Representation of the People Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Samantha Dixon and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 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, Dr Allin-Khan. I look forward to discussing the finer details of this important Bill with members of the Committee.

Clause 1 extends the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds for UK parliamentary elections, Northern Ireland Assembly elections, local elections in England and Northern Ireland, local referenda in England, and police and crime commissioner elections, as well as ward elections in the City of London. The Government committed in their manifesto to increasing young people’s engagement in our vibrant democracy by giving 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in all UK elections. That will enable young people in England and Northern Ireland to join their peers in Scotland and Wales, who can already vote in local and devolved elections. The change is aligned with the aim that the Government set out in the national youth strategy to ensure that young people are “seen and heard”, and will build the foundations for people’s lifelong participation in our electoral processes.

Furthermore, the Government’s view is that once 16 and 17-year-olds are enfranchised, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. For that reason, the clause also ensures that 16 and 17-year-olds are able to sign recall petitions, as all other electors are permitted to do. The clause will support the Government in our work to deliver on our commitments to young people, meaning that approximately 1.7 million eligible 16 and 17-year-olds will have a say in all UK elections for the very first time.

Amendment 33, which was tabled by the Opposition, would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on why the voting age for UK parliamentary elections should differ from the age of majority set out in the Family Law Reform Act 1969, which provided that

“a person shall attain full age on attaining the age of eighteen”.

Under the amendment, the report would also be required to include comparisons with other age limits that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, and would have to be published before voting rights could be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.

The important question is not about what else a person can or cannot do at age 16, but whether 16 is the right age at which to be able to vote. This Government are clear that the answer is yes: 16 is the right age for a person to be able to exercise their democratic right. Extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds will allow them to have a say in the Government who shape their future, and will set them up for lifelong engagement in our democracy. Sixteen and 17-year-olds have views, which deserve to be represented, and engaging voters at a younger age will build the foundations for a lifetime of participation in our electoral processes.

Making decisions about the electoral franchise on the basis of comparisons to legislation made nearly 70 years ago is not, in the Government’s view, the way to build a democratic system fit for 2026 and beyond. The amendment would simply delay the delivery of a manifesto commitment that, given the response to the Opposition’s reasoned amendment on Second Reading, has already been shown to have the overwhelming support of the House. Accordingly, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their amendment.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Good morning to you and to members of the Committee. I am pleased to see the Minister in her place, although I am slightly surprised that she has asked me to withdraw my amendment; I have not yet talked about why it is so brilliant. I hope that she will reconsider and look at the amendment again, although I doubt it.

Amendment 33 is in my name. At the heart of the issue lies a simple question about clause 1: when do we consider somebody to be an adult? In the United Kingdom, the answer has long been clear—at 18. That is the age at which full citizenship rights and responsibilities are granted. Voting—one of the most significant civic duties in a democracy—should remain tied to that threshold. Those who argue for lowering the voting age to 16 often claim that the issue is about fairness and inclusion, but that quickly unravels when we examine how 16 and 17-year-olds are treated under the law.

At 16, individuals cannot marry or join the armed forces without parental consent, and they are not permitted to buy alcohol, gamble, purchase cigarettes or even obtain certain financial services independently. Those are not arbitrary restrictions; they reflect a consistent legal and societal judgment that individuals under 18 are not yet fully mature adults. If we do not trust a 16-year-old to make decisions about alcohol, finance or personal safety, why should we trust them with decisions about the future of the nation?

Since the adoption of universal suffrage, taxation has never been the basis for enfranchisement in the United Kingdom, but the Prime Minister has stated that those who pay tax should be able to vote. Those aged 16 and 17 are explicitly exempted in law from paying council tax. Do advocates who say that 16-year-olds should be able to vote in local elections believe that that legal exemption should be removed, so that those aged 16 and 17 become liable for council tax? I suspect the answer is no.

Taxation already exists without direct representation for children. Everyone pays indirect taxes, such as VAT. For example, for children, VAT is levied on toys and sweets. Only a tiny number of those aged 16 and 17 actually pay income tax, especially given the Conservative Government’s increases to the income tax threshold. Those under 18 cannot obtain consumer credit, nor can they open a full bank account without a parent’s signature; that indicates how their financial rights are qualified.

There is also a striking inconsistency in the Government’s arguments for this change. On the one hand, they argue that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote. On the other, they support policies that explicitly treat under-18s as children in need of protection: raising the legal age for buying knives, fireworks, cigarettes and even undergoing cosmetic procedures. Those contradictions suggest that the push to lower the voting age is not grounded in principle but in convenience.

Consider also the issue of responsibility. Voting is not just a right; it is part of a broader framework of civic duty, yet 16 and 17-year-olds are exempt from key responsibilities such as paying council tax, and only a small proportion pay income tax at all, as I have outlined. Historically, the right to vote in the UK has never been based on taxation alone, and it would be wrong to start now. We should also look internationally. The overwhelming majority of democracies, including the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, set the voting age at 18. That is not a coincidence; it reflects a widely accepted understanding of adulthood.

Furthermore, the argument that lowering the voting age will increase long-term political engagement is not supported by strong evidence. Studies show that any increase in participation among younger voters tends to be short-lived, with no lasting impact on political involvement. In other words, the reform risks being a symbolic gesture rather than a meaningful improvement to democracy. A study looking at the effect of a lower voting age in Scotland, which was also cited by the Minister’s Department, advised:

“For engagement with politics beyond voting in elections, however, we find no lasting difference between young people who were eligible to vote at 16 versus 18. The experience of voting at age 16/17 did not make a difference in young people’s non-electoral engagement in early adulthood.”

It warned that any change in turnout might actually have been due to the polarising effect of the Scottish independence debate, rather than the voting age. It went on:

“Our results may reflect this to some extent as cohorts included in our sample of young people enfranchised at 16 came of age in the highly salient and polarised time around the 2014 independence referendum.”

Finally, we must consider where the logic leads. If we detach voting from the age of adulthood, then why stop at 16? Why not 15 or 14?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I was a Conservative at 15—maybe that means I have just been completely stupid all through my life. [Interruption.] I said it—there is no need for an intervention on that! We know the reason why the Labour Government have brought this forward.

I was elected as a councillor at 19, and the voting age was 18. I was older than the voting age at the time. The Government are criticising my party on why we do not believe there should be voting at 16, but I ask the Minister again—perhaps she will respond in her winding up—why the Government do not believe that 16-year-olds should be able to stand in an election for the Government of the United Kingdom if they are enfranchised to vote in such an election. I contend it is because they want the votes, but they do not want them to be able to stand, because they do not believe they are mature enough and—dare I say—adult enough to do so.

The contention that the Minister has brought to the Committee is flawed. We cannot pick and choose when we believe a child becomes an adult to participate in part of the democratic process, and not include in the legislation the ability for them to stand in those elections.

Amendment 33 simply tries to urge the Government to review the mess of the age of majority in this country. If we legislate to have votes at 16, that is fine. I think I am pretty down with the kids when I go on school visits—I see there is no comment on that—and my party and I will absolutely make sure that we become presentable and popular and start talking about young people and the issues that they face—

[Samantha Dixon]

Which is the point.

[Paul Holmes]

Which is the point, the Minister says from a sedentary position, but it is our contention that we then need to look at the age of majority across the whole of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I now move on to clause 2, which extends to 16 and 17-year-olds the existing legal incapacity to vote that applies to convicted prisoners—with the exception of those imprisoned for contempt of court or in default of paying a court-imposed fine. It is right that those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. The provisions in this Bill simply reflect that well-established position and ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds are treated the same as all other electors. That is in keeping with the core principle of the policy that 16 and 17-year-olds must have the same rights and responsibilities as all other electors. That must include being accountable for their actions, including their disenfranchisement upon being convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody.

To give effect to this intention, this clause ensures that the relevant definitions of youth detention accommodation account for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held. I would like to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention to the part of the clause relating to secure children’s homes. It is important to note that this does not have the effect of disenfranchising a young person who is not a convicted prisoner but who is resident in a secure children’s home.

The application of this clause ensures that young convicted prisoners may not vote in UK parliamentary elections, police and crime commissioner elections, elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and all local elections in England or Northern Ireland. However, these provisions do not apply to elections for which responsibility is devolved, that is, elections to the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or local elections in Wales or Scotland.

I will also speak to new clause 9, tabled by the Green party. This new clause is intended to allow convicted prisoners serving a sentence of up to four years to vote. The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody should not be able to vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners. I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who tabled this amendment, and her party advocate for a restorative approach to justice, and the Government agree that rehabilitation is an important part of the justice system. Prisoners must be prepared to return to society.

As the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), said during the passage of the recent Sentencing Act 2026, the Government wish to ensure the justice system rehabilitates and turns offenders away from crime. It is important to note in this context that that Act introduced a presumption to suspend short custodial sentences of 12 months or fewer, unless an offender has breached a court order, there is a significant risk of harm to an individual, or there are exceptional circumstances.

