Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Florence Eshalomi]

Many hon. Members have raised the issue of local authorities using their temporary accommodation discharge narrative, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and other Members to discuss this further.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Since I last asked the Minister about the Liberal Democrats’ £620 million-worth of debt at Eastleigh borough council, it has got bigger, the external auditors have said that there have been financial misstatements and a lack of management financially, and the Government have now given it £150 million for social housing. What will it take for this Minister to come down on Eastleigh borough council and get that debt down?

[Jim McMahon]

We have an established best value regime that assesses all councils objectively, based on evidence, and of course we take the audit position very seriously. I will confirm in writing exactly where we are up to with that local authority, but to be clear, just because the status of the local authority is as the hon. Gentleman describes, that does not mean that the community it serves should be denied funding.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Paul Holmes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Safe and secure housing is the foundation of a good life, and the availability of social and affordable housing plays an important part in the provision of housing in this country, in what should be a mixed housing picture.

I would like to begin by talking about the right to buy. Between 2012 and 2024, 124,000 right-to-buy sales took place, but fewer than 50,000 of those properties were replaced in the same period. The maths alone demonstrate what is happening to social housing. I therefore particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming right to buy, including measures to exempt newly built affordable and social housing from sale under the right-to-buy scheme for 35 years. I also welcome 100% of right-to-buy receipts being left to local authorities. As an ex-council leader, I recall the frustration I felt about being unable to plough that money back into affordable homes. Councils will now be able to combine that money with developer contributions and grant funding; it will mean that councils that are committed to affordable and social housing can build more.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and it is good to see her in the Chamber. She mentioned her frustration, when she was council leader, at not being able to use 100% of right-to-buy receipts. Seeing as the last Conservative Government gave her the power to do that, why did she not?

[Nesil Caliskan]

There were a number of reasons hindering us from delivering affordable homes. The Conservatives’ measure did not go as far as the proposals that the Government are setting out today. The other reasons included record interest rates, which completely decimated housing revenue accounts for councils up and down the country.

In my constituency of Barking, rising rents and bills take a bigger piece of people’s household spending each month. That is the result of a housing crisis in this country that has got progressively worse because building simply is not keeping up with demand. Every week, I speak to constituents who tell me about their experience of the housing crisis, which leaves them with anxiety that they may be left without a roof over their head at any moment—and that is in a local authority that is building at a record rate.

I would also like to speak about the new powers to support domestic violence victims. Like many Members in this place, I speak to constituents who tell me about their fear of being left homeless, should they speak out and leave their secure home. I very much welcome the changes in the Bill, which will mean that women and children can sleep safer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Holmes Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon]

Since summer ’25, the Department has been working in partnership with the offices and partners in each nation to deliver the local growth fund in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are committed to ensuring that funding is spent on projects that really matter to local people. It is really important that every arm of Government, regardless of where it is in the UK, drives down on that investment so that local people feel empowered in the places where they live.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Liberal Democrat-controlled Eastleigh borough council’s debt—[Interruption.] Listen. The debt now sits at £620.1 million, up from £585 million last year, and £36,000 a day is paid in interest. The previous Government issued a best value notice to ensure that the debt was reduced, but this Government scrapped it. Why are the Government so unwilling to take the Liberal Democrat council to task for ripping off my constituents?

[Jim McMahon]

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that we do not shy away from intervention when it is required. We also think that the Government ought to work in partnership with local government and that councils, where they need support, find a partner in central Government. He can be absolutely sure that, when it comes to value for taxpayers’ money and holding the sector to account, the right checks and balances are finally in place.

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 (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 (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.