Representation of the People Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 April 2026.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Good morning. Could everyone ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website; this shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.

A reminder: a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called to speak first, or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Minister will be called first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the current debate by bobbing. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses or schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group—that includes grouped new clauses and schedules—to a vote, they need to let me know. The order of decisions follows the order in which amendments appear on the amendment paper.

Clause 70 - Hostility towards officers and their staff

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 38, in clause 71, page 92, line 35, after “candidates,” insert “candidates’ relatives, candidates’ staff,”.

This amendment would, with NC55, include family members and staff of candidates as people towards whom hostility would be treated as an aggravating factor.

Clauses 71 to 74 stand part.

New clause 55—Hostility towards relatives and staff of candidates etc.

“(1) Part 5 of the Elections Act 2022 (disqualification of offenders for holding elective office etc.) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 32 (candidates etc.) insert—

‘32A Relatives and staff of candidates

(1) A person falls within this section if the person is—

(a) a relative; or

(b) a member of staff;

of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1a) “relative” has the meaning given by section 63(1) of the Family Law Act 1996.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1b) “member of staff” means a person who is employed by or working under the direction of a person described in section 32 (candidates etc.).’”

This new clause would, with Amendment 38, add relatives and staff of candidates to the persons against which hostility may lead to a disqualification order and for the purposes of a statutory aggravating factor.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

Those who are convicted of relevant offences motivated by hostility against a candidate, campaigner or elective office holder can be banned from standing for or holding elective office for five years. As I have set out, the Bill will also introduce a new aggravating factor for those same offences and extend the regime to include relevant offences motivated by hostility against electoral staff.

Amendment 38 and new clause 55 would extend the list of relevant persons to include candidates’ staff and their relatives. I am pleased to inform the Committee that the regime already covers those circumstances. The application of the existing disqualification order and new aggravating factor is based on the motivation behind the offence committed, regardless of precisely who the offence was committed against. For example, if it were found that a relevant offence was committed against a candidate’s relative for the purpose of intimidating the candidate, ultimately the offence was motivated by hostility towards the candidate, and thus a disqualification order or aggravating factor could be applied.

Regarding employees of candidates specifically, I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Guildford to the fact that campaigners employed by candidates are already directly protected under the regime by section 34 of the Elections Act 2022. Other employees would be covered indirectly in the same way that I have outlined for a candidate’s relatives. I hope the hon. Member is reassured by that and will consider not pressing the amendment.

New clause 55 would require the Electoral Commission to publish and maintain guidance relating to candidate safety and security. It would also require returning officers to provide that guidance to candidates as soon as their nomination has been confirmed. We are highly sympathetic to the goal of the new clause, and this is reflected in ongoing workstreams and measures already included in the Bill.

The Government and the Electoral Commission already have significant work under way in this area. The joint election security and preparedness unit—JESP—is a permanent function dedicated to co-ordinating security and preparedness work ahead of electoral events. Prior to each election, JESP leads a comprehensive programme of work to ensure that candidates and election officials have the resources they need to feel safe and secure during the election, including updating security guidance for candidates and returning officers, and supporting returning officers to understand the support available to them at key potential flashpoints, such as polling stations.

Specifically ahead of the forthcoming May 2026 elections that are happening across England, Scotland and Wales, updated candidate security guidance was sent to returning officers and political parties in England and Wales. These were distributed to candidates in early January—earlier than in previous years—to support parties to use the guidance in wider candidate training. Police Scotland has issued guidance to candidates standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.

The comprehensive Government guidance now covers how candidates should interact with Operation Ford, the personal security measures they should adopt, cyber-security services available to them, and reporting online abuse to platforms. The updated guidance also includes a link to the National Protective Security Authority’s counter political interference and espionage plan.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has also hosted webinars for returning officers and electoral service managers in England, Wales and Scotland to highlight the Government’s security offer across physical, cyber and information threats. On the role of the Electoral Commission specifically, it already regularly provides and updates guidance to candidates and returning officers. The commission has updated its election security guidance for returning officers, and the wider gov.uk page has been updated, too.

In partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing, the Electoral Commission has also issued joint guidance specifically on harassment and intimidation. However, we recognise that more can be done, and that is why we are also working with the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s Conference to develop an updated code of conduct for campaigning and improved safety guidance for returning officers and candidates.