Rehabilitation is not the only part of our justice system. Justice is also about delivering appropriate and proportionate punishment for individuals who have committed crimes where the crime committed is grave enough to warrant imprisonment. The Government are clear that part of that punishment should include the loss of the right to vote.

The new clause aims to grant voting rights to those serving sentences of up to four years, and would allow individuals who had committed serious offences to cast ballots. Such a change would be disproportionate and would water down the important principle that prison sentences are there to punish behaviour that we as a nation have decided is not welcome in our society. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 2 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I do not doubt the hon. Lady’s intentions—or those of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—in tabling the new clause. However, I put it to her again that the four-year figure is arbitrary. The core reason why so many people are concerned about this proposal is the plethora of cases that would be included under the four-year provision. She is absolutely right that many of those people who are sentenced to four years will be released after two. I disagree with that, but it is something that happens in the current justice system. The fact that they might be released early does not mean that they should be given the vote.

The hon. Lady mentioned something that I agree with: that people are entitled to use libraries, to learn, to undertake qualifications and to do other parts of rehabilitation. That is absolutely right; they should always be allowed to do that, because of the core belief in British society that they should be able to make their lives better. But they are doing that while locked away and playing no role in civic society. They are improving themselves and learning so that they can play a part in civic society once they have served their custodial term. That is the real difference between my party and hers. We believe that when someone receives a custodial sentence, they should be removed from civic society. They should be able to go through rehabilitation and make their life better, but that element of being removed from civic society and locked up is sacrosanct.

I think that new clause 9 comes from a good place, and we could have a wider discussion on greater involvement by somebody who receives a custodial sentence, but unfortunately, the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—we must consider the seriousness of the crimes that might fall under the threshold of a four-year custodial sentence—means that the victim is hugely let down and forgotten about. I apologise to the Committee, but I feel so passionate about the way in which the argument was made that I had to stand up and speak again. We will be opposing the new clause with, all right, only three Members, but if it comes back on Report, I urge Members from all parties, including that of the hon. Lady, to vote against it. It would represent a slow erosion of the punitive system that is meant to support victims. I do not believe this new clause supports victims.

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government have a clear view on this issue: those convicted of a crime and serving a sentence in custody cannot vote. We have no plans to extend the franchise to prisoners.

The hon. Members for Hazel Grove and for North Herefordshire mentioned the European Court of Human Rights. The UK’s prisoner rights voting policy was very recently the subject of a judgment by that Court, and no violation was found. I am quite happy to share that judgment with Members should they wish to see it.

The provisions of the Bill simply reflect that policy, by accounting for all of the institutions in which convicted prisoners aged 16 and 17 may be held.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Clause 3 will give young people the ability to register from the age of 14, before they have the right to vote at 16, ensuring that they are able to exercise their right to vote as soon as they reach voting age. I am sure that Members will agree that no young person should be unable to vote for the first time because there was insufficient time for them to be correctly registered to vote. The clause will ensure that all young people have the opportunity to vote, even if an election falls on or shortly after their 16th birthday, removing the chance that time to register is a barrier to participation.

The clause’s approach is consistent with the current rules, which allow some 16-year-olds, and all 17-year-olds, to register to vote. Importantly, it simplifies the current rule considerably by removing the complex December calculation, which is hard to explain and understand, in favour of a clear right to register from an individual’s 14th birthday. The December calculation will remain in place for devolved Welsh elections in accordance with existing devolved legislation. The clause enables the slightly different rules to work side by side.

I underline that the two-year window for registration ahead of someone’s turning 16 established by the clause also allows for enhanced links between the classroom and active engagement in our democracy, with the option for that to begin with the act of registering to vote.

[Paul Holmes]

It would be churlish of me to criticise these proposals. We have had a detailed debate on the principle about votes at 16, with which we vehemently disagree, but there is no reason why we should be difficult about the implementation of the system if the Government get their way. If the legislation passes and people are allowed to vote at 16, there is a vital need for them to be able to register in plenty of time and for it to be as easy as possible for them to do so. Therefore, we will not oppose the clause.

I ask this question of the Minister not to be tricky but for clarification: why should the registration age be 14 and not 15? I was going to say, “What’s the difference?” Obviously, the difference is 12 months, but why does it need to be permitted two years in advance, rather than just one, when someone is 15 and, I would argue, there is a bit more stability for them in the education system, given some of the things that come with being a 15-year-old in school?

The Minister is correct that the December calculation is hard to explain and understand, and fairly outdated, so we do not think that is an issue. We will not oppose the clause, and we see that it is perfectly reasonable, notwithstanding—I do not know whether Members have recognised this yet—that I absolutely oppose votes at 16.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that it is clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

It has been a while since I have done one of these Committees, Dr Allin-Khan, so forgive me if I do not say what I am talking to or anything like that. We are learning on the job, or I certainly am anyway.

The Minister emphasised that the Government amendments are technical, which is correct, and I will not challenge on or question her much about them. However, I want to ask a couple of questions about the clause’s aims in facilitating the inclusion of younger voters. We would argue or challenge that some of the provisions appear to be slightly inconsistent or insufficiently justified.

Allowing individuals aged 16 to act as companions to disabled voters and as proxy voters or to enter polling stations for certain purposes reflects an expansion of civic responsibility, which is another result of the principled argument about whether 16-year-olds should have the vote. I am not arguing against that principle, but about the physical manifestations of the change in direction. I would like to challenge the Minister by asking her to clarify why there is no guidance, training or clear rationale for those extra responsibilities for the volunteers working in elections departments across the country or for electoral registration officers and local authorities.

The provision raises a few concerns not only about the readiness of the person subject to the law change—the younger voter—but about whether our staff, EROs and the volunteers who sit in and do the various jobs at polling stations will be trained and given guidance in time to fully bring in the proposed changes. Will the Minister give us some clarification or reassurance that these changes will result in the people involved in the physical voting on the day at polling stations being given proper guidance, and that plenty of notice will be given to the volunteers who will have to implement the changes around the country?

[Samantha Dixon]

The short answer is yes. This is an extension of the arrangements with which EROs are most familiar, and the guidance that will be provided to them in advance of the proposals coming into effect will reflect the extension of the franchise. I suggest that EROs and our electoral administrators are very familiar with these issues, and it will simply be a matter of extending those arrangements to the newly enfranchised age group.

Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Samantha Dixon and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th March 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 chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I have covered clause 7, so if Members will indulge me, I will turn to clause 8.

Clause 8 sets out five specific circumstances in which the prohibitions put in place by clause 7 do not apply. The first circumstance in which the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared is if that disclosure is necessary for registration or the conduct of an election, referendum, recall petition or other poll. That simply allows electoral administrators to carry out their work.

An example in action would be an electoral registration officer using the data of a 14 or 15-year-old to conduct the annual canvass. The canvass would help ensure that the young person in question is still accurately registered at the address electoral administrators have on file. Another illustration of the purpose of this provision would relate to the preparation of a poll. For example, clerks at polling stations must have an extract of the electoral register for electors who will vote at that polling station. There may be circumstances in which that extract is prepared in advance of polling day, and this provision allows it to include individuals who will turn 16 on polling day, but who at the moment of the preparation of the extract are still 15.

The second circumstance provides that the registration information of an individual under the age of 16 may be shared in accordance with one of a limited number of supply enactments—specifically, those listed in clause 11. A supply enactment is a provision to allow either the entire register or the relevant part of the register to be supplied to a certain individual or organisation. The specific supply enactments where the disclosure of the registration information of under-16s is permitted are listed in clause 11, and as such I will discuss them in detail during the debate on clause 11.

However, this clause applies two crucial limits on disclosure of the registration information of 14 and 15-year-olds as part of a relevant supply enactment, as I will now explain. First, disclosure under a relevant supply enactment may be made only for purposes relating to an election at which a given person will be entitled to vote. That will allow the information of individuals under the age of 16 to be protected, while also allowing individuals who will be old enough to vote in specific polls to be included in campaigning activities relating to that poll. For example, it will allow 15-year-olds who will be 16 in time for a given poll to be sent campaigning materials relating to that poll.

Secondly, there is a limit on disclosure under relevant supply enactments that requires that such disclosures must not contain information that would allow the date of birth of the young person in question to be learned. That provides an extra safeguard against the disclosure of any information about young people that is not absolutely necessary for the legitimate activities in question. For example, candidates have no need to know the exact age of a young person beyond the fact that they will be 16 on the date of a poll, so they will not receive such information.

The third circumstance in which the registration information of under-16s may be disclosed under clause 8 is where such information is necessary for the purpose of a criminal investigation relating to an electoral offence. The provisions in the Bill prevent under-16s from being fined for failing to register to vote, but there are other electoral offences that rightly apply regardless of age group. Those include offences such as a fraudulent application to register to vote, or the offence of personation, where someone attempts to steal another’s vote. Such serious offences should be investigated no matter who commits them, and this clause allows for those criminal investigations to take place unimpeded.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The Minister outlined the criminal charge of personation. Does she think that watering down photographic ID and using bank cards for identification will make it easier or harder for someone to be convicted of electoral personation?

