Railways Bill (Carry-over Extension)

Richard Holden Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Labour Government brought a Bill to this House incomplete, late, like a student late with an essay, handing in half-baked work well after the deadline, hoping nobody would notice, with half the answers missing—that is why we are back here. Presumably the Department is taking inspiration from the Education Secretary. They have run out of time, missed the deadline, and now they are back for more. They have had a year, but what on earth have they been doing?

We are here because the Labour Government have once again shown whose side they are on: not on the side of working people—who they cannot even define—but on the side of their union paymasters, on whose coffers they depend. Who are the unions to Labour? An army of sugar daddies they cannot do without, picking up the tab for Labour MPs, and when the unions call, Labour cannot say no. This lot will ride roughshod over our railways just to fulfil their weird ideological obsessions and, more importantly, those of their union backers.

How do we know that? We look at their Bill. Whose interests does it support? Is it the passengers, whose fares are set to rise next year, thanks to the Chancellor sneaking it through on the last page of the Budget? Is it rail freight, which faces being squeezed off the tracks, slice by slice, under the weight of more costs and less access to tracks? Is it the taxpayer, who must foot the bill for this barefaced indulgence in ideology? No, it is Labour’s union bosses pursuing an ideology that has been abandoned by Japan and by every railway in Europe but is still there in the Labour party in the UK.

There used to be an order to how this worked, which was uniquely British. The unions rocked up at No. 10, and after a genteel chat over some Chablis—they might have pretended it was beer, sandwiches and pork pies, but there was always white wine and smoked salmon—they left with giant pay rises. Labour could not negotiate to save their lives—forget an actual meeting or even the pretence of a negotiation. That is all that has to happen these days; it is like ordering a takeaway the old-school way. It’s “Dial a rise”—the unions pick up the phone and demand what they want, as if they were ordering a curry for tea.

The Bill has been delayed because the Government’s union pals were worried. I know worrying about saving taxpayers’ money is an alien suggestion to Labour: whenever it gets a new Prime Minister, it seems contractually obliged to go back to the unions and chuck in a whopper of a pay rise so that they do not ruffle feathers in the latest leadership election. That is what the First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) provided—back in those heady days when she was the Transport Secretary, before she had to resign due to forgetting she had admitted to being convicted of fraud—and that is what this Prime Minister has done as well.

Let us be clear: these delays have caused huge issues for taxpayers already on the hook for God knows how much, and huge issues for investors in our railways. This is no way to govern, it is no way to legislate and it is no way to respect this House. But maybe, just maybe, the Government will use the thinking time they will get if this motion passes to dwell on how to protect our open-access services, such as the Hull Trains direct service from Selby to London, rather than screwing them over with their “GBR or else” mobster-style manoeuvring. It is not good enough.

It is not good enough for passengers, whom the Secretary of State seems to expect to be out on the streets clapping and banging pots and pans in support every time the Government change a seat from one ironing board to another at the taxpayers’ expense, every time they paint a train red, white and blue—or Burnham yellow in Manchester—and every time they put up a clock. On this side of the House, we see a Bill that is most certainly not good enough for the taxpayers who must fork out for all this grandstanding while the service gets more expensive. That is what this Bill promises. Yes, it delivers certainty, the certainty of a service that will be worse: more trains delayed, more cancellations, more delays and more short-form trains. We see that already with the services being taken under state control. On this side of the House, we will not be voting to carry that forward. Rather than backing the Government’s union paymasters, we will be backing taxpayers and passengers instead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Marvellous! Have we got the Liberal Democrat spokesperson? Marvellous! Olly Glover, come on!

Train Services: Extreme Weather

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship yet again, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.

The challenges posed by extreme weather on our railways are not new. After all, in the early days of British railway innovation, plans could be repeatedly derailed by bad weather. For instance, one of the many challenges with Brunel’s infamous attempts to introduce an atmospheric railway in south Devon was that they repeatedly fell foul of the weather. That part of the country is still acutely impacted by such extremes today, as we have heard from many Members across the House.

Unfortunately, the problems posed by those extremes are not a thing of the past. After a spring and summer in which the performance of our railways has worsened, I commend the hon. Member for proposing this debate. As the Conservatives have repeatedly said—I hope this goes for all sides of the House—the approach to the railways must be evidence-based. Our railways should not be run according to a dogmatic ideology, but according to what serves the travelling public best.

Although Britain has one of the safest railways in the world, we cannot remain complacent. As we recently saw in Spain, rail accidents can have the most tragic consequences and we must do everything possible to avoid them. One approach we need to take involves improving the resilience of our railways—making them much more effective at coping with whatever weather conditions we experience. Given that the railways are performing worse now under almost every metric, that issue is all the more important.

Data for the first six ORR periods of the 2026-27 financial year showed a deterioration in performance across the vast majority of operators. That included delays on services such as South Western, London North Eastern Railway, Southeastern, c2c and Greater Anglia, many of which were performing much better under previous operators. That is reflected in the cost to the taxpayer. According to the DFT’s own numbers, South Western Railway spent £8.25 million on payouts to rail users under its delay repay scheme, despite the fact that fewer than half of eligible passengers actually claim compensation, meaning that that figure should be at least twice as high.

Possibly most worryingly, given the terms of this debate and the importance of addressing extreme weather, Network Rail-attributable delay minutes increased across every region of the UK except Scotland. That means that more delays for passengers were directly attributable to the organisation that manages infrastructure and which is likely to play a leading role within Great British Railways once it is fully established.

As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, the impact that this issue can have on the freight sector is incredibly important. We need to fully understand some of the clauses in the Railways Bill and the impact they could have on what we want to see, which is greater numbers of freight trains taking lorries off the road where appropriate. However, freight companies need to have certainty that that will happen and that they will get properly compensated if there are issues with the network.

