Local Government Reorganisation

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats support genuine devolution, because decisions are better made closer to the communities they affect, yet this Labour Government’s approach has been top-down Whitehall diktat from the very start. Councils have been undermined, residents have been barely consulted, and communities have been left in the dark about the future of local services, all while councils continue to face significant financial pressure.

With the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) expected to saunter into No. 10 within days, I am deeply concerned that Members of this House, councils and residents have no clarity about the approach to local government reorganisation that he will take, whether the parameters will change, and whether future local elections will be cancelled yet again. What discussions has the Minister had with the right hon. Member for Makerfield about his plans for reorganisation, and will she commit to no further local elections being cancelled?

[Alison McGovern]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asks me what conversations I have had with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield; I am afraid that they have been mainly about Everton and Liverpool football club. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] Indeed.

The work of this Government to secure devolution and reshape local government, so that we can grow our economy, build homes and serve our constituents properly, has been thought through carefully and is proceeding in line with the timetable. I am sure that all of us in this House, whatever our views, want that to succeed.

Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his opening remarks, and the petitioners who brought the petition today.

Public trust in our democracy is sadly at an all-time low due to broken manifesto commitments, resignations or just the perceived lack of accountability that has led to general political disillusion for so many. Every failure of standards and every perception that rules do not apply equally risks further damaging confidence in not only us as MPs but our democratic institutions.

The petition was signed by over 200,000 people across the country, including 227 of my constituents in Guildford, and it asks a question that goes to the heart of our democracy: who is fit to stand for public office and how do we protect the institutions that make our democracy work? We Liberal Democrats believe that we should be working hard to restore public confidence in our democratic institutions. Those who have sought to undermine that confidence through political violence should face serious consequences.

However, the question raised by the petition is not a simple one. Those who signed it are asking beyond whether someone convicted of terrorism offences should be able to stand for elected office; they are asking whether the system is serious about protecting itself. They are asking whether we understand what public office is for. The UK already disqualifies certain people with criminal convictions from holding elected office. Anyone sentenced to three months or more in prison is barred from serving on an English local authority for five years. Police and crime commissioner candidates are disqualified if they have ever been convicted of an imprisonable offence. MPs serving prison sentences of more than a year are disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, so a framework is already in place. The question is whether it goes far enough for terrorism offences specifically.

We do not think that it would be right to bar every person with any historic conviction from ever standing for office; that would be disproportionate and cut against the principle of rehabilitation. But terrorism and national security offences are different. They are, by definition, attacks on the institutions that the person may later seek to serve. It is reasonable for Parliament to treat them as a special case.

Any new prohibition, however, must meet two tests. First, it must comply with the 1998 Human Rights Act. Restrictions on the right to stand for election must be proportionate and subject to proper legal safeguards. That is not a barrier to action; it is the framework that any workable law will have to fit within. Secondly, any prohibition must be consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland has held peace for a generation, and legislation drafted without regard to it could do real damage. That is a practical consideration, not a theoretical one, and I hope the Minister will address it directly.

Within those tests, though, there is a clear route forward. The Elections Act 2022 already allows courts to issue disqualification orders, but only for five years. The Liberal Democrats support giving courts the power to issue longer disqualification orders, so that people who pose an ongoing threat to our democracy can be barred from public office for as long as that threat lasts.

Currently, the Representation of the People Bill is making its way through Parliament. It provides a great opportunity for the Government to make changes to our electoral system. My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) has tabled an amendment that I fully support, which would prevent anyone convicted of offences relating to the promotion, incitement or use of political violence from making donations to political parties. If we agree that people who have used violence against our democracy should not sit in its chambers, we should also agree that they should not be funding the parties that do. I ask the Minister to look at that amendment seriously at the next stage of the Bill.

There is a wider point about how nominations are handled. Returning officers currently have to accept nominations at face value. They cannot investigate allegations or reject a nomination because they think someone might be disqualified. As candidates self-declare their eligibility, the system depends on honesty. It is worth the Government asking whether that is still fit for purpose.

Tackling extremism also requires more than legal disqualification. It requires the police and prosecutors to have the resources and training to prevent and prosecute hate crimes. It requires protective funding for places of worship, schools and community centres that have been the targets of attacks, and it requires all of us in public life to think very carefully about the rhetoric that we use and about the rhetoric that has too often been the precursor to violence.

The Government currently have no plans to change the existing disqualification criteria. I hope that, having listened to the debate, the Minister will be willing to go further than that. Public trust is hard won and easily lost. On this issue, the Government can show that they take that trust seriously.

Draft Local Government (Structural and Boundary Changes) (Control of Disposals etc.) (Amendment) Order 2026

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I will do so in a moment.

The shadow Minister makes a very reasonable point on councils in receipt of exceptional financial support and the disposal of assets. He knows that the number of councils in EFS is a great concern of mine. We liaise with those local authorities week in, week out to do all we can to support them. It serves none of us to have exceptional financial support become normalised, and we are in touch with them.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alison McGovern]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Spelthorne and the hon. Lady in a moment once I finish responding to the shadow Minister.

On arm’s length management organisations and academies, this depends on the specifics of the contract and the transfer that has taken place. Again, we are working actively with councils. On the value of sites and the issue that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned with developers being able to garner extra value from their sites, we have provided councils with checklists and much information about things that they should be wary of. Nevertheless, I thank him for raising it. I will double check that it is on the checklist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

You are very generous, Mr Vickers. The hon. Member knows that I am sympathetic; it is a matter for the authorities themselves, of course, but he makes a good case.

[Zöe Franklin]

The Minister spoke about exceptional financial support. I was interested to hear her say that we do not wish EFS to be normalised. I suggest that we are in circumstances in which it is normalised, given that so many councils require it and so many of them expect to have to use it. A lot of councils are struggling to balance their annual budgets on that basis.

Draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2026

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 General Committees

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.

We Liberal Democrats are pleased by the reversion to SV and are grateful to the Government for it. We would have liked them to go further and introduce the alternative vote system, but, as the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner mentioned, such discussions have already been had in full.

Before I end by saying that we will support the Government, let me ask the Minister whether the Government will make an order about police and crime commissioner elections in time to ensure that the surprise such election in Norfolk—because there has been a recent resignation—can take place under the SV system. The Government have established that that is a much fairer system so, given that we are making this shift, it seems wrong for that unexpected PCC election to take place under the old system, potentially wasting £2 million of expenses for an election under a system that the Government have admitted is unfair.

The Liberal Democrats will support the draft order. In future, however, we would like to see change go further, and we will continue to press for that.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision not to insist on their disagreement with Lords amendment 2, which proposes the inclusion of rural affairs in the list of competences for strategic authorities.

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

Too often, rural communities such as mine in Wiltshire have been overlooked by successive Governments and treated as an afterthought rather than as places with distinct needs, challenges and enormous potential. Decisions are far too often made on urban assumptions, leaving rural areas struggling with weak transport and fewer services. Does my hon. Friend agree that by embedding rural affairs at the heart of strategic authorities, the Lords amendment will ensure that rural communities are no longer overlooked or left behind?

[Zöe Franklin]

My hon. Friend is right. We have fought for the amendment consistently because rural communities are indeed overlooked too often, and it would put them at the heart of the Bill.

As I was saying, we support Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 2, which adds coastal communities to the list of strategic competences, so I am grateful to the Secretary of State for tabling it. Together, the changes ensure that rural and coastal areas are explicitly recognised in the framework of strategic authorities and will be taken into account when powers, funding and responsibilities are devolved. The changes ensure that such areas are explicitly recognised in all decision making.

As my hon. Friend says, rural and coastal communities have too often felt overlooked, and their needs really need to be considered properly in the devolution process. We Liberal Democrats have long championed these communities, and many of my hon. Friends in this Chamber represent rural and coastal areas. We really welcome the constructive approach that the Government have taken in working with us, and I will continue to press for that spirit of collaboration as this Bill is implemented and, indeed, when further legislation on local government is introduced after the King’s Speech.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Many people in my constituency are very nervous about how local government reorganisation will impact them, and they worry that it could lead to a top-down style of devolution, which entirely misses the point of making decisions locally. The Government’s backing down on Lords amendment 2 will provide some reassurance to rural and coastal communities, like those in my patch, that the governance of rural and coastal affairs will be meaningfully devolved to local leaders. Will my hon. Friend join me in celebrating the Government’s acceptance of the Liberal Democrats’ calls to add both rural and coastal affairs as competences required of a strategic mayoral authority following LGR?

[Zöe Franklin]

I am happy to thank the Government for agreeing to put that on the face of the Bill.

I turn now to the issue of brownfield development. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches continue to believe that development must follow a clear principle of brownfield first—not green belt by default, and certainly not the vague concept of grey belt. From experience in my constituency, I know how important that principle is in practice. Brownfield first is not an abstract planning preference; it is how we protect the precious green spaces that communities value most.

Across Guildford, we have brownfield sites that currently cannot be developed because of severe flooding constraints. With the right flood alleviation investment, including support from the Government, these sites could come forward for housing and regeneration; without that support, pressure inevitably shifts on to surrounding green spaces. Ministers have talked a lot about embedding environmental considerations across their programme, but it is difficult to reconcile that with continued resistance to practical, deliverable measures. If we are serious about sustainable growth, we must support councils to reuse land responsibly, not force them to make false choices between meeting housing need and protecting the environment.

I set out my party’s position on local authority governance last week, but as the Government are again seeking to reject the Lords amendment on this issue, it bears repeating. We Liberal Democrats do not believe that compelling local authorities to change governance arrangements that were chosen democratically by the communities they serve is devolution; that is direction from central Government, dressed up as localism. Ministers are demanding that councils give up systems that work for them—not because local people have called for change, but because Whitehall prefers a different model. That fundamentally undermines the principle that this Bill claims to advocate. Devolution is about trust, and devolution without choice is not devolution at all.

We continue to differ from the Government on whether this Bill really does deliver devolution, but I hope that Ministers will see today not as the end of the conversation but as the beginning of a more ambitious programme, building on what I imagine will be set out in the King’s Speech. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches stand ready and look forward to working constructively with the Government to achieve real devolution.

Local government is the bedrock of our democracy. It shapes the daily lives of our constituents, often more directly than this House does. If we are serious about renewing trust in our democratic institutions, we must start there—by trusting communities, respecting their choices and giving them a real voice over the decisions that affect their lives. This is the test of true devolution, and it is one that we still must strive to meet.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

I would like to start by thanking colleagues across the House in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve this Bill, in particular the Liberal Democrat peers Baroness Pidgeon, Lord Foster of Bath, Baroness Bakewell and Lord Shipley. As we on these Liberal Democrat Benches have said throughout the passage of the Bill, it has potential but it does not amount to true devolution, and I sincerely hope that after the next King’s Speech we will see more real devolution and more on neighbourhood governance.

What this Bill offers is power handed down with strings attached—shaped and constrained by central Government rather than genuinely entrusted to local communities. The Government’s response to the Lords amendments before us only reinforces that fact. The Government say that the Bill rebalances power away from Whitehall, but their response to the amendments tells a different story, resisting even the most modest steps that would give local areas more clarity, flexibility and control. I believe that those are the real hallmarks of devolution.