[Samantha Dixon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I will return to that point when we debate the relevant clauses.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought I would try.

[The Chair]

I thank the Minister for doing my job for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

Yes, I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to perform that task, and I am sure that we will come back to those issues during line-by-line scrutiny.

As with the other clauses in this part of the Bill, the provisions maintain close protection on the data of 14 and 15-year-olds, allowing disclosure of that information only when absolutely necessary and appropriate.

Let me turn now to clause 12. In my explanation of clause 8, which provides for five circumstances in which the disclosure of under-16s’ information is permitted, I noted that clause 12 places further restrictions on three of those circumstances. Those restrictions apply to the following circumstances where clause 8 allows disclosure of information. The first is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of electoral registration or conduct duties. The second is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of criminal investigation into an electoral offence. The third is where information is sent to a person who has been nominated as that elector’s proxy.

Where information has been shared in one of those three circumstances, the clause prevents the person who receives it from passing it on to anyone else. The clause also provides that someone who passes the information on to another person in one of those circumstances is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by a fine. As with the five clauses that precede it, clause 12 serves to ensure that the personal information of 14 and 15-year-olds is accessed and shared only when doing so is necessary and justified.

Clause 13 is the penultimate clause in the group, which I am sure Members are glad to hear. The purpose of the clause is to provide flexibility in the regime that provides these protections, by making it possible for regulations to be made to adjust the protections. That might become necessary, for example, if new types of election or referenda are created in future, which might necessitate new groups having access to the data. Given the number and variety of changes the Bill proposes to our electoral system, such flexibility is simply good planning and avoids the risk of needing an emergency Bill to be rushed through Parliament should changes be needed. I immediately reassure hon. Members, however, that the scope of the power created by the clause is carefully limited and subject to important scrutiny requirements, as one would expect.

The regulations that may be made using the power in the clause can be divided into five types. First, the power may be used to permit the disclosure of the electoral registration information of under-16s to additional recipients beyond those provided for in clauses 8, 9 and 11. Secondly, it may be used to set out the purposes for which such information, once shared, may be used, and to attach further restrictions. Such restrictions may include whether that information can be shared with further parties.

Thirdly, the power may be used to amend clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. However, the amendments that may be made are subject to restrictions, which I will come to shortly. Fourthly, it may be used to create new offences relating to the disclosure of 14 and 15-year-olds’ electoral registration information, which are punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment. Fifthly, it may be used to apply the same restrictions that apply to disclosure by registration officers and those who currently assist them to any new categories of person who might be involved with the preparation of electoral registers and lists.

Three important restrictions are placed on that power, ensuring that the flexibility it provides to ensure our electoral system remains fit for purpose as times change does not come at the cost of appropriate scrutiny. The first and most important restriction is that although the types of information protected by clause 7 may be added to using this power, the categories of protected information cannot be reduced from what is in the Bill at the point it becomes law. That ensures that the type of data protected by this clause cannot be chipped away.

Secondly, before this power is used, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and anyone else that the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. Finally, regulations exercising this power are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulation-making power that this clause will create strikes the appropriate balance between appropriate legislative scrutiny and crucial flexibility to allow our electoral system to respond to external changes.

Clause 14 is an interpretation clause. It simply serves to define terms used in clauses 7 to 13. None of the definitions presented in this clause is unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “voters register”, “local government election” and “recall petition” and are included simply to provide clarity and precision to the previous seven clauses of this Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the Minister for giving us an extensive and very in-depth description of what those technical clauses—7 to 14—outline. I cannot claim to do those clauses credit in the way the Minister has. I will just briefly ask a number of questions on those technical clauses and then resume my seat—which I am sure many Members will be pleased to hear.

The Minister has outlined these various technical clauses, and the Opposition are not concerned that they might be controversial. As I said earlier, the issue of principle rather than pragmatism in re-engineering a system to where we basically currently are to cover the people that are being enfranchised is not controversial. However, there is a slight complication that could come out of some of these changes relating to overseas voters. We know that they are not really catered for in the Bill.

We heard a lot of evidence in the Bill Committee that a number of overseas voters are essentially disenfranchised. Looking at younger overseas voters and the precepts of these clauses applying to 14 and 15-year-olds, in some countries there may be a social media ban, for example. Similarly, in some countries it would not be easy for a candidate to access the information of people who will be eligible to vote at 16, but who are not covered by these clauses for the preparation at 14 and 15. Opposition Members would argue that this could have unintended consequences for a candidate’s ability to secure that data and approach those people as if they were living within the United Kingdom. I ask the Minister to reflect on that and whether it would be, not dangerous, but an added disincentive for an overseas voter to engage and vote within the British or UK political process.

On clause 13, as with various other Bills that the Government have put forward, I am concerned by the House’s affirmative procedure giving the Minister or the Secretary of State a huge amount of power to unilaterally bring in changes. I do not think that it makes for good democracy or scrutiny of legislation. We discussed this countless times during the Committee of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, where the Secretary of State will be given the power to make a decision through the affirmative procedure via secondary legislation, and individual Members of this House across all parties—but especially minor parties—cannot scrutinise that legislation in the way in which they should be able to. We all know how statutory instruments work in this place. Those Committees are probably among the briefer meetings that Members in this House have.

The Minister needs to reflect on the fact that the scrutiny and delivery of many of this Government’s pieces of legislation has not always achieved the right balance or tipped the scales in the right way. Members should have the opportunity to scrutinise properly and make changes to secondary legislation that the Secretary of State is empowered to bring. I ask her to look at that again and consider whether there is a better way. I understand the need to consult the Electoral Commission, but it is this place that makes the legislation and it is this place that should approve that legislation in a proper and thorough manner. I do not think that making the secondary legislation subject to the affirmative procedure is the right way to go.

However, we will not oppose any of the clauses, which, as Members can tell by my varied and wide-ranging speech, are very technical. I hope that the Minister will address my questions.

[The Chair]

I call Samantha Dixon to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote should be able, encouraged and supported to do so. Different authorities will have different approaches that will arise in different circumstances. Our provisions allow local authorities to take the most suitable approach when assisting people to get on the register. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, while the guidance will be national, the application will be appropriate to local circumstances.

[Paul Holmes]

As we have heard, the clause establishes a duty for local authorities in Great Britain to raise awareness and provide assistance to certain young people— particularly those who are looked after by the local authority, and those who are eligible for continuing care—in registering to vote. While the intention to support young voters is commendable, we believe that the clause has several limitations. Not only is its scope narrowly defined, but it is also vaguely defined by the words “raise awareness” and “provide assistance”. Notwithstanding what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, I want to expand on that ever so slightly.

As the clause is narrowly defined, it excludes other groups that may face barriers to registration, such as the homeless youth, young carers or those in unstable housing. The clause places significant responsibility on local authorities to determine and implement the steps necessary to fulfil the duty. While this should not be a requirement in legislation, there has also not been any signal or indication from Ministers of any Department that additional funding, staffing or guidance has been considered, which risks creating an inconsistent application process across different areas.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned earlier, we have both been lead members for children and young people’s services. It is not insulting to hard-working local authorities, lead members and officers across the country to say that there can be varying interpretations of the legal duties placed on them—whether they relate to vulnerable people in care or local authority children’s homes. Can the Minister provide reassurance that she will ensure that local authorities across the country will follow a universal interpretation? Due to the narrow scope of the people that the clause identifies, as well as the quite vague language of “provide assistance” and “raise awareness”, it risks creating a patchwork quilt across the UK and a variation in interpretation, which needs to be tightened up.

The Opposition are not opposed to the clause; it is admirable and does what is necessary. However, it needs to be tighter so that people responsible for implementing this legislation can do so in the best way possible, notwithstanding the fact that council and local authority officers dealing with young people do so every day throughout the country.

The limited resources may struggle to reach all eligible young people, particularly those who move between authority areas, or who are placed outside their home authority for extended periods. Additionally, the clause does not include measurable targets or deadlines, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of awareness-raising and assistance efforts. Finally, the type of support provided is narrowly focused on registration itself, and does not address broader barriers, such as literacy, digital access or understanding of the electoral process. The geographical limitation of the clause to Great Britain also creates inconsistencies across the UK.

Overall, while clause 15 represents a positive step towards increasing voter registration—I hope the Minister will speak later about raising awareness and enabling younger people through the education system—it focuses only on registration of vulnerable young people. Its narrow scope, reliance on local authority capacity and clear lack of performance measures may limit its practical impact. I am looking for some reassurance from the Minister that those issues have been looked at, and I hope she can alleviate some of the Opposition’s concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

This endeavour is an ongoing task; it is not a single point in time, which is what a report would reflect upon. The Government will move forward in partnership across the wide sector in public life, to continue to improve the education of young people. For that reason, we do not feel that the new clause is necessary.

