are carefully considering relevant recommendations from the Rycroft review to ensure that political finance rules and their enforcement remain robust and fit for purpose, including recommendations relating to the Electoral Commission’s investigatory powers. We will revert with a full Government response to the review and consider whether to make further amendments to the Bill in the light of that work.

New clause 27 would require the Government to establish a review to consider the adequacy of regulated periods of elections and referendums. More specifically, it would consider whether they are of sufficient length to combat mis and disinformation, and the impact of digital campaigning outside regulated periods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I am sorry to ask this question, because it is completely and utterly about my ignorance—could the Minister believe it? Is she setting a maximum fine at secondary legislation, or is she removing the maximum fine?

[Samantha Dixon]

As I understand it, we will be setting the maximum fine in secondary legislation, but I will confirm that, because I have almost lost the thread of what I was saying.

[Paul Holmes]

I apologise to the Minister for making her lose her trail. I also am at that stage in the afternoon where things are not going in as well as they probably were this morning. I asked the question because, at the moment, the courts have an unlimited maximum fine. I just got confused about whether the Minister was setting a maximum fine through secondary legislation, which she has now clarified. As we on the Committee are discussing the changes to the Electoral Commission’s responsibilities, which the Minister has been clear about throughout the day, would she give us an indication of what that maximum fine might be? Why is she waiting until secondary legislation to set the level of that fine?

[Samantha Dixon]

It is our intention to increase the maximum fine level in secondary legislation, as I stated earlier. Its level will be debated at that time. We will debate it in secondary legislation, but it needs to remain proportionate, and we need to move towards it in a considered way and debate it then.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I reinforce that this is the only opportunity that the Committee will have to debate those new clauses.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister again for—I am not being facetious—her comprehensive explanation. We have been here for most of the day. These are very complicated issues, and she has been speaking an awful lot because of the importance of this legislation. I do not envy her. I will speak to new clause 41 in my name, to be voted on at another point. We welcome clause 65, but we have some questions on clause 67.

As the Minister outlined, clause 65 and schedule 10 decriminalise certain offences in PPERA. They relate to administrative requirements for political parties and others regulated by that legislation and the commission. For example, it is currently an offence for a party treasurer to fail to deliver annual accounts or reports of election expenses to the commission. The provisions will also make the necessary consequential amendments to allow the requirements to come under the commission’s civil sanctioning regime.

Clause 66 is a fairly simple clause, which extends the Electoral Commission’s remit to be the primary enforcer of all imprint rules. I would like to pick up on a theme from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, which I also brought up earlier: the impact on the Electoral Commission’s ability to do its job properly, in relation to what it currently does compared with what the Government will ask it to do after the legislation passes.

The Minister has made it clear that officials are working with representatives of the commission. I know that she works with them as well, and they have not necessarily said that they are unhappy about receiving this new responsibility. However, my general experience from working in the public sector and serving as a local authority councillor is that, in this world of organisations that are often controlled by Treasury spending budgets, or, as the Minister outlined, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, no one says no to extra responsibility if they think they are going to get some more dosh—let us put it that way.

Will the commission get enough cash to be able to manage the regulatory burdens that the Government are placing on it? I am beginning to worry that with the plethora of new responsibilities, we will have to see quite a large uplift in the commission’s budgets. I have not heard convincing defences that the Electoral Commission has verbally or formally remarked to the Government that it is content to receive that much responsibility. I am sure that the Minister will come back to talk about that.

Clause 67 will increase the maximum fine that the commission could impose in a civil sanction for some summary offences. We have concerns about the size of the proposed increase in Electoral Commission civil sanction fines. The courts already have powers to levy unlimited fines. At the very least, the Macrory principles on proportionate regulatory enforcement should be embedded in law—that is what we aim to achieve in new clause 41. The Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy statement recommends the application of the Macrory principles, including

“the use of requests for improvements before resorting to fines and the need to conduct investigations in a timely manner.”