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

New Clause 14 - Removal of strategy and policy statement

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

The new clause removes provisions allowing the designation of a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission. For the health of our democracy, it is essential that the Electoral Commission is fearlessly independent, commands trust across the political spectrum and the public, and is seen to operate free from political influence. We have listened to stakeholders and recognise that re-establishing the principle of independence for our elections regulator is vital for public confidence in our electoral system.

That move is a response to the recommendations of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, parliamentary Committees, the Electoral Commission itself as well as civil society organisations such as Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption, all of whom emphasised that Government powers to designate a statement are incompatible with the commission’s independence.

That is why we have taken clear action by tabling this new clause. Ministers will no longer have the power to designate a strategy and policy statement, and the Electoral Commission will no longer be required to have regard to one. The Electoral Commission will rightly remain accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. The new clause would reinforce the foundational principles of the Electoral Commission’s independence, and it would restore confidence in its ability to oversee elections and regulate political finance, without fear or favour, into the future. For that reason, I urge Members to accept the new clause.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Does anyone wish to make a contribution?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I just want to say, well done to the Government.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

I thank the hon. Lady very much.

New Clause 60 - Power of Scottish Ministers to vary sums in Schedule 7 to PPERA 2000

New Clause 2 - Permissible donors not to include individuals serving a foreign administration

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

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

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. Trust in our democracy is not something that we can afford to take for granted; it is earned, and it is increasingly fragile. Years of scandals, sleaze and foreign money flooding into our politics have eroded that trust, and we must act to restore it. My new clauses are designed to restore transparency to our democracy, and to restore that trust.

New clause 2 would ban anyone who is or has been a member of, or a politically appointed advisor to, a foreign Administration from donating to a political party, think-tank or campaigning body. If a person has served in a foreign state in a political capacity, they should not be able to use their personal wealth to shape British politics—that is the reason behind the new clause. The resulting risk of strong potential conflicts of interest, and of foreign influence by proxy, is self-evident. The current permissible donor rules focus on nationality and residency; they do not ask whether a UK-registered donor has served a foreign Government in a political role, which is a gap that a determined adversary could drive a coach and horses through.

The Liberal Democrats have long called for reforms to prevent foreign interference and increased transparency in political donations. We believe that protecting democracy is a national security policy priority. If Ministers are serious about closing the loopholes that exist, which allow foreign and dark money to shape British politics, they will welcome new clause 2.

New clause 3 would prevent anyone who

“has been convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”

from making donations to political parties. It is a straightforward proposition: those who have sought to undermine democracy through violence should have no financial role in shaping it. We firmly hold the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence and that those who have sought to undermine them should face serious consequences. Certain terrorism and national security offences should be treated as a special case to maintain confidence in our democratic institutions. It is right to protect the integrity of those institutions against those who seek to undermine them through violence and extremism.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I completely support the thrust of these new clauses tabled by the hon. Member, in terms of protecting British democracy. I have a specific question in relation to new clause 3. Last year the Government proscribed a protest organisation. That proscription has since been overturned in the High Court, and it is still being considered. Is the hon. Member concerned about her new clause might interact with that particular case? Is there a case for thinking carefully about that issue?

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to wade into such a thorny political issue—and an issue where it is important to stay on the right side of what can be said in discussing a proscribed organisation. The Government should use their powers of proscription proportionately, in all cases, and should be able to robustly back up their decision to proscribe an organisation with very clear evidence that is made public. I am on the record many times as saying that.

The police and any authorities that we are asking to implement the law must do so according to the law as it is at the time. At the moment there is a live case where an organisation was proscribed and there are relevant court cases. The hon. Member is absolutely right to highlight that. Over the weekend, arrests were made in relation to that proscription. New clause 3 is about donations to political parties. If an organisation is proscribed—and it is still proscribed—it would fall under the scope of new clause 3, even if there are ongoing legal processes that have not yet concluded.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

Just to be clear, my concern is that literally hundreds of people have been arrested for holding placards in relation to that organisation. Potentially, under the hon. Member’s new clause 3, all those hundreds of people could be forbidden forever from donating to any political party. I am not sure that that is proportionate. It strikes me that there is complexity there, relating to the specific new clause. I am fully on board with excluding promotion of political violence and so forth, but that particular case highlights a complexity, particularly around the hundreds of people arrested for holding placards.