The changes we have seen are not small; they are significant. In the southern region in the last few time periods, Network Rail was responsible for over 50% more delays in minutes per 1,000 train miles than during the first few months of 2024. It is worth noting that, considering Network Rail’s comments about the challenges it faced this summer. If the governing manager of our rail infrastructure is facing severe problems with the weather, how can we have confidence that it will be a core part of GBR and manage the process of full nationalisation effectively?

I recognise that a number of these concerns have been raised previously and reiterated today. For example, I understand that some of the Lib Dem Members who spoke today have raised the need to reconsider the current rail stress temperatures, given the much wider range of temperatures we are now experiencing across increasingly hot summers. Furthermore, more modern railway electrification infrastructure is much needed. It needs to be more resilient than the older and, as hon. Members have pointed out, sometimes inappropriate equipment installed over the decades. Given the Government’s cancellation of projects such as the midland main line electrification, it is unclear how they will effectively upgrade the older, less resilient infrastructure. We all acknowledge the costs involved in making significant changes to increase stress temperatures, but the Government must explain how we can maintain our railway in a cost-effective and targeted way. The previous reviews of extreme weather highlighted a clear need to better establish where the problems are and to target the root causes. However, to achieve that, Network Rail must embed cost control into its approach so that its resources are used as effectively as possible across what is a large network.

I share other Members’ love for our environment and acknowledge the need to protect it, but we must ensure that money is allocated to our railways properly and used as effectively as possible. The question is whether Network Rail’s current projects make the best use of such funds. Ministers have unfortunately given less than clear answers to some of my written parliamentary questions about biodiversity projects, so it is sometimes hard to understand how the money allocated to biodiversity is being directed, and whether it is being used in the best way to protect the infrastructure that our constituents across the country rely on.

We have heard from Network Rail about its innovative use of technology to achieve its aims of managing such projects, but does the Minister think that that technology and investment would be better directed towards ensuring that our infrastructure continues to operate successfully during periods of extreme weather? For example, Network Rail uses technology such as thermal imaging to examine issues around earthworks. East Midlands Railway reported savings of about £100,000 from doing that. However, the priority must surely be to ensure that those tools are always directed to improving resilience when facing weather conditions such as those we saw this summer.

Furthermore, in adapting to the changing causes of weather-related delays, we must consider how to build and maintain our infrastructure more cost effectively. Wherever possible, that means removing unnecessary regulations that make it more difficult to carry out the enhancements needed to make our railways more resilient. We cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic regulations to stand in the way of measures designed to improve the railway’s resilience to the extreme weather conditions we are increasingly facing.

That can be achieved only with funding. The Government’s responses to written parliamentary questions on this matter as recently as September referred to £2.6 billion. However, the official control period 7 delivery plan, published in spring 2024, set out a

“step change in our approach to mitigating the impact of extreme weather…targeting £2.8bn of investment to protect our most susceptible assets, in particular earthworks and drainage to support reliability.”

Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between those numbers? If he cannot do so today, will he write to me?

The summary of regional plans for 2024 to 2029 set out clear spending commitments across all regions amounting to £2.79 billion. Is the discrepancy due to different classifications of maintenance spending, or have cuts to the resilience budgets led to a reduction in the allocated spending? Given that £2.6 billion is obviously less than £2.8 billion, that we have seen significant inflation in the rail sector and that the majority of the spending was earmarked for earthworks and drainage, is the Minister confident that all the necessary money for those projects is being delivered? That is what Members have been asking about today on behalf of their constituents.

The Government’s decision to indefinitely pause phase 5 of the south west rail resilience programme is directly linked to funding and the priorities that they have chosen to pursue. Although we obviously recognise that there are tough decisions to be made on spending, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify precisely how much the Government are spending and whether they expect other significant projects in this space to be halted.

To reiterate the points that were made at the start of the debate, when dealing with extreme weather the Government must focus all their efforts on works that are most cost-effective and deliver for our constituents. Having wasted money on GBR signage, obscure bureaucratic projects and other ideologically driven activities, the Government need to demonstrate that they are prioritising things that matter to our constituents. We understand that our railways are experiencing a different set of challenges resulting from extreme weather conditions, but the Government must adapt accordingly. Otherwise, they will fail to deliver on the targets that are there to support our constituents.

Heathrow Airport Expansion

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Just after the second world war, in May ’46, the first commercial flights departed Heathrow, marking the beginning of an 80-year journey that has seen over 3 billion passengers move through the airport and take 22 million flights. Between September last year and August this year, 84 million passengers went through Heathrow. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the industrialisation of the past century. Heathrow and our other airports across the country are symbols of the modern industrialised world, where transportation between countries is a major engine of economic development.

That leads us to the subject of today’s debate, Heathrow expansion. A long-running and undeniably contentious issue is at stake here. I do not think anyone could be surprised to see the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) make the case against expansion. Her predecessors as MPs did the same, all the way back to Hugh Jenkins, who in 1970 asked the Government to give an undertaking

“that no further enlargement of Heathrow Airport will be permitted and that no additional runways of any kind will be allowed.”—[Official Report, 4 November 1970; Vol. 805, c. 366W.]

However, the figure of 84 million passengers makes it clear that Heathrow is at capacity. The lack of further capacity is severely constraining its ability to grow and, as a consequence, Britain’s ability to grow through its hub airport. Data published in March by Airports Council International showed that the growth in passenger numbers at Heathrow of 1.9% falls well behind the European average of 4.6%. If we want businesses in this country to grow and to encourage private investment, we should not stand in the way of development that offers economic benefits. If we do, the demand for flights will not dissipate. Rather, operators will choose to fly and invest elsewhere—particularly given that Heathrow is a hub airport—and most likely at competing European airports that have expanded their facilities, such as Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. In many cases, they will also build new runways. Alongside that will be the jobs and the other opportunities that go with it.