Let me start with where I feel power is being withheld. Our Lords amendment 2 would ensure that rural affairs were properly recognised within the competencies of strategic authorities. The Government say that that is unnecessary and that non-statutory guidance will suffice. I appreciate that the Minister has moved forward on this issue, but I take the view that without a clear legal requirement, rural areas risk being overlooked, as they too often are at the moment. There must be a duty, either in the Bill or through statutory guidance, to ensure that rural communities are properly considered. Non-statutory guidance can, sadly, be ignored because it creates no obligation. This really matters. Rural areas are already under pressure, facing higher delivery costs and feeling the strain of the recent funding review. Without a clear duty, they risk once again becoming an afterthought.

We see the same pattern when we look at how power is exercised. Lords amendment 4 would ensure transparency in the appointment of mayoral commissioners. The Government again say that the guidance is enough, but these are unelected positions with real influence. Transparency should never be optional in any layer of government. The guidance speaks of visibility and accountability, yet says nothing about merit-based selection. Concerns about patronage are quietly acknowledged but not addressed structurally. If the Government believe that appointments should be fair and open—that is what I firmly believe, and we can clearly see that that is what the public expect—they should have no hesitation in putting that principle into law.

Lords amendment 13 moved by my colleague in the Lords, Baroness Pidgeon, would strengthen democratic oversight of the Mayor of London’s budget. Put simply, a two-thirds threshold is not a safeguard; it is a barrier to effective scrutiny. A simple majority is not radical; it is democratic. Londoners deserve an Assembly that can genuinely hold the mayor to account.

We also see the Government’s lack of true devolution in how planning decisions are shaped on the ground. Lords amendment 26 would embed a genuine brownfield-first approach. The Government say that the policy already achieves that, but the reality is different. Developers are often incentivised to build on greenfield or grey belt land because it is quicker and cheaper. The reality in my own constituency is that the majority of large planning applications are coming forward on green belt and grey belt. That is undermining public trust in development altogether. People recognise that we need more homes and they want more homes, but the way they see it happening undermines their trust in the process. Brownfield sites may be more complex, but they come with infrastructure, connectivity and the opportunity for real regeneration. Once again, if the Government are serious about that priority, it should be reflected in law, not left to policy alone.

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, with which she knows I have a lot of sympathy. In my area, it is estimated that 5,000 homes could be unlocked if we had a proper brownfield-first approach to planning. Does she agree that the whole issue around housing is about not a lack of land but a lack of funding to regenerate some of the sites, a lack of political will from this Government and a lack of ambition? The Government should look at the brownfield sites and the empty buildings, and then look again at the housing targets that have been arbitrarily put on areas which will do nothing to protect us from urban sprawl.

[Zöe Franklin]

When it comes to brownfield-first development in my constituency, there is an area in the town centre where we could deliver homes, but that is prevented by the fact that we do not have the money to progress at pace with the necessary flood alleviation scheme. We will be voting to support Lords amendment 26 —we need to keep the provision in the Bill.

Local government structures are perhaps the clearest example of how democracy itself is not being devolved by the Government. Our Lords amendment 36 would allow local authorities to determine their own governance structures. Instead, the Government insist on imposing a single model from the centre.

[Carla Denyer]

Green-led Bristol city council received glowing peer review from the Local Government Association this month, specifically noting how moving to a committee system has strengthened democratic engagement and transparency. It also, by the way, enables cross-party co-operation, and an honourable mention goes to the local Lib Dems in Bristol. Does the hon. Lady agree that if independent, non-political reviewers can see the benefits of a committee system, the Government should not be imposing the more tribal, less co-operative leader and cabinet model on councils?

[Zöe Franklin]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We saw how the previous Labour Government imposed the cabinet structure on councils up and down the country. True devolution puts the power of choice of local governance methods in the hands of local people and, therefore, an approach that does not allow local councils to change to that committee system is the wrong approach and is not devolution. The Government cannot simply claim to devolve power while denying local areas the ability to keep the system they have chosen or wish to choose. I ask the Minister to clarify whether councils will be able to stay as a committee system and whether she will consider allowing other councils to change to the committee system should the local council team and local people wish to do so.

Lords amendment 37 would introduce a national strategy to support and expand parish and town councils. The Government say that that should be left entirely to local decision making, but this is not about removing local choice; it is about whether communities are even given the opportunity to understand what a parish council could mean. Without a national strategy, there is no direction, support or momentum to expand parish governance.

I have seen the power of parish councils in my community and constituency. Parish councils give residents a direct voice. They ensure that development works with communities, not against them. At a time when councils are becoming larger and more distant, parish councils keep power close to the people. One of the most compelling things about parish councils is that, where they have a local neighbourhood plan, 25% of the community infrastructure levy goes directly to the local community. Outside parish councils, that figure drops to 15%, which is held centrally.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I congratulate the Conservative Lords on insisting on amendment 37. However, I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State might have a word with the Surrey Heath Conservative Association, which has campaigned vigorously against parish councils in my area. It has described parish councils as gravy trains that allow most councillors to do very little—if anything at all—and collect a financial allowance.

However, setting that inconsistency to one side, in the context of local government reorganisation in Surrey, where we will have a new West Surrey of 650,000 people that will be bankrupt on day one, parish councils actually represent an incredible receptacle through which to move key local assets so that they can be secured for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Zöe Franklin]

I could not agree more. Across the country, we can see that giving parish councils power and community assets allows them to look after those assets for the community. I am a massive advocate for that approach and for town and parish councils generally.

One final area of Government reluctance on devolving power is around Lords amendment 41 on the agent of change principle. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music. I have seen in my own community the wonderful power that live music venues have to bring people together. The amendment is so crucial to protect community assets and live music venues. Can the Minister advise on whether the guidance that she mentioned will be statutory or non-statutory? We Liberal Democrats will vote to support our Lords colleagues.