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

The arrests were made for support for a proscribed organisation via holding a placard that said the holder supports that organisation. I think we are talking about the same case. I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Proscription of organisations is a tool that the Government rightly uses, although I have questioned the proportionality of the use of that tool. New clause 3 particularly mentions political violence; the hon. Member is talking about peaceful protest, if I understand her correctly. All hon. Members on this Committee, and everyone beyond it, should support the right for people to tell a Government that they think the Government have got it wrong. We should all support that and not make it harder for people to do it. If, however, someone is guilty of a

“prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence”,

I do not think that they should be able to financially support a political party. The promotion of an organisation is the same as supporting an organisation. There are ways of supporting organisations and causes that stay exactly the right side of the law. While I am not of the view that the Government have always used proscription rules proportionately in recent months, I do think that, if those rules exist, they should be able to be used in that way by those who are enforcing the law.

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I am sympathetic to the point that the hon. Member is trying to make. I have listened carefully to what she said about new clauses 2 and 3. With respect to new clause 3, it would be helpful to consider the treatment of those who may have been opponents of an oppressive foreign political regime who have been convicted in this country of an offence that might be a proscribed offence under mutual recognition arrangements, but where they perhaps sought asylum in the UK. We have seen examples of people who were vocal opponents of the Putin regime in Russia coming to the UK and joining a political party. Those are people who we recognise as good citizens. How would they be treated should that offence be on that proscribed list?

In respect to new clause 2, again, I have sympathy, but I raise the issue of business people undertaking consular roles in other countries. It is quite common, for example, for a British business person who may be the British consul in a particular town to then be appointed by a series of other Governments to act for them as an agent in that respect. Subsequently, on returning to the UK that business person would be caught by the rules in new clause 2, even though those restrictions are in no way intended to target those types of activities. Has the hon. Member given some thought to how those types of roles would be captured and how they might be excluded?

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

New clause 3 talks specifically about political violence. While we can sometimes agree with the message that opponents of our adversaries use, it is right that we are against political violence and those who promote political violence. I think that covers his question on new clause 3.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

There are some people who renounce political violence— Nelson Mandela comes to mind. Obviously, he was never a British citizen, but there is a genuine question there.

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

We should all be against political violence. People who propose and promote political violence should not be permitted to donate to political parties in the UK. I am thinking about people who have various convictions in the UK for promoting political violence and about people who own tech platforms but are based on the west coast of the United States and have spoken at rallies that promote political violence. We should not be welcoming their interference in our politics and new clause 3 seeks to stop them from doing so.

On new clause 2, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner talked about people who have been politically appointed to be an adviser for a foreign Administration, whether in a business ambassadorial or trade envoy role, and I see his point. I would have thought those are politically appointed, rather than on a civil service basis. However, there are people who are not political appointments who would not fall within new clause 2, so they could continue to operate both as an envoy or an ambassador in that informal business ambassadorial role and continue to donate. I do not think that is covered under new clause 2 as it is currently written.

Returning to new clause 3, the principle that our democratic institutions must command public confidence, and that those who seek to undermine them should face serious consequences, is one that we hold firmly.

On new clause 15, voters have a right to know who is financing the people seeking their vote. That is a basic condition of democratic accountability. Real-time disclosure of donations in a publicly searchable database of all online political ads and spending are commitments we have held for years. New clause 15 is entirely consistent with that agenda. There have been other amendments and proposals from other Members that have touched on some of those issues, which we also support.

New clause 16 would require the treasurer of each registered political party to prepare an annual statement setting out the steps taken to mitigate risks relating to donations originating from a foreign nation, to be delivered to the Electoral Commission alongside the party’s statement of accounts. We have heard a great deal throughout this Committee about the importance of transparency, and we agree.

This new clause makes transparency operational. It requires parties not simply to accept or reject donations, but to demonstrate annually that they have actively assessed and mitigated the risks of foreign money entering their finances through UK-registered vehicles. Foreign-owned UK entities are a known vector for influence. The public record of recent years—Russian money, oligarch links and opaque corporate structures—makes that plain. An independent annual audit is a proportionate and practical response.