The Electoral Commission has civil sanctioning powers that apply to national referendums and elections. More serious criminal matters can be—and are—referred to the police and Crown Prosecution Service, and are then considered by a court of law. The courts already have the power to levy unlimited fines and criminal sanctions. Unlimited fines are potentially a heavy, significant punishment. That is why it would be appropriate for a judicial check and a fair hearing in a court of law. Indeed, such massive civil fines would likely be challenged via lawyers in the courts anyway, as we have seen with the Information Commissioner and general data protection regulation fines.

In relation to the Minister’s opening remarks about setting the level of the Electoral Commission fine at secondary legislation, I am concerned that that is because of, quite frankly, the unpreparedness of the Government. They have put a lot of legislation forward without properly consulting the Electoral Commission and are rushing, as we have said all along in this legislation, to try and legislate without necessarily thinking things through.

[Samantha Dixon]

Opposition Members did ask about the level at which we would set the fine. I have now consulted my notes; we intend, through secondary legislation, to increase the limit to £500,000 per offence. That will be done through secondary legislation.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for that; that clarity is welcome. I still question why that needs to be done at secondary legislation. If the Minister knows the maximum fine limit for the Electoral Commission today, she could have put that in the legislation or brought forward an amendment to be discussed in Committee. She has chosen not to do that; I am interested to know why she has chosen not to do that and is waiting for secondary legislation to do so. Perhaps she will come back and tell the Committee why that is the case.

My point still stands. The fact that she is looking to set the fine at the secondary legislation stage outlines that, once again, the Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a great number of things that it currently does not do. I am not convinced, unless the Minister can reassure me in writing or come back after this Committee, that the Electoral Commission has been properly consulted. Let us not forget that it was the Electoral Commission that criticised the Government for not consulting it on trying to postpone the elections. That was a process where the Government were found to be unlawful—by the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House.

I am concerned that, as we have gone through this legislation, a huge amount has been asked of the Electoral Commission in terms of its responsibility and purview, and the Minister has not reassured me that it is happy with that. I am not convinced that the resource that it currently has would allow it to conduct its operations or, if necessary, investigations on its current physical envelope.

[Samantha Dixon]

The reality is that the Electoral Commission already imposes fines; it is just that they are not big enough. I argue that, by not setting the level in primary legislation but doing it in secondary legislation, it can be responsive should it need to be changed in the future, which it may need to be. We have talked about the revolving nature of foreign interference; in similar ways, the offences and their gravity may change over time. To be able to respond to that through secondary legislation is important, and we should not be hidebound by requiring primary legislation.

The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament, not to Government. It is a very important point to make that the consideration of its comfortableness, abilities or capacity is a discussion for Parliament. My officials work with it collaboratively, and I meet with it regularly. It is comfortable, but we must always remember that it is accountable to Parliament, not to Government.

[Paul Holmes]

I absolutely accept the Minister’s point that it is accountable to Parliament, but her party and her Government have a majority in this Parliament, and her Government are asking the Electoral Commission to do a huge amount more. She says that it has been consulted, but all I would say is that, in other areas, it was not consulted when the Government have arbitrarily gone ahead and decided to do what they want to do.

The Minister is also correct, and I thank her for her correction, that the Electoral Commission already issues fines. I do not dispute that, but this Government, through schedule 10 and clause 65, are trying to remove some of the fine elements from the judicial system and place more responsibility on the Electoral Commission. That is my concern about the extra responsibility it would have, which has been taken away from the judicial system, as well as some of the other responsibilities that it is being asked to take on, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses.

[David Simmonds]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we look across the system, we see other regulators—Ofcom probably comes to mind—where fines have been issued through a civil process like the one this legislation envisages. We know that Ofcom is currently engaged in a battle with 4chan, which it has fined a very significant sum for failing to meet legal requirements in the United Kingdom for age verification checks for online pornography. 4chan’s response has been to refuse to pay the fine and to counter-sue in the courts of the United States, arguing that, because it has a headquarters in the US, it is effectively a restraint on trade by the British Government and a breach of its rights under US legislation.

Clearly, there is a significant possibility, given that civil courts have a different burden of proof than criminal courts, that this could end up entangling the Electoral Commission in all sorts of long-running and extremely expensive disputes in a way that is not currently envisaged. We need to foresee that risk and plan for it appropriately.