I want to end, in a spirit of positivity, on what we can do when we work collaboratively. Lords amendment 80, which my colleague Lord Foster of Bath co-sponsored with the Government, genuinely shows what we can do when we work across Benches to improve legislation. Good ideas do not belong to one side, and the amendment reflects that.

I will end on my central point: the Bill asks us to believe that it delivers devolution, but devolution cannot simply mean the limited powers that Ministers are willing to relinquish, while so much remains controlled by Whitehall. If we do not trust local communities and their elected leaders with real authority, real decision making and real agency, we have not really devolved power at all. That is why these Lords amendments matter, and it is why we will oppose the Government’s attempts to defeat them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Representation of the People Bill (Ninth sitting)

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Cap on political donations

“(1) Part 4 of PPERA 2000 (control of donations to registered parties and their members etc) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 54B (Declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied) insert—

‘54C Power to set cap on political donations

(1) A registered party must not accept a donation from a person if the value of donations from that person during the course of that calendar year exceeds the maximum amount specified by regulations made under subsection (3).

(2) Where a registered party receives a donation which would cause the limit for the purposes of subsection (1) to be exceeded, the amount by which the limit is exceeded is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as a donation received from a person who is not a permissible donor.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify the donation limit for the purposes of subsection (1) within three months of the day on which this act is passed.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) Before laying a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the level of the cap on political donations.

(6) The review must consider and make recommendations on the level of the cap in light of—

(a) the prevailing economic conditions;

(b) the effect of the cap on democratic participation and political competition; and

(c) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.

(7) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person or panel with relevant experience to conduct the review.

(8) The person or panel appointed under subsection (7) must—

(a) consult the Electoral Commission and any other persons the person or panel considers relevant; and

(b) prepare and publish a report of its findings.

(9) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (9)(b) before both Houses of Parliament as soon as practicable after receiving it.

(10) No later than three years after a report under subsection (10) has been laid the Secretary of State must commission a new review under subsection (5) for the purposes of determining whether the cap under subsection (1) should be amended.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to set an annual cap on permissible political donations from a person, following an independent review to be conduct every three years.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 54—Proposals for a Royal Commission on political donations and campaign expenditure—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals for the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider—

(a) the merits of a cap on political donations, and the level at which such a cap should be set, and

(b) the effectiveness of existing limits on campaign expenditure, including the appropriateness of the time period during which those limits apply.

(2) Proposals published under this section must include proposals for the Royal Commission’s—

(a) terms of reference,

(b) membership, and

(c) funding.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a Royal Commission to consider a cap on political donations and the effectiveness of existing campaign expenditure limits.

New clause 58—Review of how limits on campaign expenditure could apply on annual basis—

“(1) The Electoral Commission must conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties.

(2) The review must consider how annual campaign expenditure limits could—

(a) promote transparency and fairness in elections;

(b) limit the risk of foreign interference in elections; and

(c) be implemented in a proportionate manner without undue impact on political parties, candidates and third parties.

(3) In conducting the review, the Electoral Commission must consult the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission.

(4) The Electoral Commission must publish a report of its findings no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.

(5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report, lay before both Houses of Parliament, a response to the report.

(6) The response to the report must contain proposals informed by the Electoral Commission’s report.”

This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis for political parties, candidates and third parties, and for the Government to respond to the report and bring forward proposals based on the Electoral Commission’s findings.

New clause 65—National limits on campaign expenditure by political parties—

“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 (parliamentary general elections)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), for ‘£54,010’ substitute ‘£37,600’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for ‘£1,458,440’ substitute ‘£1,015,100’;

(c) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), for ‘£216,060’ substitute ‘£150,390’;

(d) in sub-paragraph (3)(c), for ‘£108,030’ substitute ‘£75,200’;

(e) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘£54,010’ substitute ‘£37,600’.

(3) In paragraph 2(1) (d) of Schedule 8 (exclusions), after ‘the party’ insert ‘other than those who are employed wholly or mainly for the purpose of an election campaign.’”

This new clause lowers the national campaign spending limits for political parties and includes campaign staff costs within their scope.

[Zöe Franklin]

The new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), goes to the heart of this basic question: who does our democracy serve—voters or those with the deepest pockets? It would introduce a cap on political donations from any one individual or entity each year, with that cap set following independent review and approved by Parliament. It would ensure that the level is kept under regular review so that it remains appropriate over time. At present, there is no upper limit on political donations in the UK, which is a striking gap in our system that allows vast sums to be given by a single donor, creating the risk of disproportionate influence by an individual.

Already, too many people across the UK look at our politics and see a system that appears to be tilted towards those with wealth and access. They question whether decisions are made in the public interest, or in the interests of those who can afford to make the largest contributions. That is unsustainable, and it undermines our democracy. My hon. Friend wishes to be clear that the new clause is not about stopping people supporting political parties; it is about drawing a reasonable line to ensure that no individual or organisation can dominate political funding simply because of the scale of their resources.

There is also a clear issue with integrity and security. While there are rules on permissible donors, there remain loopholes that allow money to be routed through UK-registered companies and complex structures, which creates a real risk of foreign or opaque influence on our politics. A cap alone would not resolve that problem, but it would significantly limit its scale. The new clause seeks to take a careful, balanced approach to the issue. It does not impose an arbitrary figure, but instead requires an independent, evidence-based review to recommend the level of the cap, considering economic considerations, democratic participation and political competition. It would place that decision firmly within a transparent and accountable process.

Ultimately, elections should be decided by voters persuaded by the strength of arguments, the quality of ideas and the credibility of leadership—I do not think that any member of the Committee would disagree with that. They should not be about the scale of financial backing. If we allow money to operate without meaningful limits, we undermine the fundamental democratic principle that every voice should carry equal weight. I do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, but I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it.