[Sarah Olney]

Would the right hon. Gentleman like to say more about those economic benefits, given that the Treasury’s figures show that the likely economic impact of Heathrow expansion is between minus £25 billion and minus £63 billion over 60 years?

[Mr Holden]

I will come on to those figures because I think we can all agree that there is questioning of them. It surprises me that the former Chancellor of Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), and the current Chancellor of Exchequer are so vociferously supportive of the airport expansion if those figures are true.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I intimated that there is uncertainty about the growth of Belfast City airport: it has its plans to grow, but the growth of Heathrow will be part of how Belfast City airport will grow—the two of them can grow together. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that when it comes to regional connectivity, the opportunity for us to grow in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, depends greatly on how Heathrow grows?

[Mr Holden]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I remember, as a Transport Minister, visiting Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and City of Derry airport. They are so important, and they reinforced to me how important that plug-in from Heathrow, as our international hub, is for not just Northern Ireland but Scotland, Wales and the north of England. None of our other airports have that hub status. That is why Heathrow is under different regulations and a different model. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how that connectivity drives growth right across the UK.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Holden]

No; I have just given way twice, and I will happily give way again later. Since the announcement was made, the Conservative party’s leadership has been clear: expansion should go ahead provided that sensible and proportionate local mitigation measures form part of that plan. Heathrow and the Government have already set out a number of those measures. However, it is critical that they genuinely serve the interests of local residents and do not impose excessive costs that will ultimately be passed on to passengers.

I turn to the challenges posed for the Minister in the debate. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey, as well as the former Prime Minister and the current Chancellor have all backed the project. The Minister is now in the unenviable position of trying to explain whether the Government of which he is a member actually support expansion or not. The situation has become a political version of Schrödinger’s cat. The Prime Minister seems to believe that by refusing to give a clear answer and by deflecting attention towards the concerns about other projects, he can leave some people believing that the runway idea is alive and some believing it is dead, all at the same time.

The other day, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the International Monetary Fund:

“The case for a third runway at Heathrow has always been a case for growth”.

This created a completely different impression of the Government’s position. Unfortunately, that good cop, bad cop approach to expansion does little to reassure investors—not just investors in Heathrow, but investors in the UK in general. As Heathrow made clear in evidence to the Transport Committee, investors want clarity about the regulatory framework so that they can assess the project’s business case with confidence.

Although there has been much speculation about the timetable for expansion, the lack of clarity over the Government’s position and regulatory framework risks undermining confidence further. If the Prime Minister does not appear to give the project his support, how on earth can investors have confidence in the regulatory process, which is ultimately overseen by the Government he leads?

I am afraid that the discrepancy between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor gets to the heart of the challenges facing the Government. By giving the public the impression that they are jettisoning the previous Government’s commitment, the Prime Minister is once again demonstrating what has become his trademark skill: evading responsibility and avoiding difficult decisions.

[Danny Beales]

The right hon. Gentleman has presented the clarity in the Opposition’s position, but my understanding is that the Conservative party is quite divided on this matter. The local Conservative-led council in Hillingdon opposes it, as do many MPs. The position that he put forward had quite a big “if” caveat: they would support it “if” there were no costs and additional measures. Those measures are not clear. As many have said, the costs are not being covered. The taxpayer would have to foot the bill for significant transport improvements and mitigation measures, which are not being funded. What price are the Opposition willing to have taxpayers pay for Heathrow to go ahead?

[Mr Holden]

Whenever there is a large infrastructure project in the country—we are fully aware of this and always have been—there will always be local objections, as we would expect at council and sometimes constituency MP level. I think everybody understands that. The broader point is that Heathrow will be a privately funded project, and we support it on that basis.

What is the cost of the failure to make a decision? It is lost growth and forgone private sector investment. This is the same behaviour that we have seen towards vital projects such as more drilling in the North sea. The Prime Minister wants to talk about re-industrialisation without giving British companies or businesses the tools they need to achieve that. As the Leader of the Opposition stated:

“The future of our country’s busiest airport is not a regional matter”

That is why I take issue with some of the speeches made by Members today. This is a matter for the country and for the Prime Minister, so, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, he needs to “stop faffing about” and “get this runway built.”

There has been much discussion today about the level of economic growth that the airport would deliver, to pick up on the intervention made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. However, we should all be able to agree that the project would bring economic benefits. The £17 billion in benefits estimated by Heathrow is a considerable sum. Although I understand that the Department has produced different figures, I ask the Minister what steps the Department is taking to ensure that its economic analysis captures the full benefits for passengers and trade in full and, indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, right across the United Kingdom as well.

Furthermore, the project will increase investment in UK supply chains, create jobs and provide opportunities for new apprenticeships. The chief executive officer of Heathrow said only last week that of the billions in private sector investment, 95% will go into the UK supply chains, alongside more than 100,000 jobs that Heathrow says the project could support.

[Dr Arthur]

The right hon. Gentleman cites the CEO of Heathrow airport, but he will be aware that none of the airlines back his plan to expand the airport. Can he explain that, and what do he and the CEO know about this plan that the airlines do not?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman should familiarise himself with “Erskine May”, page 488, which makes it clear that when you have not been present for the bulk of the debate, it is not polite to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman who has the floor now needs to bring his remarks to a conclusion to give maximum time to the Minister.