New clause 17 is about prohibiting politicians from receiving payment from proscribed state broadcasters. State-controlled broadcasters have been used as instruments of foreign influence, disinformation and political interference for decades. It would be extraordinary to allow individuals seeking or holding elected office to receive financial benefit from those very organisations. That is not a blanket ban on media appearances—heaven forbid—it is a prohibition on financial relationships with broadcasters acting as foreign propaganda arms.

Moving on to new clauses 45 and 51 proposed by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), the Joint Committee that he chairs noted potential risks around permissible donors being used as “conduits” to channel foreign money into UK politics. It further noted a discrepancy between corporations needing to have a UK connection—for example, generating enough revenue in the UK to cover their donation—and individuals, for whom there were apparently fewer such requirements. The report considered various options, balancing security interests against the risk of creating chilling effects.

New clause 45 would mean that overseas individuals wishing to donate would need to hold funds or assets that may be taxed in the UK, sufficient to cover the cost of their donation. That broadly mirrors the Government’s proposals for corporations to have generated sufficient UK-based revenue.

On new clause 51, the Joint Committee’s report also highlighted the resourcing challenges faced by the Electoral Commission and law enforcement bodies such as the National Crime Agency, and noted that legislative changes will be effective only if there is adequate resourcing to enforce the rules. New clause 51 would require the Electoral Commission and the National Crime Agency to report annually on the risks of foreign interference in the UK’s political finance system and the adequacy of systems in place to address those risks.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

I rise to speak briefly to Opposition new clauses 38 and 39 in my name. They are proportionate measures to enhance the legislation and assist the Government in their aim of tightening up on foreign political donations.

New clause 38 would prevent people who are on electoral registers because they fulfil certain conditions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 and the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020, but are not qualifying Commonwealth citizens, from being permissible donors. We have tabled it because we are concerned that modern changes to devolved legislation have created loopholes in who can give money from foreign origins.

The Labour Government in Wales have given all foreigners the right to vote in local and devolved elections. The SNP Scottish Government have done the same in Scotland. Those Administrations have made those changes through section 2 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act and section 1 of the Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act.

Such legislation has also given foreign residents the right to make unlimited donations to UK politicians and political parties. We contend that that opens the door to Russian, Chinese and Iranian foreign influence. For example, a Chinese “student” resident at a Scottish university can legally make political donations to any UK political entity. We have raised that issue in Parliament, but the current Government have declined to address it. The new clause would essentially ban that from happening, except where a person is a Commonwealth, Irish or EU citizen, as we believe those historical links are much more in keeping with the current electoral guidelines and legislation.

Through new clause 39, we are trying to help the Government get to the place I think they eventually want to reach: increased information-sharing on the sources of donations, particularly to minimise the risk of foreign influence—I have absolutely no doubt that is the Government’s aim. In fact, one of the key recommendations in the Rycroft review is having a centre of excellence to ensure that data and information are shared between the necessary organisations, but we do not think the Government are there yet. Indeed, the Rycroft review, as we have said a significant number of times, is running in parallel to this legislative process, and we do not currently see information-sharing that would necessarily allow the identification of foreign influence by organisations such as the police or the intelligence services.

We do not have a principled objection to greater information-sharing, as I have just outlined. For example, we would argue that the Electoral Commission has already been given new powers to access Companies House information under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, although the regulators chosen should obviously be relevant to the enforcement of political finance legislation. However, we would argue that information-sharing should go both ways.

That is why the last Conservative Government, during the parliamentary stages of the National Security Act 2023, committed to look at greater information-sharing powers between relevant agencies and political parties to help to identify irregular sources. It is disappointing that the current Administration has so far not implemented those changes, which are important for the implementation of the “Know Your Customer” checks.

We are trying to steer the Government in the right way on this issue. As I have said repeatedly, the Rycroft review is a huge opportunity to really tackle foreign interference in our electoral process. Actually, the cost of foreign interference on the British political system is very cheap, compared with the United States or other countries—it perhaps takes only a couple of thousand pounds to influence a Member of Parliament into taking up a case. I am really concerned that, with the Bill potentially being such a landmark piece of legislation that makes real changes in foreign interference, the Government have not grasped that or taken up that mantle enough to make those solid changes.