With your permission, Sir Desmond, I will also speak to new clause 54, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove. The Committee has established that, unfortunately, public trust in political funding—and sometimes in democracy itself—is at a very low point. With donations in the millions from a handful of wealthy individuals, spending wars between parties and loopholes that undermine the spirit of the rules, there is a public perception that politics can be bought and that elections can be won through the donations of the few. I think we would all agree that that is not a place we want to be.

New clause 54 calls for a royal commission to look at the evidence properly and make recommendations, which would allow for a level of independence and cross-party process. The current system allows single donors to give millions to a party, which raises legitimate questions about whose interests are being served. There are limited financial provisions on long campaigns; significant money is spent well before the official period begins and the limits do not catch that.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for greater transparency in political spending; the real-time disclosure of donations, a cap on political donations and annual expenditure limits sits squarely within that agenda.

[Dr Chowns]

I will speak to new clauses 30 and 54, tabled by the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Hazel Grove respectively, which both deal with the important topic of a cap on donations. I will then speak to new clauses 58 in my name and new clause 65 in the name of the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which both deal with limits on campaign expenditure, as the two topics are closely related.

First, as the hon. Member for Guildford just set out, there is a very strong case for having a cap on political donations, which the Government have recognised to some extent in promising to take forward the Rycroft recommendations on instituting a cap on donations from British citizens living abroad. However, on the broader question of donations from any British voter, the issue of the total amount of donations, and the number of very large donations, has significantly increased over time. The public widely recognise the extent to which political parties—some, in particular—are reliant on funds contributed by a small handful of very wealthy donors, and it is a rightly a cause for concern for a large majority of them. As the public understand, that carries the risk that individuals with very deep pockets can potentially have a disproportionate influence on our politics.

Back in 2011, the Committee on Standards in Public Life produced a report addressing precisely this risk, the problem of increased reliance on significant donations, and recommended a donations cap. That was 15 years ago. The problem has only become more and more significant since then, as we have seen just within the last year with several donations in the many millions of pounds to one political party. This is clearly a problem and a risk to our politics—and a risk that has been recognised worldwide.

As I understand it, about half of countries globally and well over two thirds of European countries impose some sort of limit on donations. The UK was one of I think 22 signatories to a UN resolution in December 2025 that identified the risk of corruption in politics from large donations and called for countries to consider instituting a cap on donations. It would only be consistent with our signing that UN resolution for us to take action on this ourselves.

Philip Rycroft, if I may quote directly from page 29 of his report, identified this problem too. He talked about his worries that the lack of year-round spending limits on campaign expenditure plus the lack of limits on donations could lead to an

“arms race among political parties and actors to out-raise and out-spend their competitors.”

Although he felt that this issue fell beyond his remit, he pointed out that it was

“something that could be usefully debated during the passage of the Representation of the People Bill”,

so I am very glad that a number of colleagues have tabled amendments to allow us to discuss it and to hear from the Government.

This proposal is widely supported by a large number of individuals and organisations that submitted evidence to this Committee—the Electoral Reform Society, Transparency International, Spotlight on Corruption, Open Britain and a whole range of others—and by a number of academics who specialise in this area: Sam Power, who gave evidence to us, Alan Renwick and a number of others. Transparency International points out:

“Other comparable democracies have sought to curb the corrosive influence of big money in politics by setting donation caps…Canada caps donations to political parties at CA$1,750 annually; France caps donations to political parties at €7,500 annually and €4,500 for presidential campaigns; Italy’s cap is €100,000…and Australia has introduced AU$50,000 caps per donor per year, due to apply from July 2026.”

This proposal has been recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, as I have said, and by the Hayden Phillips review, and it is supported by a majority of voters. YouGov polling published in December 2025 showed that 67% of UK voters say that there should be a cap of £50,000 or less, or indeed no private donations at all—some people feel the system should be dealt with like that.

I will briefly pre-empt a point that I suspect the Minister will raise in her response, the fact that some other countries have greater state funding of politics. A balance has to be struck. My case is not that there should be no ability for voters to contribute to politics; arguably, that is an important part of the democratic process. The problem is that in a democracy, in which by definition one person has one vote, money can buy huge amounts of influence that outweigh and hugely influence many of those votes. If a party has received many millions of pounds just in the past six months, it is not surprising that it will have a capacity to spend that in the non-regulated period in a way that is highly likely to influence voting.

There is therefore a strong case for introducing some sort of annual donation cap now. Transparency International advocates for that being £50,000 a year. The CSPL, I believe, advocated for £10,000 a year, although that was 16 years ago; if we multiply that by inflation, it is about £15,000 a year now. Others have talked about £100,000 a year, which would bring the cap in line with the system that the Government have already committed to putting in place for donations from British voters overseas.

There is clearly a problem with the distortion of our political system caused by the influence of big money, big donations in politics, and we have a crucial opportunity, in the passage of this Bill, to take action to address it. On many of the other issues that we have talked about—company donations, the influence of foreign money, crypto donations—I have repeatedly drawn a connection with the need for a cap on all political donations, because those things cannot be completely divorced. We will not be able to address the issues that concern us in relation to the distorting effect of money on our politics if we do not implement a cap on political donations. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

No. I simply stand by my previous comments.

[Zöe Franklin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Zöe Franklin]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 34—Commencement of Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay an order under section 216 (commencement) of the Equality Act 2010 to commence section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of that Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commence section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 within three months, which would require political parties to publish information on the protected characteristics of candidates in parliamentary elections, elections to the Scottish Parliament and to the Senedd.