[Mr Holden]

Thank you very much, Sir John. I will just say that there are clearly vested interests on all sides. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West does not think that existing airlines with existing slots have vested interests, he is living on a different planet. With the most recent economic figures showing a contraction in construction output, how on earth can we justify failing to provide clarity about such a significant infrastructure project?

From the outset, it has felt that the Department for Transport was trying to catch up with announcements made by the Treasury and Prime Minister. Now it appears that progress might be stalled by No. 10 instead. I am afraid that the non-answers we have seen from the Government to date demonstrate a lack of seriousness on their part. I hope that the Minister can encourage his more senior colleagues to provide some of that certainty, and maybe he can provide even more today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Lightwood]

Once again, I am sure the Aviation Minister will have heard my hon. Friend, and I will go on to address some of those issues.

The draft HENPS introduces a new test requiring potential promoters for development consent to demonstrate, through a clear, evidence-based growth strategy, how their scheme will support economic activity and growth at national, regional and local levels.

I will move on to climate change. The draft HENPS contains a clear climate change requirement whereby any increase in carbon emissions resulting from a proposed scheme must not be so significant that it would have a material impact on the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets. For expansion to proceed, it would need to align with the Government’s climate goals, including our legal commitment to reach net zero by 2050. Any increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow expansion would need to be considered against the Government’s carbon reduction targets and the mitigation requirements set out in the draft HENPS.

On air quality, the draft HENPS is also clear that a scheme for Heathrow expansion must demonstrate that it will not result in any new breaches of legal obligations on air quality or make existing breaches materially worse. As part of that, the draft HENPS sets out mitigations that a potential promoter should consider to minimise the impact of the project on the environment and affected communities.

Finally, the draft HENPS sets out a noise test requiring overall aircraft noise to be limited and, where reasonably possible, reduced in comparison with 2024, taking into account quieter aircraft and operating procedures while providing adequate and predictable respite for communities. The mitigations should include a runway alternation scheme and a scheduled night flight ban. The draft HENPS currently requires an applicant to propose a scheduled night flight ban of six and a half hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, as part of their proposed mitigations of the noise impacts. Expansion would increase capacity, which may provide greater operational flexibility and allow aircraft to land more efficiently, potentially reducing reliance on extended holding patterns. That could benefit people living in the areas currently affected by noise from aircraft in holding patterns before landing.

Through the consultation, we are listening carefully to views across all four tests. However, I want to make it clear that we recognise that noise and air quality are particularly important to many local residents, and we are committed to ensuring that those concerns are fully considered as part of the process.

The draft HENPS also makes it clear that Heathrow expansion must be supported by a credible surface access strategy that enables more journeys to be made on public transport and reduces pressure on the wider transport network. The draft HENPS defines clear passenger public transport mode share targets. However, the onus will be on any potential promoter to demonstrate through the development consent order process that their proposed approach can credibly achieve those targets. Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed.

[Mr Holden]

On the DCO process for surface access targets, could the Minister address the point about drop-off charges? That is important for the surface access proposals being put forward by the Government.

[Simon Lightwood]

I am sure the Aviation Minister will have more to say on that. There has been much in the media about the Government looking at this area, and I am sure the Aviation Minister will continue to engage with hon. Members on airport drop-offs.

On affordability, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project, as I have said, and the Government have been consistently clear that it must be privately financed. That includes the surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport. The Civil Aviation Authority is continuing to develop the future regulatory framework for expansion, including by considering how costs are assessed, managed and, where appropriate, recovered. The CAA’s primary duty is to protect the interests of consumers, and affordability will be important.

Hon. Members mentioned the consultation period. We believe that a consultation period of more than 10 weeks was proportionate for reviewing amendments to an existing national policy statement, rather than a brand-new statement. The consultation period was designed to take into account the summer holiday period. It was carried out in accordance with section 7 of the Planning Act 2008 and in line with the Cabinet Office consultation principles, which require consultations to last for a proportionate amount of time.

Hon. Members also mentioned the Climate Change Committee, which has identified one potential pathway and important conditions that it considers necessary. We are considering that advice alongside the wider evidence and will set out the Government’s conclusions in our formal response.

I thank all Members for attending today’s debate. As noted, the Government will give due regard to the recommendations of the Transport Committee, alongside the responses received during the consultation, before determining the next steps on Heathrow expansion. Without wishing to prejudge the process, any finalised HENPS will be subject to parliamentary consideration, including a debate and vote in this House, before it can have legal effect, giving hon. Members the opportunity to consider the proposal and exercise their right to vote either for or against it.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Richard Holden Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend is right. I would also say that there needs to be a code of practice for our tenant farmers. Two of our amendments, which I will speak to shortly, seek to meet the challenges that our farming and agricultural communities face with CPO. I will elaborate on that later, and my hon. Friend is welcome to intervene on me then if he does not find my explanation satisfactory.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I totally agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just said. So many of our constituents, particularly those in the farming community, are already feeling totally let down by this Government, and they feel that this is a further steamroller on their assets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might want to show our farming community, who they are already putting under immense pressure, that they are on their side on some of these issues, and probably for the first time in a very long time? So much has already been done to this community—and it does feel like things are being done to them rather than that they are being listened to as part of any process?

[Paul Holmes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pleaded with the Minister at the beginning of my remarks to meet the concerns of not only Conservative Members or the Green party or Liberal Democrats but key people who have communicated through consultations on this legislation that this will harm their livelihoods and make their lives worse.