[Paul Holmes]

I agree. I am all in favour of streamlining and making things more efficient, but I am worried that the unintended consequence of essentially removing the judicial oversight element is that the Electoral Commission cannot actually enforce—or, if it does try to enforce, adherence can simply be refused. The Government have done this in another organisation, Natural England, through measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. They gave Natural England—an organisation that has limited finances—an enforcement role in legislation, but with no teeth. Therefore, I share my hon. Friend’s concern that this simply will not work.

I have said what I have to say on those clauses, and I would like to press new clause 41 to a vote. We will not oppose any of those clauses, but I warn again that we are concerned about the Electoral Commission’s ability to undertake its responsibilities, and I know that the Minister has responded to that.

[Lisa Smart]

I should start by reminding the Committee that I am a member of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, so I have been a part of some of the discussions the Minister mentioned. I also met the chief exec of the Electoral Commission to talk about what is in the Bill, what the Electoral Commission welcomed and worked with officials on, and what it would have liked to have seen more on. That was a useful and productive meeting. The commission made some public comments, and I cannot remember the exact wording used, but it was underwhelmed at some elements, I think.

I am particularly keen to speak to new clause 46 and new clause 53, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. New clause 46, in the name of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), has drawn attention to Electoral Commission comments about a Catch-22 in its powers to investigate suspicious transactions:

“Despite our statutory duty to monitor and take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance…we currently have no ability to obtain any information from financial institutions that we can use to monitor and independently verify provenance or the permissibility of funds, unless we open a full investigation. This is a weakness: to open such an investigation needs clear evidence—but we can’t always obtain that in the first place.”

The Government said that they would keep the Electoral Commission’s powers under review, and noted that they were increasing planning powers per offence to provide a greater deterrent. However, the report emphasised that the Electoral Commission can impose fines only if it can prove an offence has occurred in the first place. The fact that it often cannot do so is precisely the problem and underpins the need for stronger information-gathering powers. New clause 46 would increase the commission’s powers to require financial institutions to provide it with information in relation to the permissibility of donations.

New clause 53 is complementary to new clause 46. It would enable the Electoral Commission to require information before launching a formal investigation. When I met the commission’s chief executive with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause, we talked about exactly that issue. The Rycroft review, which has been mentioned many times today, states that the Electoral Commission, unlike the other regulators, cannot demand information outside a formal investigation, meaning that it cannot work in real time to head off offences. The review recommends extending powers so that the commission can require information from relevant bodies and persons.

By comparison, the Charity Commission has the option of a regulatory inquiry, which gives information-obtaining powers without the necessity of enacting a lengthy statutory inquiry. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy report, describing the Catch-22, recommends powers for the Electoral Commission to compel information, deployable in appropriate cases outside formal investigations. The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s 2021 review recommended extending the commission’s powers to compel document information and explanation outside an investigation.

Election-related harms are increasingly amplified online. The Electoral Commission evidence to the Speaker’s Conference explicitly links disinformation and platform algorithms to harassment and intimidation, and it describes concrete candidate harms, including deterrence and avoidance. The Speaker’s Commission earlier called for electoral law review, including addressing the disinformation that can fuel abuse and intimidation, and a number of people involved in the democracy sector and the implementation of the enforcement of electoral law would welcome looking at a review of all the many Representation of the People Acts that have taken place over time, so that we can look at where they complement one another and where, on occasion, they do less than that.

The last point to make is that if platforms can micro-target voters in real time, surely the regulator must be able to obtain basic information in real time. On that note, I commend new clauses 46 and 53 to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Easter. Family voting is just one example of unfair voting practices that seek to skew elections and exploit those isolated from wider British society. Another example of these divisive tactics was a disgraceful Green leaflet in the Gorton and Denton by-election, written in Urdu, saying:

“Labour must be punished for Gaza… Give the Muslims a voice. Vote Green.”

If the Minister agrees that this is divisive language, will she back our amendment to allow election literature in a short campaign to be printed only in an official British language?

[Samantha Dixon]

We will continue to work through the Representation of the People Bill in Committee, through line-by-line scrutiny. I look forward to continuing that work with the hon. Gentleman, and we will discuss that then.