[Paul Holmes]

I am pretty agnostic about new clause 44 because I think it is quite vague, but I understand the reason it has been tabled. Earlier I outlined a concern that I do not believe the education system is quite yet able to make sure that our younger people get the education that they should have before they vote in a national election, notwithstanding the fact that the education system needs to be impartial.

The Minister will know that some types of schools, such as academies, are not necessarily subject to the national curriculum. The legislation in these clauses is quite vague, as I mentioned. I am not sure that there is concrete action from the Minister’s Department and from the Department for Education on a cross-ministerial committee or something, to make sure that the two sides are being matched up to implement this legislation.

Will the Minister try to allay some of my concerns, and those of other hon. Members—perhaps the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, and the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled the new clause—about whether the education system will be well equipped, and whether all schools are going to be required to prepare young people for the new duty that they are going to be given?

[Samantha Dixon]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I do not think that I would because it would be a bureaucratic exercise, whereas the work needs to focus outwards. The scrutiny will come from within Parliament, and from within devolved Governments, so I will not accept the new clause as it stands.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly one more time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I was going to come to the points the hon. Gentleman had raised.

[Paul Holmes]

I want to add another one, if that is possible. The Minister is being most generous, and she has shown utter determination not to accept new clause 44. Does she think there is merit in reviewing how this new enfranchisement will work, perhaps through existing mechanisms when there is a review of how a general election has been conducted? I know that is not every year, but when organisations look at voting and participation rates and attitude surveys at or after a general election, is there an opportunity to legislate for a review, at the end of each Parliament or the start of a new one, into the attitudes and voting habits of those new electors, as part of a wider review of behaviour in the last general election?

[Samantha Dixon]

With respect to hon. Members who are clearly thinking on their feet as we debate this issue, I point out that a review of every general election is done by the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is accountable to Parliament. As it has been involved in this Bill and the legislation that falls from it, I am sure that it will be particularly interested in this approach to the extension of enfranchisement.

Finally, I turn to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley’s point regarding children in care and care leavers. I am pleased to join Opposition Members in declaring I was as a former council leader with corporate responsibility for young people in local authority care. I am acutely aware of their needs and the additional support they require. I have worked with council officers who routinely assist young people, particularly care leavers, in registering to vote and supporting them in the appropriate way as they do vote. I feel that electoral registration officers, with their unique roles within local authorities, will amply be able to support looked-after children and care leavers to exercise their right to vote. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17

Registration without an application

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 17, page 23, line 23, at end insert—

“(f) if the person’s existence has been properly verified using three separate datasets used for national and local data matching.”

This amendment requires the registration officer to register certain electors only when their existence has been verified through three different datasets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The point that I am attempting to make is that this piloting and the move towards auto-enrolment will enable EROs to test, based on a variety of different datasets, that the application is accurate, legitimate and not spurious or in any way fraudulent. While I note the hon. Gentleman’s point, these things are being done to avoid the scenario he has just described.

EROs will continue to exercise their knowledge and judgment to assess eligibility before they send someone a notice that they will be registered to vote. Before a person is automatically enrolled, they will be written to, but the ERO will have tested, through a variety of different datasets, whether that application is legitimate. We will test that robustly and fairly and with the guidance of partners such as the Electoral Commission.

[Paul Holmes]

I hope the Minister will forgive me—it is quite possible, indeed likely, that this is my ignorance—but she outlined the datasets the EROs will analyse. Will she clarify whether those will be the same datasets in each geographical area? If not, does that not risk creating a different set of parameters and methods for who would and would not be added to the register, which cannot be analysed at the end of the pilot? Does that make sense?

[Samantha Dixon]

Regrettably, the hon. Member may have to explain that to me again in a different way.

[Paul Holmes]

That is no reflection on the Minister; I do not think I explained it particularly well. The Minister outlined that the ERO will assess datasets to ascertain whether to add somebody to the electoral roll automatically. In the context of the pilots, would those datasets be the same types—the same original information sources—or could they vary, depending on who the ERO is and which geographical location they are in when adding someone to the electoral roll?

[Samantha Dixon]

The legislation takes forward the principle of piloting. The detail of those pilots will come through in secondary legislation. I will provide more clarity, if I can, for the hon. Member, but the principle of piloting is what we are talking about.

[Paul Holmes]

I am genuinely not trying to be difficult, because the concern I have is genuine; otherwise, I would be intentionally misleading the House, which I am not, I would not and I do not. The reason I asked the question is that we are about to take a significant step towards automatic registration. We have a disagreement, but that is what the Government are going to end up doing. It is therefore important that the data presents a secure and reliable way of putting people on the register. The reason I ask whether there will be different datasets or sources is that we cannot properly analyse the pilots if people are using different datasets.

How can the Minister be satisfied by saying that the principle of pilots must go ahead, but that the Government will unveil the detail in secondary legislation? We have seen this with this Government before, so it is not personal to the Minister, but that is a terrible way to draft legislation. The Minister and the Government are asking the Committee to make a significant change to the electoral registration system in this country, but they cannot tell us—we are straying into the next group, so I will reserve my comments for that—what the basic parameters will look like. How is that good public policymaking?

[Samantha Dixon]

To offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman, as set out in the Government’s policy paper, “A blueprint for modern digital government”, “technology presents us with” the opportunity to

“improve the way that government delivers for the public”.

Our ambition is to transform our electoral registration system, harnessing existing data from across Government to move to an automated system. We are working closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to assess whether the combined dataset that is already used to check registration applications and support the annual review of electoral registers could also help identify people who may not be registered. We are also working with the Home Office to explore whether its data could help to indicate whether people who are identified as eligible, but who are unregistered, appear to meet the nationality and immigration status requirements to vote. I hope that provides some comfort and clarity to the hon. Member. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment and commend clauses 17 to 19 and schedule 2 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

After the Minister’s winding up, I think it is even more necessary to push amendments 26 and 27 to a vote—particularly amendment 26, which concerns data checks. The Government are proposing a major change without the detail necessary to inform our decision on whether it should happen and with a lack of detail on the system to be proposed. They also cannot comment on what the datasets are or whether they could be different in different geographical locations. For all those reasons, I feel that I have to push both amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I do not think it will be a surprise to the Committee that I wholeheartedly agree. This is alien to me. Asking the Committee to vote on the principle of something without the detail and with absolutely no reassurance that the transparency and integrity of the system will be fundamentally better than it is now is bad law making and bad government.

[Samantha Dixon]

I have to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the integrity of the process will be challenged; that is not the Government’s intention in any way. The principle is that we will use the same Government datasets in each location, but also allow local EROs to use the local datasets that they have access to in addition to Government datasets. The principle of piloting is to test robustness and integrity—that is precisely why the pilots are so important.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister said that the intention is not for these things to be challenged on the basis of integrity, but that does not provide clarity or certainty at all—it does not mean that there will not be a challenge or that it will not be successful. That is because of the lack of detail and transparency. The Committee is expected to decide on a new system without the parameters being laid out clearly and to rely on the Secretary of State to determine what automatic registration should look like through secondary legislation after a pilot. The details and the systems have not been outlined clearly to the Committee. That is why we tabled amendment 26, which would ensure that an electoral returning officer has three individual forms of check.

The Minister just outlined that EROs in different locations can access different datasets to reassure themselves that they should be putting someone on the roll. That sounds very similar to an ERO being able to check the register for three datasets, which is outlined in amendment 26. It seems to me that she has accepted the principle that EROs might need to determine the security of automatically enrolling someone through a number of datasets. Why are the Government so scared to ask for three? That would ensure the integrity and security that the Minister claims she wants and that I believe she wants. However, she is resisting amendment 26, which does exactly what she claims she wants to and adds a bit more detail on how the pilots will go forward.

I am afraid that for those reasons—a complete lack of clarity and transparency, and an expectation that the Opposition should trust the Government to come forward with the right decision in secondary legislation—we will have to press both amendments to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and I hope to address them as we go forward.

Clause 21 makes clear that piloting regulations may be used to explore this ambition further, including by testing new and innovative ways of using Government data to identify individuals and support them to register, as well as testing potential improvements to administrative processes. Our ambition is to support a modern, efficient registration system that makes participation straightforward for citizens and strengthens the foundations of our democracy. The clause plays an important role in providing the framework through which that ambition can be pursued.

Clause 22 builds on clause 21 by providing further clarity on the scope of the piloting powers set out in clause 20. It makes clear that pilots will take place in one or more areas, and that they may assess the impact of new registration methods on specific demographic groups. The clause also confirms that, in most circumstances, pilots will proceed only with the consent of the relevant electoral registration officer. It is right that those directly responsible for administering the pilot are engaged, informed and supportive of the approach being taken.

Furthermore, clause 22 allows pilot regulations, on a temporary basis, to create, suspend or disapply an offence or financial penalty where that is necessary for the effective conduct of a pilot. However, they cannot increase penalties beyond existing legal limits, nor introduce penalties or offences for individuals who fail to register or update their details. That ensures that the legal framework operates sensibly during the testing period while maintaining appropriate protections and proportionality.