New clause 85, tabled by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), would deliver a fairer, more just system of compensation for individuals who are forced to give up their homes or land through compulsory purchase. The current framework under the Land Compensation Act 1973 sets arbitrary caps and percentages on home loss and occupier’s loss payments, which often fail to reflect the true value of what is being lost. By aligning compensation more closely with the full market value of a person’s interest in their property, the new clause acknowledges the deep emotional, financial and practical disruption that compulsory purchase can cause. It would ensure that those displaced by development were not left worse off or unfairly penalised. In doing so, it would uphold the principle that the burden of public interest projects should not fall disproportionately on individual homeowners or landowners, helping to maintain trust and fairness in the planning system. The Minister could easily get behind that, as could other parties. Given some of the real challenges we have talked about that CPOs bring to people, the Minister should be slightly more open to amendments to the Bill that would make their lives easier.

I turn briefly to new clause 42, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), which would align compensation payments more fairly and transparently for occupiers affected by compulsory purchase by amending the Land Compensation Act 1973. It would increase occupier’s loss payments for agricultural and other land from 2.5% to 7.5%, bringing them more in line with basic loss payments. Additionally, it would remove arbitrary caps and fixed percentages on home loss payments and instead base compensation on the full market value of the interest in the dwelling. The change would ensure that those displaced or impacted by compulsory purchase would receive equitable and just compensation reflecting the true value of their property and losses. By modernising and standardising compensation provisions, we would argue that the new clause would support fairness for land-owners and occupiers, making the compulsory purchase process more balanced and respectful of individual rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) rightly mentioned in his intervention.

I turn briefly to other new clauses. New clause 114, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, would require development corporations to provide or facilitate the provision of green spaces in their developments, including a variety of green areas such as

“private gardens, balconies, and community gardens”.

Furthermore, it would impose a duty on development corporations to ensure the ongoing care and maintenance of such green spaces. I hope that the hon. Member realises that I am doing him a favour by reading out his new clause.

The Opposition recognise the well-intentioned motivation behind the new clause, but I gently say to the Lib Dem spokesman, who yesterday rightly—this is no criticism—made a big play about the role of local authorities, elected councillors and local plans, that we believe that this area should be dealt with purely by our local government colleagues, councillors and planning committees. We should continue to give them the power to serve and react to our constituents’ wishes. We are keen that local authorities such as mine in Fareham and Eastleigh as well as those across the whole of the country have the power to do that for the people they serve. That was a key disagreement between us and the Government—the Liberal Democrats agreed with us—on that provision in the legislation. The Opposition believe that new clause 114 is not required in the legislation because local authorities can provide for that themselves.

I turn briefly to new clause 22 tabled by the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). Although it is a well-intentioned new clause to promote active travel infrastructure, it risks weakening the careful balance that compulsory purchase powers must maintain between public benefit and individual property rights. By pre-emptively deeming such projects to be in the public interest and lowering the evidential threshold for route justification, the new clause could enable the use of compulsory purchase orders without sufficient scrutiny or community consent, which raises legitimate concerns about fairness, proportionality and transparency, particularly in cases where landowners could lose property without rigorous demonstration that the chosen route was necessary and the best option available. Given the Conservatives’ long-held position on CPOs and the overreaching powers that the Secretary of State and the Minister want to award themselves in terms of CPOs, we do not think it would be right to give those same powers to local authorities or some of the new authorities outlined in the legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; I recognise that many hon. Members across the House are affected by this issue. The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed tenure housing estates from unfair charges. We will consult this year on implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the millions of homes subject to the charges affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents, and we will bring measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I am glad to see the Government starting to tackle some of these issues. Will the Minister assure me that people on freehold housing estates with covenant issues in places like Basildon and Billericay will also be included in any legislation? They often face service charge increases of tens of per cent every single year, and they need that same assurance being provided to leaseholders that the Government will think about that and take action.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are thinking about the plight of residential freeholders alongside leaseholders. As I just said, we will consult this year on implementing the provisions in the 2024 Act, which provides those residential freeholders with new consumer protection provisions. They will have that immediate safety to come in, as we look at how we reduce the prevalence of such arrangements in the longer term.

Leasehold Reform

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury]

A lack of transparency is a theme that comes up again and again, particularly for the people who are effectively the victims. I will press on because I want to get to the end of my speech if I can.

The complex state of leasehold means that many different parties have realised that they can fatten the goose with ease, and often without scrutiny and enforcement as the hon. Member has said. First, that was often done through ground rent. Properties would often charge a ground rent of between £250 and £1,000 a year in London. I would call it money for old rope, but that would insult old rope.

That tactic was later replaced as more buyers and solicitors became aware of it, particularly around the sale of flats, so we then saw service charges being used as the new cash cow. A typical building in my constituency, which is often a flat built since 2000, has a service charge of £6,000, but some have charges as high as £7,000 or £8,000 without anything like that value of service being delivered.

For too long, it has been possible to raise service charges without limit—often vastly above inflation and with no clear breakdown. Leaseholders will buy a property and think that the service charge is paying for services such as—to take examples from my constituency—the post room, receptionist, home cinema, car park and security. In fact, they find that the post room and the home cinema are closed, the receptionist is not full time, the car park gets flooded and the security is non-existent.

If a person bought such a product on the open market, trading standards would have a field day—but leasehold is not a fair market. If we invented this market system now with its wide cast of cowboys and profit strippers, it would appear like something out of a Victorian novel. Ted Heath called it the “unacceptable face of capitalism”, but that is how we have got here.

I will not regale the House with the efforts to tame and reform leasehold over the past decade. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I know that many hon. Members have been working on it. The previous Government’s changes were welcome, and MPs from both sides of the House have stood up, spoken and acted, particularly thanks to the support of the APPG and the work of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign. I know that the Minister gets this issue and knows it inside out too.