New clause 35—Electoral Commission: Publication of information about diversity in range of candidates—

“(1) PPERA 2000 is amended as follows.

(2) After Section 13A (reimbursement of costs by Scottish Ministers etc.) insert—

‘13ZAA Collection and publication of information about diversity in range of candidates

(1) The Commission shall collect information published under section 106 (information about diversity in range of candidates, etc.) of the Equality Act 2010.

(2) The Commission shall publish the information collected under subsection (1) in an accessible form at such intervals as the Commissioners consider appropriate.’”

This new clause would require the Electoral Commission to collect and publish in an accessible form diversity information required to be provided by political parties under section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.

[Zöe Franklin]

New clause 31 would require the Secretary of State to use regulations to ensure that the Electoral Commission established a fund to help disabled candidates meet additional disability-related campaign costs in England. Historically in England, the access to elected office fund and the EnAble fund provided funding for practical support and reasonable adjustments to remove barriers for disabled candidates standing for election. That could include help with communication, transport or personal assistance, not general campaign costs.

The interim £250,000 EnAble fund was launched in 2018. It involved a two-stage approval process, with an independent panel of experts on disability as well as the political groups of the Local Government Association. In total, 41 candidates were awarded funding and 45% of those were elected. In the 2022 Scottish local elections, 46 people got support from a similar fund available in Scotland; of those, 22 were elected.

Based on those numbers, I would suggest that the types of funds that provide support make a tangible difference. However, the English fund was discontinued in 2020 and, although I understand the Government have indicated that they wish to do something about that, it has not yet been reinstated and an alternative has not been put forward. That leaves a distinct inequality between the different nations of Britain—Wales and Scotland both have funded schemes; England does not.

Representation in politics is crucial, whether here in Parliament or in our council chambers across the country. The House of Commons Library estimates that 25% of the UK population is disabled, with 24% of working adults stating that they are disabled. A truly representative parliamentary House would have 156 MPs indicating that they have a disability, yet only 12 declare themselves as having a disability—less than 2% of Parliament. According to the Local Government Association’s 2022 census, approximately 15% of local authority councillors in England declared a disability or long-term health condition. Essentially, we are consistently not returning a set of councillors or MPs that is truly representative of the people we seek to serve.

In my view, that is a wrong that needs to be corrected. Establishing a new fund in England to provide that support is absolutely crucial. That change is supported by Elect Her, Centenary Action, the Jo Cox Foundation, Unlock Democracy, the Fawcett Society, the Disability Policy Centre and others. This Bill is the opportunity to right this wrong. I would welcome hearing whether the Minister agrees with the new clause. I hope that she will but if she does not, will she outline how the Government plan to support candidates with disabilities and to address this glaring disparity between the nations? We really must do better when it comes to representation of people with disabilities in our politics.

The other new clauses are also important; they continue the theme of ensuring that our democracy is truly representative of the people we serve. New clause 34 would require the Secretary of State to bring section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 into force within three months of Royal Assent.

New clause 35 would place a duty in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which is the main law governing political parties, campaign finance, donations and so on, requiring the Electoral Commission to publish the information in an accessible form. It would also give Ministers the power to require registered political parties to publish anonymised information about the diversity of the people coming forward as candidates—for example, information about protected characteristics among applicants, selected candidates and elected candidates. This duty applies only so far as it is possible to publish characteristics while, of course, retaining the privacy of the people it is referencing.

For a long time, we have as a nation talked about ensuring that that information is made available. In March 2026, the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) stated:

“The Government is committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections…officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision under section 106.”

She said that there would be an update “in due course”. That was then repeated in the House of Lords. That statement took place a while ago, yet we have not seen any movement as yet.

Again, I personally feel that this Bill gives the opportunity to enact that section of the Equality Act. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister whether she supports the amendment and, if she does not, when the Government will bring into force section 106 of the Equality Act.

[Dr Chowns]

I will speak very briefly in support of the three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which highlight really important issues. It seems extraordinary, really, that we have such inequality between England, Wales and Scotland in relation to support for disabled candidates. Clearly, with such huge levels of under-representation of disabled people in our politics, it is imperative that support is put in place to try to rectify that. I fully support the call for the reinstatement of the access to elected office fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

The hon. Gentleman highlights exactly why further consultation is needed. This is a complex issue, and it needs to be discussed with all the major and minor political parties to explore how candidates are encouraged to come forward and the ways in which we can support political parties to become more diverse. I hope he accepts that response.

I turn to new clause 35. The Government really are committed to better representation, and we have taken a variety of actions to address that. As I have mentioned, section 106 is uncommenced, and we are committed to commencing it with careful consideration and at the appropriate time. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clauses, as that process is already in progress.

[Zöe Franklin]

I hear what the Minister is saying, and I am really pleased that the Government are undertaking that process, but what concerns me is that we go through sets of elections again and again without consistency across the nations. Some in our nations are supported to stand so that have a more representative democracy, while others—here in England—are not.

I am willing to withdraw my new clause, but I would appreciate it if the Minister committed to sharing a timeline. More importantly, will she commit to making information more available publicly—certainly to organisations working in this space and MPs—about what is happening about a fund to support candidates with disabilities? The same applies to my new clauses about section 106 of the Equalities Act.

One of the reasons why the new clauses had to be tabled is that, although the Government have said things on the public record, they have not shared what is happening behind the scenes. This is a matter of public interest. I will not press the new clauses to a vote, but I would appreciate it if the Minister came back on those queries.

[Samantha Dixon]

I will write to the hon. Lady and provide as much information as I can.

[Zöe Franklin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 33

Impact of the Act on trust in elections

(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report into the impact of the Act’s provisions on trust in elections.