Clause 22 provides breadth, flexibility and practicality to the proposed piloting framework, giving clarity to officials without imposing an overly rigid or exhaustive set of rules. In doing so, the provisions ensure that pilot schemes can be designed in a measured, proportionate and genuinely useful way, supporting the Government to realise their ambition to modernise electoral registration and make it simpler for citizens to engage with the democratic process.

I now turn to clause 23, which provides that any pilot regulations made under the new power conferred on the Secretary of State in clause 20 must be made by statutory instrument. Parliament is the proper forum for the scrutiny and oversight of such powers. Electoral registration is a matter of significant importance and sensitivity, and it is therefore right that parliamentarians have the opportunity to examine in full any proposed regulations establishing a new pilot.

Clause 23 provides that all regulations made under this piloting power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, except where the regulations do no more than extend an existing pilot for no longer than 12 months, or amend the deadline by which the Electoral Commission must publish its evaluation report—in which case the SI will be subject to the negative procedure. Requiring the affirmative procedure for the vast majority of cases reflects the long-standing convention that changes to electoral law should receive the highest level of parliamentary scrutiny. Safeguarding the security and inclusivity of our electoral registration system must remain paramount.

Clause 24 provides that the Electoral Commission will evaluate any pilots and produce a report. The Electoral Commission serves as an essential independent guardian of the integrity and transparency of our democratic processes. By upholding rigorous standards and providing impartial oversight, it helps ensure that electoral matters across the United Kingdom are conducted properly, securely and with public confidence.

By placing the Electoral Commission’s independent assessment at the heart of the evaluation of any electoral registration pilot, we ensure that Parliament, stakeholders and the public receive a clear, objective and authoritative appraisal of any pilot’s effectiveness. The clause reinforces our commitment to rigorous independent scrutiny by requiring the report to address specific issues. That includes an assessment of the extent to which a pilot has met its objectives and an evaluation of whether the changes made by the regulations represent a cost-effective means of achieving them.

Although we are ambitious about delivering a modern, more automated electoral registration system fit for the 21st century, we are equally mindful that robust processes and independent evaluation must remain integral to the testing of any new registration method. Clause 25 provides definitions for the four key terms used throughout clauses 20 to 24. This is an interpretive provision that defines key terms and is necessary for the operation of those clauses. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Dame Siobhain. I do not know why I said that—it is a habit. But it is always lovely to see you; it is reminiscent of the 2015 general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The existing canvass regime in Northern Ireland is unfit for purpose. The current system requires the register to be recreated from scratch every 10 years and specifies that electors must re-register as part of the canvass to remain on the register. Electors who do not respond to canvass are removed from the register even if the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland holds data to confirm that they are eligible. That means there is a risk that a significant number of eligible electors are lost from the register, impacting its integrity and accuracy. The Government are legislating to address those challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass.

The aim of this reform is to move towards a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. Crucially, it will also avoid the arbitrary removal of eligible voters and improve the accuracy of the Northern Ireland register. Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland, with whom we are working closely on the new system.

[Paul Holmes]

Can the Minister outline what political engagement she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on what they make of these proposals, and whether she has had written communications from them on that?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will write to the hon. Gentleman on those points at a later date, if I may. However, the First Minister and officers attended one of our evidence sessions, and I have engaged with colleagues who attended drop-ins as a result of this legislation coming forward.

[Paul Holmes]

If the Bill passes, will it require a legislative consent motion?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will hopefully come to that point, but it will not.

The details of the new canvass system will be set out in regulations following consultation with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland and the Electoral Commission, and will be subject to piloting. This change will support increased participation in elections in Northern Ireland and bring the Northern Ireland canvass system into closer alignment with Great Britain.

Clause 27 is a consequence of clause 26. Before making any regulations under clause 26, the Secretary of State is required to consult the Electoral Commission. Where the commission has been consulted, clause 27 places a duty on it to prepare a report about a proposal to make regulations under clause 26, which is the new power to amend the canvass.

Reform of the Northern Ireland canvass is supported by the Electoral Commission, and officials will work closely with the commission on it. It is important that the commission has an opportunity to consider the details of the new canvass system to ensure that the proposed changes are effective and robust before they are implemented. The provision mirrors the role that the Electoral Commission had when the canvass system was reformed in Great Britain.

Clause 28 is also a consequence of clause 26. The Government are legislating to address current challenges and to reform and modernise the Northern Ireland canvass. The aim of this reform is to move toward a more regular and lighter-touch canvass system. However, these are technical and complex changes, and it is important that we get them right, so it is proper that the new canvass system will be subject to successful piloting. We will work closely with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland on the design of any pilots. I commend clause 28 to the Committee.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for outlining clauses 26 to 29. I believe that all parties represented on the Committee agree with devolution. The Minister outlined that there has been consultation with the chief electoral officer and officials in Northern Ireland, but given that we are entering a period of devolution, and of Governments, Cabinets, First Ministers and Members of Parliament across this great United Kingdom, I am slightly concerned that we have not had any detail about which relevant Cabinet Minister in Northern Ireland has been consulted on these proposals—not only in relation to the reports from the Electoral Commission that will be required, but on the Government’s proposed pilot in Northern Ireland. We have not heard what the democratically elected Executive, local Members of Parliament or local authorities in Northern Ireland think of that, and that concerns me.

I hope that the Minister might outline, perhaps with the help of her excellent officials, whether the political leads in Northern Ireland have come back with their views on the proposals. It is okay for officials to do so, but officials advise and Ministers decide—that is my old mantra. It is one thing for the chief electoral officer, with whom I have no issue whatsoever—he is doing an admirable job—to say that he is okay with the proposals, but I would have thought that the UK Government should have the consent of the Executive. It concerns me that we have not had such an assurance from the Minister today.

[Paul Holmes]

My hon. Friend raises a good point that I had not thought of, as is normally the case. I am concerned that the political leadership have not given their sign-off or their thoughts, and that this Committee should be given the views of the Northern Ireland Administration. Having briefly served as a shadow Northern Ireland Minister, I understand the differences and the unique nature of the politics of Northern Ireland, and he is right to say that people who live in Northern Ireland could be eligible to vote in a number of elections in different countries. When it comes to the Province, it is therefore important that we get clarity on how the pilot, and the lack of information about it, might affect the different rules in different countries.

We remain concerned. As with the last group of amendments and clauses, there is no detail on what the pilots might look like, particularly under clause 28. In her last winding-up speech, the Minister stated that the Government are designing the pilots and are looking at how to make them the best they can be, but a Government propose things, and they should know what they want a pilot to look like in order to get the policy outcome before they come to this House and expect us to approve legislation. I say gently to the Minister that if the Government have a policy they want to achieve, they should have some idea about how they will get there and what a pilot might look like.

Clause 28, on the power to pilot proposals under clause 26, does not really contain any detail as to what such pilots might look like. Under clause 29,

“If pilot regulations are made, the Electoral Commission must…prepare a report on the pilot regulations, and…before the date specified under section 28(4), give a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.”

In none of the proposals in the Bill is the First Minister of Northern Ireland, or the relevant Cabinet Minister in the Executive, included in any reporting mechanisms; it is only the Secretary of State and the chief electoral officer. If we want to harness great cross-border relations, it is very important that the democratically elected devolved Government have some kind of say, even if it is after the fact and about whether they think it was a success.

We have a number of concerns about the holes in these clauses, and we look to see what reassurances the Minister can give us before we decide whether to press them to a Division.

[Samantha Dixon]

To reassure Members, we have worked very closely with the Northern Ireland Office, as well as other devolved Governments, in the development of the Bill. Elections in Northern Ireland are an entirely reserved matter for the UK Government. Notwithstanding that, colleagues from all parties across Parliament were invited to come to drop-in sessions. A number of Northern Ireland colleagues did, and I also met the leadership of those parties that wished to meet me as we developed the legislation.

I beg your indulgence, Dame Siobhain, and that of the Committee: I should have spoken to clause 29 at the same time that I addressed the other clauses in the group. Clause 29 is a consequence of clause 28, which provides for the piloting power in relation to amending the Northern Ireland canvass by regulations. As I noted earlier, it is proper that the new canvass system is subject to successful piloting. It is also important that the Electoral Commission has an opportunity to consider any canvass pilots and report on their effectiveness and robustness before they are implemented. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley and I will have to agree to disagree about the role of piloting. In my view, it is the way that we iteratively and robustly test ways in which a policy can be delivered. When we get to secondary legislation, the specifics of the piloting powers will be set out, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise those powers.

[Paul Holmes]

How can a policy be tested robustly if the Government have not outlined the policy position or what they want to get out of a pilot, and we do not know how robustly that is going to be tested, because the details of the pilots are not outlined in primary legislation and would come only through secondary legislation?

[Samantha Dixon]

We could go over and over this point. The Government have set out, in some detail, their objectives for the electoral system. In the case of the Northern Ireland canvass, we have set out the principles, we want to test them, we are taking the powers to test them, and we will come back to Parliament with specifics of those pilots so that they can be scrutinised as profoundly and deeply as Members choose to scrutinise them.