We would argue that new clause 39 is a first step. However, if the Government legislate retrospectively to bring in the recommendations of the Rycroft review, particularly on having a centre of excellence and information-sharing—I look to the Minister to reassure us with an indication of how she might do that—it may shape our view on new clause 39. I hope she will see the intention behind enhancing that information-sharing.

At the moment, we see a blindingly obvious loophole in identification, and we want to ensure that all organisations have a level playing field and a statutory ability to communicate with each other, so that we can highlight any potential or ongoing attempt at foreign influence in our political process. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those concerns.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

The Government fully recognise the seriousness of the threat posed by foreign interference in our democracy. Protecting the integrity of UK elections is essential, which is why it is a criminal offence to accept or facilitate donations from foreign sources, and why the Bill seeks to strengthen the system further. However, while I can understand and appreciate the intention behind new clause 2, we do not believe that it is the right way to address this threat.

First, new clause 2 takes a broad and untargeted approach that would permanently bar any individual who

“is, or has been…a member of, or…adviser to a foreign administration”

from making political donations, regardless of how long ago that role was held, its nature or whether there is any ongoing connection to a foreign state. That risks excluding individuals who are entitled to participate in UK political life, and who pose no credible risk of foreign interference.

Secondly, there would be issues of enforceability. I will not spend much time on this particular point, because it is important that I set out our arguments on the principle, and what I think the right answer to this is, but following the approach of new clause 2 would mean relying on definitions of persons that are difficult to get right and can be unenforceable in practice. The amendment relies on concepts such as a “politically-appointed adviser”, which is opaque, legally speaking, and risks creating legal uncertainty for campaigners and regulators.

Thirdly, and more fundamentally, where the concern is hostile activity by, or on behalf of, foreign states, we already have robust and targeted tools in our national security legislation, which is complemented by safeguards in electoral law that we are seeking to enhance through the Bill. The National Security Act 2023 provides a clear criminal framework for tackling hostile state activity, including the foreign interference offence, which is specifically designed to capture conduct carried out on behalf of a foreign power to influence the UK’s political system.

Existing electoral law is designed to ensure that money can only come from permissible sources and criminalises the acceptance or facilitation of donations from impermissible foreign sources. The Bill significantly strengthens the existing rules so that in future even donations that are potentially risky are identified earlier, scrutinised more closely, and returned where necessary.

By introducing robust “know your donor” checks and requiring all donors to declare any benefits they have received in connection with their donation, we are reducing the space in which individuals who pose a real risk, or their proxies, can operate under the radar. Our new measures directly respond to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, as well as those of other key stakeholders, such as the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency. With that, I hope she feels she can withdraw her amendment.

New clause 3 seeks to prevent those convicted of a prescribed offence relating to the promotion, incitement, or use of political violence from making political donations. Currently, if an individual is convicted of such an offence, that conduct rightly affects their democratic rights, including their ability to stand for election or to hold elected office. This helps to deter those who would undermine the democratic rights of others, such as candidates contesting an election.

The Government are absolutely aligned with the intention behind this proposal. Political violence and its promotion or incitement have no place in our democracy, and we are clear that those who seek to undermine democratic participation through violence or intimidation should face serious consequences. The question, however, is not whether this behaviour is unacceptable—it plainly is—but whether this is the right legal mechanism to address it.

If this amendment were to be accepted, it would represent a significant shift in the purpose of political finance law, which is about ensuring only those individuals who have a legitimate interest in our elections can support candidates and campaigns through their vote, volunteering their time or offering financial support. Although I share the hon. Member’s concern, the Government believe that this amendment does not address a regulatory gap and would not further our shared aim of reducing harassment and intimidation in politics.

The harassment and intimidation of voters, electoral staff and campaigners is unacceptable and has a profoundly detrimental impact on our democracy. That is why we are taking forward several interventions in the Bill to tackle this issue, which we have already discussed in great detail, and are doing so through criminal law, electoral offences and disqualification, rather than through political finance rules, which are not designed to address conduct. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I listened closely to what the Minister said, and I understand the thrust of her view that existing rules would cover the conduct that we are seeking to avoid. Will the Minister think of the specific case of Elon Musk, the owner of X? He spoke at a rally via video link and incited violence. He has also talked, at separate times, about donating to a UK political party. UK companies are part of his group; there would be a way for him to channel funding through a UK company. Will the Minister let me know what I am missing that would stop Elon Musk doing that?