(2) Any report made under subsection (1) must make proposals on any further measures required to increase trust in elections.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “trust in elections” includes public confidence in the fairness of elections, the voting systems used, and the representativeness of election results.

(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Electoral Commission;

(b) the Scottish Ministers;

(c) the Welsh Ministers;

(d) the relevant Northern Ireland department; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”—(Zöe Franklin.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Zöe Franklin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

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

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

Representation of the People Bill (Eighth sitting)

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 16th April 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

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

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

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

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

“employed by or working under the direction”

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I rise briefly to say that I fully support these measures, which are clearly welcomed across all parties. I also support the comments of the hon. Member for Guildford in relation to extending the measures further, because by definition, anybody who is essentially associated with the political process is potentially subject to the hostility that we have discussed. Extending those protections is clearly important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I tabled the new clause as a probing amendment, and I recognise that the Government have stated their intention to bring other amendments forward. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government, not necessarily just in formal settings, on the specifics of the issues and concerns I raise. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Overseas electors: postal ballots

“(1) RPA 1985 is amended as follows.

(2) After section (12) insert—

‘12A Overseas electors: postal ballots

(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision regarding the casting of postal ballots by overseas electors.

(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must provide for overseas electors to be offered the ability—

(a) to request an electronic version of their ballot paper for elections to print using the elector’s own printing facilities; and

(b) in a relevant country, to return their completed ballot paper to a United Kingdom embassy, High Commission or consulate for onward delivery to the relevant returning officer by diplomatic mail to be counted.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “a relevant country” is one where the United Kingdom maintains an embassy, Hight Commission or consulate.

(4) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.

5) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’”— (Zöe Franklin.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Zöe Franklin]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 7—Overseas electors: information on voter registration by the UK Passport Office—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report containing proposals to require the UK Passport Office to provide information on voter registration to United Kingdom residents overseas when they—

(a) apply for a passport; or

(b) apply to renew their passport.”

New clause 8—Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.

(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—

(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;

(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;

(c) voting by telephone;

(d) secure electronic voting;

(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;

(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;

(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and

(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.

(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) overseas electors;

(b) electoral administrators;

(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.

(4) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.

New clause 42—Overseas electors: reform to voting process—

“(1) The Secretary of State, must, by regulations, make provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at a United Kingdom Embassy, High Commission or consulate at United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

(2) For the purpose of this section, an ‘overseas elector’ is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.

(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may amend provision made by or under any other Act as necessary.

(4) Any regulations made under this section must not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State make provision by regulations so that overseas electors can vote in person at United Kingdom embassies, consulates and high commissions for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.

New clause 43—Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad—

“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online.

(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be made under the affirmative procedure.”

This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to regulate to introduce a system to allow overseas electors the ability to register to vote when they renew their passport online.

Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—

“(ha) section (Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots)”

This amendment is consequential on NC8.

[Zöe Franklin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Holmes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Samantha Dixon]

It is not true that the Government do not have an eagerness to resolve issues for overseas voters. They are legitimate voters who should be able to exercise their right to vote without unnecessary barriers, and we recognise the difficulties that they face in trying to participate. Many choose to vote by post, and improvements are being made in the Bill to the postal voting system, which should be beneficial to overseas voters.

The purpose of new clause 6 is to allow for overseas electors to print their own ballot paper. They would then be able to deliver their completed ballot to the relevant consulate, embassy or high commission, to then be delivered to the relevant returning officers via diplomatic mail. That process could allow overseas ballot papers to be posted earlier and reduce the chance that they arrive too late to be counted.

I have already put forward a range of measures in the Bill to improve the resilience and responsiveness of the postal voting system, including changes to deadlines to allow swifter printing and delivery of postal vote packs. The Government welcome suggestions on further improvements that we could make to our postal voting system, but unfortunately we cannot support this new clause. All ballot papers must be uniformly printed and contain security markings to ensure the secrecy of the ballot and prevent fraud. It would not be possible to replicate that consistently if ballot papers were printed on home printers.

New clause 7 relates to using engagement with the UK Passport Office as a means of encouraging UK citizens living overseas to register to vote. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within six months of the passing of the Bill. The report would cover proposals requiring the UK Passport Office to provide UK citizens living overseas with information on voter registration for UK elections when they apply for a passport or renew their passport.

The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. We intend to explore and test a range of new, automated approaches that make better use of data and make the process easier and quicker for citizens. Separately to the Bill, we are exploring making better use of data that eligible citizens are already providing for other services, and helping to encourage people to register, vote or update their entries on the register. Our focus is on delivering on automated registration approaches, including those set out in the Bill, which allow us to improve voter registration for a greater range of electors.

The purpose of new clause 8 and amendment 3 is to require the Secretary of State to publish a report assessing a range of options to support postal voting for overseas electors. We always welcome feedback and new ideas about how we can improve any aspect of our electoral system, and I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Guildford in this topic. As we have said, the Government recognise the challenges for those who live in remote areas overseas. However, I am afraid I do not believe that the costs of drafting and publishing this report could be justified.

Many of the proposals are frequently suggested and have been thoroughly considered already. Though it is possible that they could support the timely delivery of postal votes, they may come with considerable risks. For example, the use of online or telephone voting, or the digital transmission of ballot papers, would create unacceptable risks to the security and secrecy of those ballots. I note that the Bill already contains a number of measures specifically aimed at tackling those issues and improving the resilience and reliability of the postal voting system.

In particular, on the suggestion set out in subsection 2(e) of the new clause—that we should review deadlines and practices relating to the dispatching of postal ballots—the Government have already conducted a review on precisely that matter. The Bill will make a number of changes to improve the system, such as bringing forward the postal vote application deadline and formalising a postal vote determination date. I hope that Members will welcome and support those changes.