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

Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Samantha Dixon and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Q I have a brief question in relation to something that was said. We agree that the bank card proposals are flawed, so we have tabled amendment 30. I do not expect you to know what that amendment is, and I am about to tell you: it would ensure that only

“bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment”

could be used as voter ID, as we do with loans and the like. We understand that it is not a brilliant amendment, because we do not believe that that part of the legislation should be included at all, but do you think that having a bank card with a hard credit check would make any difference to the process, or—this is probably for you, Mr Stanyon—would it be better if that was not included in the legislation?

Peter Stanyon: I think the latter in terms of the uncertainty. The difficulty in putting that in place is that the individuals dealing with this at the polling stations are effectively volunteers. We already have a list of 23 versions of voter ID available, and it is quite a complicated process. Ultimately, if a bank card is presented and it is to the standard that the staff have been trained to receive, they will accept it, so the hard credit check thing will be more for the central control of the election than it would be for the staff at the station.

Councillor Bentley: I agree. I think that it is difficult to have that included, but I would re-emphasise that if it is, you must be very clear that it is not local government staff who will be at fault if someone commits an offence.

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

Q As may be obvious, I have met most of our witnesses today previously. Where in the Bill do you think things will improve, and what do you see as measures that will make our elections more effective?

Peter Stanyon: The first thing to say is that, as an association, we are pleased that the vast majority of the Bill echoes what we put in our blueprint following the last general election; there were lots of issues with the actual mechanics of the election. There are the more high-profile things such as votes at 16 or automatic registration, but if you ask an administrator, we are more concerned about the mechanics of delivering the election.

It is accepted that the timetable will not extend beyond 25 days, and there are lots of reasons for that. However, we feel that the moves to alter the deadlines for nominations to be received and to move the deadline for the receipt of postal vote applications go a long way to providing that wiggle room within the elections timetable. That will allow administrators to work with their suppliers to get postal votes out and to ensure that there are no issues on that side of the process.

There are lots of things in the Bill regarding the status of the returning officer in the local authority, and we echo the view that it should be a senior officer of the local authority. How that will be policed is another matter, but it gives the local authority the ability to assist the returning officer, because they will have that punching power within the local authority itself.

There are also lots of things about the postal vote replacements that were learned at the last general election. We are very reliant on third parties; once a postal vote leaves the control of the returning officer, Royal Mail will do all it can to deliver that, but there will be breakdowns in the system. The fact that the Bill gives the ability to put the elector back first in those situations is really important, because it is not their fault if they have not been able to receive a postal vote.

There are lots of really good bits in the Bill. The only areas where we have concerns relate to things I have mentioned already: bank cards, some things around the nominations process and the identity checks being proposed, and the lead-in time for the 16 and 17-year-olds. Those are the three big areas that we have concerns about. The rest of it makes absolute sense in terms of the mechanics of delivering the election and should address some of the issues that were quite high profile at the last general election.

Councillor Bentley: Anything that encourages people and makes voting easier has to be welcomed. That is very important.

I will pull out two things in addition to what my colleague said. One thing that we are learning about now —it has started to happen for the first time—is re-registering for a postal vote. That needs to be much better co-ordinated and to have much better communications. We are seeing already people who have not re-registered because they did not realise that they needed to. It depends on the local authority and how and when they communicate, but more of a national campaign would be helpful in all that.

The other piece is around harassment during elections. It is a specific part of the Bill, but I think it is very important. While freedom of speech is very important in our country, freedom to harass certainly is not. That needs to be emphasised to people. What is being proposed is right, but we need to emphasise that more. People should be encouraged to stand for public, elected office, but we hear anecdotally that many are put off by the harassment they receive on social media and so on. Freedom of speech is very important; freedom to harass certainly is not. I would like to really see that emphasised within the Bill. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

You will have noticed some scepticism from the previous panel—I do not think it is ungenerous to say that—about the proposals for using bank cards as a form of identification. In your role, do you have concerns about the Government’s proposals to water down photo voter ID?

Vijay Rangarajan: We are also concerned about the bank cards proposal; that is largely for the administrative reasons the previous witnesses set out, so I will not repeat those. We do see growing public support for voter ID—73% of the British public are now in favour of it, up from 65% in 2024—and the way we have implemented it has broadly worked. About 0.1% of people in Great Britain were unable to vote, because of voter ID, and it definitely put off some voters, so there is a slight cost to this. However, in Northern Ireland, after 25 years of voter ID, it has become part of the fabric of how people vote.

Rather than continually changing the system, it would be helpful to allow a broad range of voter IDs—which should probably stay with the existing security standard to maintain public trust—and give some stability to the system. In time, people will get used to it; we are already well above 90% of people knowing that they have to bring voter ID. Again, before this May’s elections, and before every election, we will run, in areas where voter ID is needed, a campaign to remind people to bring voter ID.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q We work very closely with the Electoral Commission, but you act without fear or favour. It is important for your independence to be respected and for your objectivity as an organisation to be carried forward for the future. In your objective view, how will the proposals in the Bill progress the security of and participation in elections?

Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you, Minister. Broadly, we very much welcome the Bill. If I might go into a little detail about which areas, it picks up some of the crucial changes after the 2024 general election. For example, the change from 11 days to 14 days on postal voting will make a real difference, particularly in Scotland. We saw real issues about that in our post-poll report; I will not run through all of those, but the changes in the strategic review part are very important.

As I said, we very much welcome the changes on campaign finance. We would like to see that go further in the company donations area; our proposal is to use profit, not turnover, as the metric for what a company should be able to donate, and it should be able to donate that profit only once every year.

We strongly welcome the provisions on automatic voter registration, because up to 8 million eligible British voters are not on the register. That is even more important with the other part of the Bill—votes at 16—coming in. Being able to add attainers at 14 and 15, and then letting 16 and 17-year-olds be on the register, will remove a very clear barrier. Last week, we had “Welcome to Your Vote Week”, and that issue was raised quite broadly by youth organisations as yet another barrier for 16-year-olds. We also strongly welcome the elements on candidate safety, and they should all help.

Overall, it is a very strong welcome: the Bill is necessary, and it picks up some long-standing recommendations, as I have said. We also warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to repeal the SPS—the strategy and policy statement—for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. The Bill will never completely fix everything. I think this will be the 27th Representation of the People Act, so there is a never-ending process of trying to keep this going. A lot of work needs to be done outside the Bill—for example, with the police or on social media—but it will distinctly help with many of the processes involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q I am sorry to keep focusing on this point, but can you explain to the Committee how you would deem bank cards to be more secure than someone just turning up with a polling card, as they used to under the old system?

Dr Garland: I go back to my point about needing something that people carry on them, which has their name on it and provides the base level of knowing who that person is, as the policy initially set out. We could achieve that in a number of ways. In the voter ID pilots poll cards were used, and those pilots with poll cards as an option saw the fewest number of people turned away, so we know that those more accessible forms of ID are going to be better for the scheme altogether.

For most people, however, bank cards have really good coverage. We also have to think about what newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to access. That is part of the whole question of what we should be looking at—what will cause the least damage when it comes to people turning up to vote?

[Samantha Dixon]

Q In the strategy that the Government published last year, we set out that our electoral system is not keeping pace with an ever-changing world. How will the Bill bring us forward and keep us up to date?

Dr Garland: Many of the changes feel to me that they have been a long time coming: we heard from the Electoral Commission, which made a lot of these recommendations, about tightening political finance many years ago. There have been the large gaps in the completeness of our electoral register since at least 2011, and the Electoral Commission’s feasibility study was back in 2019. A lot of the changes are therefore catching up, rather than keeping pace.

One area where it is challenging to keep pace is in the digital sphere and online campaigning, but also in political finance. The Bill currently does not address cryptocurrency, which is a fast-changing area, so there are certainly areas where it is difficult to keep pace. “Keeping pace” is an important way to think about it, because of course in a democracy, unless we are moving forwards, we are necessarily sliding backwards. That is a challenge. We have to keep changing in order to protect what we have.

The one area that has changed the most in the past two years has been the electoral landscape. We are seeing things that we have never seen before—massive party system fragmentation and huge amounts of voter volatility—and that is having an effect on the operation of our electoral system. I appreciate that that is not covered in the Bill, but that does feel like one area where the Bill might find itself a bit out of step with what is happening in the wider electoral landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you all for your answers.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q It has been a pleasure to work with the devolved Administrations in the interministerial work that I have done. Also, the officials have worked across all the Governments in the UK, which has been very productive. All of you have mentioned alignment, and that is an ambition that the Government have set out in this Bill. To what degree have we achieved that, and where could we go further?

Karen Jones: Thank you for the question, and thank you again, Minister, for the opportunity to contribute to the early stages of this Bill. We are really pleased to see a number of the long-standing proposals from administrators to make life a lot easier for voters and also administrators reflected in the Bill. We are very much supportive of that.