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

I have said this before and I will say it again: the Bill is not designed to prevent specific individuals from participating in or undermining elections. It is about the general regulatory framework and criminal law that we intend to implement, uphold and shore up to prevent certain behaviours in the future. It is not about specific individuals, so I decline to respond the hon. Member’s comments, except to say simply that the legislation, in its entirety, aims to root out political violence, harassment and intimidation.

New clause 15 proposes to require candidates at UK parliamentary elections, in order to be validly nominated, to complete a declaration on whether they have received any income or gifts from foreign nations or connected entities. A registered political party would be responsible for ensuring that such a declaration had been completed before allowing a candidate to be nominated as a candidate for that party. The Government are strengthening the rules around political finance to protect against foreign interference and have introduced several measures, which we have discussed, that will apply to candidates. The reforms will make it significantly more difficult for malign actors to interfere in our elections.

As hon. Members know, and as I have said many times, the Rycroft review has recommended that the Government look further at enhancing rules for candidates to ensure that money received previously and then used in campaigns comes from permitted sources. The Government are carefully—and I underline that point—considering that recommendation, among all the others. The Government share the concern of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove but, in light of that ongoing work, I ask her not to move new clause 15.

New clause 16 seeks to require registered parties to produce an annual risk mitigation statement relating to donations originating from foreign nations, and to commission an annual independent investigation into donations that they receive from foreign-owned UK entities. Foreign money has no place in the UK’s political system. We recognise the hon. Member’s concerns that the nature of foreign interference is evolving, with threats becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a package of measures that work together to close potential loopholes and address vulnerabilities to foreign interference.

Via secondary legislation we will require donors to declare any benefits linked to their donations and we will strengthen donation rules to ensure that companies must demonstrate a genuine and substantive UK connection. Those changes will help to ensure that political donations genuinely reflect UK-based interests and will prevent the use of shell companies to channel impermissible donations. In practice, where behaviour is not already criminal, the new “know your donor” regime already addresses much of the issue that new clause 16 seeks to tackle. However, the new clause’s approach of annual risk mitigation statements and retrospective investigations of foreign nation donations is less proactive than the risk-based duty that the Bill introduces.

As a reminder, rather than relying on parties to report annually about what they consider appropriate, the “know your donor” regime introduces risk-based due diligence on significant donations across the electoral regime. For the first time, recipients of donations will be required to adopt a risk-based framework for assessing the permissibility of donors, supported by Electoral Commission guidance, which will set out how donees can mitigate potential risks. That means that anyone receiving significant donations, not just parties, must carry out risk assessments, ensuring that the system as a whole is strengthened.

Crucially, the “know your donor” regime has been designed to be proportionate and flexible in identifying a range of relevant risks. Imposing an additional set of statutory reporting requirements would be disproportionate and unnecessary. Those obligations would create additional financial and administrative pressures, particularly for smaller parties. We therefore do not consider these changes necessary. The Government’s proposals already deliver enhanced transparency and due diligence against foreign interference without imposing disproportionate burdens on parties or the regulator.

The purpose of new clause 17 is to prevent regulated donees from accepting any financial benefit from a proscribed foreign state broadcaster. It would also require a candidate for election to issue a declaration as to whether they had received any past or current financial benefits from a proscribed foreign state broadcaster.

The Government are working to improve political transparency and add tougher checks on donations, and we are acting to close loopholes by reinforcing electoral legislation against foreign interference. As already discussed, the Bill will require company donors to show that they have made sufficient revenue to fund their donations; that their company is headquartered in the UK or Ireland; and that they are majority owned or controlled by UK electors or citizens. That further reduces the risk of foreign state media providing remuneration to regulated donors.

The Government strongly believe that it would be contrary to the standards expected of public office holders for Members to try to leverage their office to earn additional income and gain experience for private gain. The House of Commons code of conduct has robust rules requiring MPs to declare any relevant interests they hold. As part of that, Members must declare any payment received over a value of £300, including its source. The rules also require Members to provide any contract of employment to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards upon request.