I want to talk about my constituents’ experiences. For many people in west London, the high cost of property means that buying a house is out of reach, but people on good salaries can, just about, afford a flat for upwards of £500,000.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for securing this incredibly important debate. One of the issues in my constituency, which is very similar to hers, is that people are buying new flats or houses under the freehold system, but with so many covenants involved that they are also being charged the sort of service charges that she has mentioned. Does she agree that whatever the Government do— I welcome the good approaches in this place—they must also cover some of the covenant issues around freehold?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I agree with the right hon. Member. There are so many issues that the Government have been looking at, and are going to have to look at, particularly to ensure against unintended consequences.

With prices of upwards of half a million, even with the help of the bank of mum and dad, many of my constituents have no choice but to buy a leasehold flat, even when they have a good income and perhaps help with the deposit. That means that a whole generation in London risks getting trapped as leaseholders.

The key problem is that at first the terms can seem straightforward. A person pays their mortgage and then they pay their service charge and ground rent, and for the first year, it might be okay. They might notice some problems in the communal area, but the real kicker comes when they get the first increase in their service charge. I have seen constituents whose service charge has increased by 50% or even 100%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Yes. Economic growth is this Government’s No. 1 mission. As I have said multiple times at the Dispatch Box, that is an inside job and it takes great local leadership. That is why we have made a commitment to the devolution of power and resources from this place to such communities, by creating new devolved institutions and backing our existing ones.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Devolution goes alongside revolution in local government in Essex, where we are expecting numerous unitary authorities to be created. However, local people are concerned that they will not get a say in the structure of those local authorities, so can the Minister tell me whether they will? There is also concern about local elections being delayed by multiple years. Can the Minister also tell me whether, year after year, Basildon council will not be held accountable for the decisions it takes?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Richard Holden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is right to say that the vast majority of applications are consented to by planning committees. Removing councillors’ right to vote on them is absolutely the wrong thing to do, and Labour must be honest with the public that that is exactly what is happening.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

That raises a broader point. At the moment, councils in parts of the country such as my constituency are being abolished by this Government, so there will be no democratic accountability down the line, and there will be no democratic accountability at council level through planning committees, either. They are removing layer after layer of protection for local communities such as mine, with huge amounts of green-belt land suddenly redesignated as grey-belt land, despite recently being high-grade agricultural land. Can my hon. Friend understand the concerns in communities such as mine about what these proposals are doing? They want to see more housing, but not at the expense of London seeing a housing target—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That was a very long intervention.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Holden Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The planning proposals for Laindon Road and Mountnessing Road in Billericay and for Noak Bridge were previously rejected because of the green belt aspect but are now being reconsidered under grey belt. Will the Minister urgently meet me, the Billericay Action Group and some of the local councillors to look at the issues around where grey belt is perhaps not being used in the way the Government originally intended?

[Matthew Pennycook]

Local authorities can be clear about how grey belt should be used because we released planning policy guidance last week to give them a better sense of where it is appropriate to be released and be brought forward for development.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Richard Holden Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

When I was out knocking on doors in my constituency in last year’s general election campaign, lots of people reminisced with me about a previous general election when the Liberal candidate came just 378 tantalising votes short of the incumbent Conservative. They spoke very fondly of that candidate, which might not be surprising, except the election that they were recalling was in 1983—over four decades ago.

I also remember speaking to an elderly, lifelong Labour voter who was lending me his vote for the very first time because he had to do something different. When I thanked him for placing his trust in me, he told me not to take too much from it, because his entire life he had never voted for a candidate who had won. I will always remember that conversation. As I walked away, I said, “Well, we’ll see about that.”

Until last July, for 74 years the constituency of Chelmsford, in its various shapes and sizes over the years, had never been represented in Parliament by anyone other than a Conservative. In fact, it had been 100 years since Chelmsford was last represented by a Liberal—something I am extremely proud to have corrected. It should not have to be this way. I hugely admire the tenacity of that erstwhile Labour voter who lent me his vote, hoping against all the evidence of his lifetime that this time it might make a difference.

No wonder turnout in elections is often so painfully low. Our antiquated first-past-the-post system can be incredibly demoralising, even for a committed political campaigner like myself. Believe it or not, I do not like having to ask people on the doorstep to lend me their vote so that, together, we can game the system to get the change that we want. Would it not better if people could cast their vote in a way that let them set out their preferences? They would know that all would not be lost for them if their first preference candidate did not win, as their vote could be transferred to someone else that they also would not mind seeing elected. The turnout in last year’s general election, as has already been alluded to, was 65.9% in Chelmsford, slightly better than the national turnout, which was a pretty poor 59.7%. In Manchester Rusholme, the turnout was just 40%. But these are dizzying heights compared with the turnout in local elections.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady is talking about a preferential voting system, rather than a proportional voting system. Does she understand that there is quite a big difference between those two options, and obviously today’s debate is about proportional representation?

[Marie Goldman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive. There are preferential systems that can lead to proportional results. In fact, we see that in many places that use preferential systems.

In the election in May 2024 for the police, fire and crime commissioner in Essex, the turnout was barely 25%. So why are people not voting? Surely part of the issue is simply that they do not believe that their vote counts. They do not believe that they can make a difference. Although I do not completely agree with that, I certainly agree that the first-past-the-post system makes it harder.

There are also other things in our electoral system that make it harder, and I do not think that we should be talking about changing our voting system without also talking about them. For example, the introduction of voter ID was supposedly designed to enhance trust in our elections, but the evidence suggests that there have been some other consequences. In the 2024 general election, 4% of people who did not vote said that the voter ID requirement was the reason that they could not do so. Additionally, 0.08% of those who went to the polls were unable to cast their ballot because they did not have the correct ID. Those may seem like small figures, but if we put them into rough numbers, rather than percentages, we can see that, with about 28.9 million people casting their vote, the number of people who showed up who could not cast their vote because they did not have the correct ID was approximately—unless I have got my maths wrong—23,000 people. That is an incredibly high and quite shocking number.