In terms of alignment, the devil will be in the detail, as we look at the rules for implementing the policies that the Bill contains. As I was saying about automatic voter registration, it will come down to the franchise and the timing elements. It may well be that we have to live with some disruption in the short term while we pursue greater alignment in the medium to long term. I think it is a step in the right direction, but more work will need to be done as we look at the detail of the Bill’s implementation.

Similarly, if there is a UK-wide approach to votes at 16 and 17, it will make it easier to engage with young people. We have found with votes at 16 and 17 in Senedd elections that, because we have years in between when young people are not casting their vote, the engagement can be a bit stop-start. But a consistent policy across the UK will make it much easier for us to work collectively to make sure that young people and others are educated as to why they need to participate in the democratic process and understand how to go about exercising the franchise they have been given.

Malcolm Burr: I do not have a lot to add, but alignment should be there unless there is a good policy reason for it not being there. Policy divergence is inherent in devolution—that is what devolution is about: there can be different policy choices in different areas—but administrative divergence should be avoided wherever possible.

This is the occasion to mention the Law Commission’s welcome recommendation that there should be a consolidation of electoral law as far as possible, because it is a highly complex set of legislation and regulation, and it is more than time for a consistent legislative framework governing all elections, recognising the policy divergences across the various nations. Unnecessary divergence leads to confusion for voters, as well as inconvenience to electoral staff, so alignment should be a very clear aim, except where there is a good principle or policy reason for not aligning.

Robert Nicol: Administrators can and do make difficult things work in the background. We absolutely recognise each Parliament’s right to legislate as it sees fit. The difficulty we have is when electors are asked to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing. If an elector wants to register to vote, for example, and we say to them, “It’s okay, I’ve automatically registered you for this register, but you need to fill in that other form,” that not only makes me look daft as an electoral registration officer but causes confusion for the elector and does not help with overall confidence in the system. We have seen that recently with the postal vote divergence that happened, which has proven difficult and probably costly to stitch back together.

The Bill will enable people to register at 14. That does not align with Wales, but it aligns with Scotland, which is very welcome. There are other areas that are very welcome, but the Bill also has the potential to create different kinds of divergence if it is not implemented carefully. Administrators will do what they need to do, but think very, very carefully when asking an elector to do something different for what they perceive to be the same thing.

Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Samantha Dixon and Paul Holmes

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes]

Mr Marshall, don’t feel you need to, but if you want to add something, you are more than entitled to.

David Marshall: I have nothing further to add.

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

Q It is very pleasing to meet you both, as the two most important people in Northern Ireland’s elections, I would suggest. Thank you for joining us today. How do you see the Bill making things easier for running elections in Northern Ireland?

David Marshall: I manage a relatively small team in Belfast who run elections here. It is not the equivalent of Great Britain, where there are teams in local councils. There is an Electoral Office that covers all 11 councils here in Northern Ireland. We are tasked with running two sets of elections in May 2027—both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the local council elections—so most of my work and thinking is around that.

The Bill has a commitment to review the canvass law in Northern Ireland, which is very welcome indeed. The canvass law in Northern Ireland has not kept pace with changes in Great Britain, and it really needs to. That is an important step forward. In terms of the nomination process, the requirement for candidates to show a form of ID is a really sensible step forward, given the problems in Great Britain in 2024, and it would be relatively straightforward to implement. We think that is a great idea, as well as the timelines. As I understand it, the Bill brings forward a 12 noon timeline for the last day of nominations, which will help in terms of ballot paper proofing and then getting postal votes out to voters that bit earlier, which will obviously make it easier for them to take part in the election.

There are a whole host of other changes to postal vote deadlines for Great Britain, which in this instance aligns Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I am all for alignment if it changes Great Britain to be the same as Northern Ireland. That is really helpful. Lastly, from an electoral administrator’s perspective, the new penalties for intimidatory behaviour towards staff are critical, and it is really important that those are brought in. It is a really good step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you for your time, both of you.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q The voting age has obviously already been lowered in Wales and Scotland. As we approach the Bill, and it hopefully becomes law, allowing young people to participate by voting in our elections, what lessons do you think we should learn from the experience in Wales and Scotland over recent years?

Harriet Andrews: We have a really great split screen on this because we work in England and in Wales, in particular. At the moment, we are preparing loads of young people for the Senedd election. We are running 16 youth hustings for young people at the moment in Wales, so we have a lot of on-the-ground experience of this. I would say that supporting young people at 16 and supporting young people at 18 are not particularly different; it is the same process of preparing them to engage and vote.

From our experience in Wales, I can say that young people are taking it really seriously. They are thinking about the responsibility and are really excited to vote. The work that we are doing with young people is a positive experience, and they are engaging really well. If there are any worries about harm being done to young people aged 16, our on-the-ground experience suggests that that is absolutely not the case.

The one thing that we see in Wales is that votes at 16 needs to come alongside support—particularly democratic education and engagement in schools—so that young people know how to vote. Just changing the voting age in itself will not lead to a mass change in the way young people engage with politics and democracy. The lack of support in Wales has meant that there is not loads and loads of engagement at 16, so the surrounding support is really important, regardless of the voting age.

Andy Mycock: I have been involved in the evaluations of both the Scottish and the Welsh lowering of the voting age, and I have advised both Governments on that work. The first thing is that the lessons from 1969 were not learned in either of those cases. Simply lowering the voting age on its own does not have a mercurial effect in encouraging young people to engage and vote. The big problem is that there is a need to have a significant framework of support for young people as they grow up, before they vote, whatever the voting age is.

At present, in Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom, there is a disconnection between the different stages of school—between primary, secondary, and further and higher education. The 50% of young people who do not go to university are dropped completely in terms of their support. It is a huge issue, and I urge you to look at it. What happens in schools and outside schools is very poorly connected, and what happens online is almost unregulated. There is a huge opportunity to think about media, information and political literacy at this point.

I urge you to think about what the House of Lords called a civic journey—the ability to connect all those different interventions and policies from Governments at different levels to a set of clear policy ambitions. At the moment, votes at 16 has very little in terms of a clear agenda for success, beyond the idea that young people might vote a little more over their lifetime. In Scotland and Wales, that has not happened.

In the independence referendum of 2014, 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds voted. It was seen as a huge success, until you look at the average turnout, which was 85%. Young people aged 16 and 17 in Scotland, although they vote more than their 18 to 24-year-old peers, continue to vote at considerably lower rates than the average turnout. That is because neither Government thought at the time they lowered the voting age about significant, consistent support for every young person as they grow up. They need to be heard, listened to and engaged with, not just in their lessons but in their communities. They need to meet you and local and other elected representatives regularly so that they feel they are part of the democracy, regardless of whether they are enfranchised or not.

The other thing that did not happen in 1969 was any evidence-based approach to finding out what the effect of lowering the voting age was. Lowering the voting age to 18 in 1969 was a policy failure. In every election after that until the late 1990s, turnout among 18 to 24-year-olds fell. This is likely to be a similar situation. Votes at 16 needs to learn to adopt an evidence-informed approach. We need a longitudinal study of the effects of what is happening. It is remarkable that this country does not have a centre for research around democracy. We have one on electoral studies, but we do not aggregate what is happening out there in the democracy.

As I said at the start, we are in a moment of huge precarity in terms of the future strength of British democratic resilience. I urge this Committee to think about how Government, Parliament, academia, and wonderful organisations such as the one Hattie represents and the Electoral Commission can come together and think about how we start to build an evidence base that starts to learn from the policy interventions that we invest in. We must start to think about the future health of British democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Q Professor Bernal, do you have anything to add?

Professor Bernal: I have one thing to add, and it is a very simple one: I would like the open register to be abolished—straightforwardly abolished. As a privacy expert, it seems to me that it creates more risks. In the age that we are in at the moment, we need to reduce the risks as much as possible.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q We have talked about automatic voter registration, which obviously operates in other countries around the world. Where have you seen good practice? What examples can you give to the Committee that we should consider?

Professor James: You can think of two basic, broad clusters of countries that have automatic voter registration in one form or the other. In one set of countries, you have a central single record for every single citizen: what might be called a civil population register. Those are countries such as Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands or Germany. That is where automatic voter registration is simpler to implement because, in practice, what happens is that, in short, there is a copy and paste of that register ahead of election day.

In other countries, including in Canada and Australia, there is not a single record for every single individual. What those countries have done recently—I say “recently”; it has been over the course of the last 20 years—is move towards automatic voter registration by automatically enrolling groups of people using specific pieces of data at points when they know the data is accurate and reliable. In the UK context, Canada and Australia are probably the most relevant examples.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

If the Minister decides to make me the MP for overseas voters, I am more than happy to do surgeries across the world.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q Outer Mongolia, perhaps?

As an aside to Paul’s point, I do receive correspondence from constituents who live overseas, usually in respect of their pension arrangements. However, to tackle the point about apathy or disengagement, the Bill includes powers to pilot automatic voter registration. Do you think that that would be a valuable tool for overseas voters?