I now turn to new clauses 42 and 43 tabled by the Opposition. The purpose of new clause 42 is to require the Secretary of State to make a provision to enable overseas voters to vote in person at UK embassies, high commissions or consulates for parliamentary elections. The Government have considered the suggestion and feel it would be a significant logistical undertaking that would not yield sufficient benefits to overseas electors.

For example, embassies could need to run polling stations covering all 650 constituencies, and every returning officer would need to oversee the activity in every embassy. Each embassy would need to be equipped with all the relevant ballot papers, registers and other materials needed—and could need up to 650 variations of these. Any benefits of embassy voting would be limited to electors living close to diplomatic premises, and it is therefore difficult to justify the additional costs that would arise from the suggestion.

We have no plans to introduce such a system of voting. Instead, we are focused on improving the current systems for overseas electors—such as postal and proxy voting—so that they remain secure, reliable and accessible for everyone. There are a number of measures on postal and proxy voting in the Bill, and I hope Members will be supportive of them.

New clause 43 would introduce a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce a system to give overseas electors the option to register to vote when they renew their British passport online. The Government are committed to improving electoral registration and are actively exploring ways to do so. There are already existing powers that will allow us to explore and test a range of more automated approaches that involve integrating registering to vote with government services. They will make the process of voter registration easier and quicker for citizens. Our focus is on more automated registration methods that will benefit a greater range of electors.

[Zöe Franklin]

I thank the Minister for her comments, but I sadly remain unconvinced that we are addressing the significant problems that overseas voters are encountering when they seek to be involved with our democracy. They may live overseas, but they are still British citizens and deserve to be able to cast their vote. I will not press new clauses 6 and 7, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot, to a Division. However, I intend to press new clause 8 to a Division, if that is feasible, Dame Siobhain.

[The Chair]

Yes, it is.

[Zöe Franklin]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on proposals for facilitating overseas electors to vote in parliamentary elections.

(2) The report must consider the feasibility of proposals for—

(a) the use of United Kingdom Embassies, High Commissions or consulates as if they were a polling station asset out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983;

(b) the digital transmission and printing of ballot papers;

(c) voting by telephone;

(d) secure electronic voting;

(e) changes to deadlines and practices as set out in Schedule 1 of RPA1983 to enable earlier despatch of ballots for overseas voters;

(f) informing overseas voters on early registration and voting options;

(g) extended proxy voting arrangements for overseas voters; and

(h) any other measures to improve the speed, accuracy and security of voting by overseas electors as the Secretary of State believes appropriate.

(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) overseas electors;

(b) electoral administrators;

(c) His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service; and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State believe appropriate.

(4) For the purpose of this section, an “overseas elector” is a person who fulfils the requirements for an overseas elector in section 1 (extension of parliamentary franchise) of the RPA 1985.”.—(Zöe Franklin.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct feasibility studies on proposals to improve overseas voting, as recommended by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Select Committee’s Second Report of Session 2024-6, Review of the 2024 general election.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you a happy Easter, Mr Speaker?

Under the previous Government, youth funding was reduced by approximately 70% and universal provision was impacted the most. Although we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome the youth strategy, I am very concerned that local government reorganisation will result in a continued reduction in youth provision in our communities. We need to remember that the voluntary sector so often picks up the pieces; I see that in my constituency. It does a brilliant job, but it should not be down to the sector alone. Will the Minister advise on what assessment has been made of the impact of local government reorganisation on youth provision in areas beyond the promised 50 Young Futures hubs?

[Alison McGovern]

We are at risk of breaking out in violent agreement across the House about the importance of youth services and what the Conservative party did to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

Just before Easter, a development of 500-plus homes in my constituency, predicated on building a brand-new Howard of Effingham school, was withdrawn after a decade of commitment to the plan. The developer is expected to proceed with a new application without a school. The community and school are understandably angry and upset. What powers does the Minister have to ensure that developers can be held to such long-term commitments, and will he meet me to discuss the issue and its implications in my constituency and more widely?

Local Government Reorganisation

Zöe Franklin Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

It is deeply disappointing that this matter is being addressed today through an urgent question, and was not addressed yesterday through a proper statement from the Government. As I have said, the Liberal Democrats support devolution and reorganisation where that strengthens communities, but changes must be locally led, properly consulted on, adequately funded and never top-down.

In recent months, I have spoken to local government leaders across the country, and their really clear and consistent message is, “First, trust us. Secondly, work with us to fix the broken local government funding system,” which is leaving councils struggling to meet rising costs and needs. While the decisions announced for Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk provide clarity—even if areas remain concerned about viability and sustainability—they fail to address those fundamental issues. In the case of Sussex, the Government have essentially dismissed the local proposals, and have instead chosen to consult on their own plans, leaving the county in another period of uncertainty. Does the Minister recognise that that approach undermines trust between national and local government? Has her Department fully assessed the financial consequences of the proposals for reorganisation in those areas and across the country? Will she commit to a cross-party piece of work, carried out with local leaders, on creating a fair, adequate and long-term funding settlement for councils?

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Lady for those points. On the announcement process, we followed the precedent set by the previous round of reorganisation in 2021, under the previous Government. In relation to Sussex, it is really important that we get this right. We had concerns about the proposals not sufficiently addressing the criteria, particularly on economic growth, service disaggregation, community identity and financial sustainability. We will work quickly with Sussex, so that we can enter into that period of intense discussion and consultation after the local elections. That will not affect the overall timings of the programme, with new unitaries going live in 2028.

The hon. Lady also mentioned working with local government on its overall finances. Having just dealt with the fair funding review, I can honestly say that in the months since I was appointed, I have spent most of my life talking in detail, along with Members from across the House, about financial sustainability for councils. I have no doubt that she and I will engage on the subject many times in the future.