Let us think about that for a moment—23,000 people could not vote because we wanted to stop voter fraud. Of course that might be a good idea if there was lots of voter fraud going on, but the Electoral Commission’s own website says:

“In the past five years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. Of the 1,462 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2019 and 2023, 11 led to convictions, and the police issued four cautions.”

Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Voter registration is another area where improvements are needed. Research shows that as many as 8 million people across the UK are not registered correctly at their current address. This affects key groups such as young people, private renters and recent home movers who may not realise that they are missing from the register until it is too late. Although the current system allows for late registration before elections, this puts unnecessary pressure on electoral services and risks leaving some people unable to vote on polling day.

We can see the impact that even small barriers to voting can have. Imagine what would happen if we broke down those barriers and got rid of them. We must recognise that barriers to participation, including voter ID, voter registration and the voting system itself, are dangerous to our democracy. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to fix this and thereby to strengthen democracy and democratic engagement in our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Race]

It is not that it is okay, but we have introduced legislation that has essentially restricted many, many more people from voting than otherwise would have happened.

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Steve Race]

I will make some progress, if I may.

I am pleased that this Government have legislated to allow the use of the veteran’s ID card, and I ask that they look at a wider range of suitable ID, including train driver licences, in any future review. Preferably, though, we should return to the traditional British approach of not demanding ID to have access to a vote.

On the issue at hand, I want to recommend to colleagues the outcome of the Jenkins Commission of 1998, which designed an elegant solution to the issues that our democracy faces when it comes to representation. Jenkins, one of the great social reformers of this place to whom many of us still owe a great debt of gratitude, proposed a hybrid system that kept many of the benefits of first past the post, such as the strong relationship that an MP has with a defined and manageable area, but with additional proportionality through the additional member system. Constituency MPs would be elected through the alternative vote system to add choice into the system.

Versions of that system are now in operation for elections in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the London Assembly, so this is not theoretical and voters understand it perfectly well. This is proof that a Labour Government can and do deliver much-needed social reform and always has.

Although I do not support electoral reform in the sense of pure PR, I absolutely accept that politics is about priorities. This Government have a huge task to do—three things all at once, I believe, which is not something that many Governments have faced before. We must stabilise our public finances, get the economy growing in a sustainable way, and rebuild our public services. That is a mammoth task, but it is what the public demanded when they elected our party with a landslide last year. I can well understand that these issues take priority over time for electoral reform. I do not think that I could look my constituents in Exeter in the eye if I knew that we were spending much time—and it would be much time—in this place discussing how to be elected, rather than addressing their immediate concerns.

As I have mentioned, there is much that we can do to make the current system more democratic and accessible, so I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for a commission to look into this issue and find a way forward. Therefore, although I remain an electoral reformer, I also welcome the Government’s current focus on supporting the development of a stronger economy, grabbing the opportunities that are on offer for my region, and delivering jobs and investment in places such as Exeter, while also working and legislating hard to fix our roads, end our homelessness and housing crisis, clean up our waterways and rebuild our health system.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

It is an honour to sit on the fair elections all-party group, which is so well chaired by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). It is also an honour to take up this fight in this House with the Liberal Democrats for whom electoral reform has been a central tenet for decades.

In order to be here today, I had to resign my commission in the Royal Air Force where I had, for 23 years, defended our country and our interests overseas. However, I came to recognise that the most crucial way to defend our democracy was to do so here while backing proportional representation. Throughout the 2024 general election campaign, residents across Tewkesbury constituency frequently expressed their frustrations with an electoral system that was certain to condemn them to another five years of the same Conservative Member of Parliament whichever candidate they voted for. Tewkesbury had been represented by my predecessor for 27 years, and it was the view of many residents that Tewkesbury would never experience change because our broken electoral system would see this safe Conservative seat won by the Conservatives at an eighth consecutive election.

[Mr Holden]

Does not the hon. Gentleman’s presence in this House demonstrate that the system does work, and can deliver change in individual seats?

[Cameron Thomas]

No, for two reasons: the Liberal Democrats defied the odds, but there are many other smaller parties who are not adequately represented; and, as I will come to later, 58% of voters across the country did not get the MP they voted for, and that is true even in my constituency.

At the general election, Tewkesbury did see change, but only through the coming together of several unique circumstances, and despite first past the post. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), I was loaned the trust of Labour, Green and Conservative supporters. The general election may have been won by Labour and returned Liberal Democrats in record numbers, but let us not delude ourselves: the country voted tactically in record numbers for whoever would remove the catastrophic, nepotistic and morally bankrupt Conservative Government of 2019.

July’s election brought the briefest respite before frustrations rose once again. This is the most disproportionate House of Commons in British history, with Labour MPs in 66% of seats but with the lowest vote share—some 34%—of any winning party since 1945, and 58% of UK voters did not get the MP they voted for. I have previously described first past the post as “barely democratic”, and these figures vindicate me.

Public apathy towards politics is reflected in a steady decline in general election turnouts since the 1950s, from over 80% to less than 60% in 2024. If we want to arrest this decline, people must feel that their vote matters. The only way to ensure that the next election returns a representative Parliament is to transition to a proportional representation electoral system.