Colin Blackwell: As others have touched on, awareness is everything. Conservatives Abroad believes that what is vital above all else is raising awareness of the right to vote and encouraging overseas citizens to register, which is now done online.

Historically, the civil service has always said, “Oh, we can’t contact Brits overseas because we don’t keep a register. We don’t know where they live. We don’t know who they are.” That raises the question of how this part of the electorate would be suitable for automatic registration.

Today’s Government services are delivered digitally and electronically in a way that was not done before. Many Departments now interact digitally with millions of British citizens living overseas. The most obvious one is the Passport Office: half a million passports from overseas are renewed every year—over 10 years, that is 5 million. The international pension centre at the Department for Work and Pensions deals with more than a million overseas pensions. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office keeps registers of Brits in individual countries. Lastly, the first place people go when they move overseas is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to change their address. Millions of British people living overseas still pay British taxes in one form or another or make voluntary NI contributions.

What I am saying is that, if all these digital interactions between Government and overseas Brits were brought together, and a link to the online voter registration page were automatically provided in those interactions, you would overnight reach potentially millions of this invisible electorate with the exact place they need to go to register to vote. That is the approach that Conservatives Abroad would suggest you look at.

Imogen Tyreman: Automatic voter registration pilots are a great thing to look into, especially for overseas voters. I agree that we should look at how registering for a passport could link to registering to vote. Yes, it might miss some Brits, but unfortunately we do not keep a record of emigration, so it is the best opportunity we have. However, there needs to be a package of other measures or that will not necessarily affect turnout.

We see lower turnout in countries that have passive registration, so there must be accompanying measures, even if it is through the Electoral Commission, to help us to contact voters abroad to inform them. That could be something like a free post or an opt-in registration. Such options need to be explored, and the timeline for renewal also needs to be considered to make sure that people stay on the register.

Richard Williams: I agree with all the points that have just been made. There is one group of people who have emigrated who might fall through the cracks if you look just at the HMRC records of people who have emigrated: those born to British parents overseas. These people may have a right to citizenship but have never lived in the country. They have specific difficulties even getting on to the electoral register. In many cases, they need to provide evidence of their parents’ birth certificate and their own birth certificate, and then there is a question of where their vote should be assigned. This topic came up in discussions with other Labour International members.

Beyond that, if we speak about the choice architecture, we certainly echo the sentiment that we are in favour of trialling automatic and automated voter registration. One topic that came up in discussion with our members, which is perhaps a way to look at doing this, was the idea of automatic reminders upon passport renewal, which is an interaction that many Brits abroad will have. If you structured that in such a way that people would then have the choice—ticking a box to say, “Yes, I want to be on the register,” or “No, I do not want to be on the register”—it would simplify and consolidate the process for many people.

There is then the question of whether there is an opt-in or opt-out approach. In the notes accompanying the Bill from the House of Commons Library, there was a reference to the Sheffield University case study in which 75% of students were enrolled on the electoral register through a process whereby they were prompted upon their annual enrolment for university. That figure compares with 13% for other universities. If that system were explored in a pilot for voters abroad, we might expect to see similar results just by structuring the choice in such a way that people have this prompt, and we could then ask whether it should be an opt-in or an opt-out choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I would be one of the people sad enough to go to the National Archives to look at them, so I am fully in favour of it.

Azzurra Moores: Me too.

Chris Morris: See you there.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q Chris, you very ably pointed out how technology moves at breakneck speed and takes us forward, and it has been recognised that our electoral system is not keeping pace with it. Is there any way in which either of you feel that the Bill takes us forward and brings us up to speed—anything at all?

Chris Morris: It is not all doom and gloom. If we take the example of digital imprints, measures have been taken to extend the digital imprint regime. Our argument is simply that it does not go far enough, and it should go further. For example, it should cover things like fake newspapers or websites, which can be set up in seconds, that do not include their political party affiliation. The digital imprint regime is being slightly improved by the Bill, but it is simply not ambitious enough.

We also have to think not just of 2026, but of 2029. If you look at how technology has changed since the last general election in 2024, it is almost in a different league. I regularly ask my head of AI, “Where are we going to be in three years’ time?”, and he usually says, “I’m not sure where we are going to be in three months’ time.” We need to have the flexibility to make sure that the measures are as wide as possible, because even if we broaden them in the way that we suggest to include a wider variety of things, by 2029 we may be looking back and saying that it probably was not enough.

Azzurra Moores: It is very hard to disagree with Chris. The imprints work is huge progress. Obviously, it could go further, but I appreciate that a lot of the things we are asking for were not in scope when the Bill was being drafted. Does it cover the issues we are talking about? No, because it never intended to. That is where we are saying there is a real opportunity for the Bill to go further and be wider.

While it may have started with a narrow scope, perhaps once you hear what Philip Rycroft says through his review—and read our amendments slightly further—it will be appreciated that there is an opportunity to say, “How else can we make the Bill safeguard elections for the future?”

Chris Morris: To add to that, on a slightly different part of the legislation, it is good that the Electoral Commission will have greater powers on information sharing and enforcement, but we would like to see it have greater powers on information gathering.

There is a bit of a gap on who is responsible for regulating in that area. We would have liked to see that covered in the Online Safety Act 2023 and given to Ofcom. That did not happen, but one thing that could and should happen in this legislation is giving the Electoral Commission the power to compel people to hand over information or documents really quickly, such as in the heat of an election campaign, without having to turn it into a formal investigation, which as you probably know is laborious and takes time. A lot of this is about agility as well as transparency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Thank you, and thank you for the work you have been doing.

[Samantha Dixon]

Q What is your assessment of the “know your donor” regime set out in the Bill?

Dr Susan Hawley: We welcome the introduction of the “know your donor” regime, and the clarifications that it will have robust penalties for parties and candidates who do not undertake proper risk assessments. I am afraid that it currently needs some tweaks to be strengthened.

Obviously, we do not want to impose too much of a burden on parties but, if we are addressing foreign interference, it is very odd that the current “know your donor” policy does not say anything about addressing the potential source of wealth from high-risk jurisdictions or politically exposed persons. That is our first point. Any other regulated sector would and does need to address those risks.

Secondly, as the policy is currently framed, we think there is far too much discretion for political parties to decide what the risks are. That is unhelpful, because there will be inconsistent application of risk assessments across parties. That discretion should be reduced.

Finally, we have concerns that the fact that the Electoral Commission’s guidance can essentially be changed by the Secretary of State could lead to it being completely overridden, and that would be really problematic. We would like to see safeguards to ensure that cannot happen if there is to be a power for the Secretary of State to amend the Electoral Commission’s guidance.

Quarries: Planning Policy

Debate between Samantha Dixon and Paul Holmes

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for securing the debate, his constituents for attending, and all hon. Members who have spoken. A number of hon. Members have raised concerns about the development of quarries and referred to specific planning applications in their constituencies. They will understand that I am unable to comment on specific cases, but I hope that the position I am about to set out will provide some reassurance.

I recognise that proposals for new or extended quarries are often controversial and unpopular locally. Once permitted, minerals extraction at individual sites can often take place over very many years, so if it is not planned for and managed in an appropriate manner, communities living nearby can be faced with the impacts associated with the development for a long time.

However, I want to reassure hon. Members that the planning system provides a robust framework to make sure that the impacts of minerals development are appropriately considered and addressed through both the plan-making and decision-making processes. Chapter 17 of the current NPPF sets out policies on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals to support that. In relation to plan making, the framework is clear that planning policy should

“set out criteria or requirements to ensure that permitted and proposed operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment or human health, taking into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality.”

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Samantha Dixon]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on.

In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to

“ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”.

The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that

“any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”.

As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.

[Samantha Dixon]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech.

The NPPF further states:

“Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Samantha Dixon]

I am not going to take any interventions.

The NPPF continues:

“and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.”

That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).

[Paul Holmes]

On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Whether the Minister gives way is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

I refer to my earlier comments about the consultation due to be launched on the national planning policy framework, which I hope the CPRE and all local communities will participate in.

Restoration also offers the opportunity to enhance the environment. Possible uses of land, once minerals extraction is complete, include the creation of new habitats and biodiversity, and use for agriculture, forestry and recreational activities, such as surfing centres.

I conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for South Leicestershire and other hon. Members for participating in this debate. I want to reassure them that the Government take planning policy for quarries and the concerns that they and others have raised very seriously. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire has set out a number of issues and put a number of questions to me—

[Paul Holmes]

Will the Minister give way briefly before she concludes?

[Samantha Dixon]

I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.

[Paul Holmes]

I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.

[Samantha Dixon]

Dr Murrison, it is not my intention to offend anybody. I have previously referred to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. If he writes to me, I am sure his concerns can be addressed in the appropriate way.

The Government do take these issues seriously, as is reflected in our robust planning framework, which protects communities and the environment while enabling industry to get on with the job of providing the minerals that we need to build 1.5 million new homes and new infrastructure, and to support our growing economy.