I have occasionally been challenged by those who say that proportional representation would increasingly return hung Parliaments, and would lead to bickering and chaos, rather than functioning government. This challenge falters when those people are presented with the fact that the previous Government and their 80-seat majority were elected through first past the post. Never in the field of British politics was so little achieved by so many. They scrambled from controversy to controversy, fighting among themselves while undermining our institutions and allowing our public services to crumble.

Today, our friends in the United States are living with the inevitable result of their two-party system. Far-right populists have seized the previously conservative Republican party, neutered the media and dismantled many institutional safeguards. We must recognise that we face the same threat, as our Conservative party—the most successful election-winning machine on earth—continues its lurch to the right and brings fringe opinions into the mainstream. It can happen here, and we must have a fair electoral system to mitigate that.

Liberal Democrats were elected in record numbers in 2024 on a pledge to deliver proportional representation. Labour Members want proportional representation, and the public increasingly want proportional representation, so I say to the Government: let us come together and do something historic. Let us put aside our individual and party political interests for the many. Let us do the right thing. Let us change our country for the better and deliver proportional representation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for opening the debate and by congratulating the Backbench Business Committee and the key Members on securing this debate.

The UK’s democratic system and institutions are strong and are rightly held the world over as a strong example of democracy. I know as someone who was born in another country that the UK’s democratic system has provided inspiration, even though as we have heard many hon. Members believe more work needs to be done in some areas. In defence of our democratic system, I reiterate how much our system and our democracy is cherished. Whichever side of the argument Members are on, it is vital that we work tirelessly to protect our democracy, which faces different kinds of threats in the current climate. Indeed, I hope we will all work together in that endeavour to make sure that we protect the integrity of our system, our institutions and our precious democracy.

How we select our representatives in Parliament is of fundamental importance and Members quite rightly have strong views. The choice of voting system is central to that concern, as we have heard in the many speeches made today, and how votes are cast goes to the heart of our democracy. I, for one, am incredibly proud to have been the first person of British-Bangladeshi heritage to get a democratic mandate in our system in 2010. That democratic mandate must never be delegitimised, even if we believe that there should be a different system. Whatever Members’ arguments, whichever side of the argument they are on, whichever system they believe we should adopt or whether they believe we should retain the current system, it is absolutely vital that we do not delegitimise the democratic mandate that this Government, or any other Government in the past, have been given to serve this country and the people who have voted for us.

[Mr Holden]

The Minister makes a broader important point about the mandate that individual MPs feel when they are elected to this place. Does she agree that that individual mandate—our names are on the ballot paper—is strengthened under the first-past-the-post system? Does she also agree that that means that our electorate can single out MPs, which could not happen under a party-list system, in order to remove them?

[Rushanara Ali]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of the constituency connection. Hon. Members have made important contributions about alternative systems, outlining their merits and limitations. Each of those systems has its pros and cons, and that has been strongly and powerfully debated by many hon. Members today. I respect those strongly held views on electoral reform.

I know that colleagues will be disappointed, and I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news when there has been a general love-in during the debate across the parties, bar some exceptions, but at this time the Government have no plans to change the voting system for elections to the House of Commons. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am getting unlikely cheers; I am not used to being cheered by Conservative Members. As has been pointed out, the first-past-the-post system, while not perfect, provides for a direct relationship between Members of Parliament and their local constituency. A change would require a national conversation and referendum. The Government’s focus and No. 1 priority, having won the general election and secured a mandate, is to kick-start our economy, create the growth that is desperately needed, and improve living standards, our NHS and public services, to serve the people of our country.

Members have put their arguments across eloquently, and I respect those arguments. As others have pointed out, we had an opportunity to change the voting system in the 2011 referendum. Unfortunately for those who are proponents of such a change, that referendum was lost. The processes that underpin our elections are of paramount importance and changes cannot be made lightly; however, I stress that we are not averse to changes to, and innovation in, our democracy. We must continue to monitor all aspects of our electoral system, and ensure that it runs effectively and adapts to the modern challenges that we face as a democracy.

As we set out in our manifesto, we are seeking to make changes, including our commitment to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are continuing to assess the voter identification policy in order to address any inconsistencies. I am pleased that we were able to add veteran cards to the list of accepted documents last year; our veterans community will be able to use them to vote in polling stations this May. We are continuing to consider whether further improvements to policy can be made. I am conscious of the contributions of some hon. Members about the exclusion of legitimate voters. It is crucial that we ensure that people are not disenfranchised, while ensuring that there are not abuses of our system.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Democrat party, in coalition with the Conservative party, secured a referendum on AV in 2011, with considerable cross-party support from Labour Members. The proposal was rejected by 67.9% of votes. While I recognise the strength of feeling, I have made the Government’s position clear. Hon. Members asked whether the Government have any plans for a national commission on electoral reform. At present, we do—we do not. [Laughter.] That was not a Freudian slip. Some hon. Members asked about the London mayoral election and police and crime commissioners, following the changes in the Elections Act 2022. The Government currently have no plans to change the voting system for those polls. Like a number of policies, we will keep these matters under review.

A number of hon. Members suggested that the first-past-the-post system is contributing to a decrease in turnout, and pointed to the low turnout at the last election. It is on all of us to think carefully about the drivers of low turnout, which will be a range of factors. We all have a responsibility, as elected representatives, to work with our parties and communities to promote engagement, particularly among young people. We will work with colleagues to promote that democratic engagement, and ensure that young citizens are active citizens from an early age.

In order to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley enough time to wind up the debate, I will address just one other point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) spoke about foreign interference in relation to funding. Foreign money has no place in UK politics, and it is vital that we protect our democracy from those who seek to interfere in UK elections through illegitimate political donations. That is why we committed in our manifesto to strengthening the rules around donations to political parties. We will work with Members across the House to ensure that we protect the integrity of our democracy.