The Modernisation Committee is also working to drive up standards in public life and address matters of culture and procedure in the House of Commons. Appropriate safeguards are in place already to mitigate the risk of hostile states influencing UK politicians in this manner, and provisions in the Bill will further expand on that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Hazel Grove not to press the new clause.

I turn to new clauses 38 and 39, tabled by the Opposition. The Government are clear that our new political finance system must have strong safeguards against undue foreign interference—we will prevent that. New clause 38 is not a targeted safeguard against foreign interference. It would exclude an entire category of people who are lawfully registered to vote under devolved franchise arrangements, including individuals who are resident in the UK and have substantial connections to our communities. It would decouple donor permissibility from electoral registration, and use devolved franchise provisions as a trigger for exclusion. That is not the right way to address this problem.

The independent Rycroft review’s recommendation in this space is clear: cap donations from overseas electors, as a targeted safeguard against foreign financial interference. The Government have acted decisively on that, and announced our intention to cap donations from overseas electors at £100,000 per year. That cap will be backdated to the date of the announcement so that it addresses the risks immediately. Our actions are direct, proportionate, clear and consistent with the principles of electoral law.

New clause 39 would require the Secretary of State to publish a consultation paper on options to enhance information sharing between relevant public bodies, agencies and political parties, to help identify and mitigate the risks of foreign interference in political donations within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The new clause would require the Government to consult on whether to act, but we are acting now with urgency and intent, as we committed to in our manifesto. The Bill puts in place new protections against foreign interference, and in designing them, we have already carefully considered what information needs to be shared, by whom and with whom, to ensure that these measures are effective in practice, without compromising security or public trust.

The Rycroft review also made a relevant recommendation in this space. It suggested not further legal duties but improved co-ordination between the Electoral Commission, the Government and the security services and police on sharing relevant threat information with parties. We will carefully consider that further, and we will issue a full Government response in due course. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to push his new clauses to a vote.

I turn to new clauses 45 and 51, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). New clause 45 would link the permissibility of donations to tax residency and having sufficient taxable funds or assets. As I have already outlined, the Government share the concern about the risks associated with political donations from overseas electors, which is why we acted following the independent Rycroft review.

The review considered the risks posed by overseas electors and recommended a clear, proportionate safeguard: an annual cap on the total value of donations that an overseas elector can make. It did not recommend a tax residency test or linking permissibility to taxable funds and assets, and there is a good reason for that: the applicability of tax law is complex and it can rightly be challenged, sometimes with long dispute resolution periods that follow. The risk of such action would be a high degree of uncertainty, and a high risk of inadvertent non-compliance by otherwise legitimate and responsible actors.

The Government have instead accepted Rycroft’s recommendation in full, and we are implementing a cap of £100,000 on donations from overseas electors—the low end of the range suggested. We believe that this strikes the right balance between ensuring the integrity of our system and allowing for legitimate participation. I hope I have reassured the Committee that the Government acknowledge the risk, and that we have taken targeted, proportionate and urgent action to address it.

New clause 51 seeks to require the Electoral Commission and National Crime Agency to produce and publish an annual report on the risks of foreign interference in political donations, and on the adequacy of existing systems to address those risks. The Government fully recognise the serious concerns about foreign interference in our democracy, and we share the intention to protect the integrity of the political finance system.

The commission and the NCA already have the freedom to publish reports, reviews and assessments on any theme within their responsibilities, as they judge appropriate. Both organisations take decisions on when and how to report based on operational need, emerging risks and the evidence available to them. We would not want to legislate a fixed annual requirement that could inadvertently restrict their ability to respond to other emerging issues that may demand more urgent or different forms of reporting.

For the Electoral Commission, the new clause would impose a new obligation in an area where the commission does not hold all relevant intelligence required to assess foreign interference threats. The commission already provides transparency on the political finance system within its statutory remit, but it is not a national security body, and it should not be mandated to publicly report on matters beyond its functions.

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a breather. As he knows, the Rycroft review considered this matter and—I mean this sincerely; it is not simply a form of words for the Committee —the Government are carefully considering those recommendations and will respond in due course. To give him that assurance: this is part of that consideration.

Alongside the measures I mentioned, enhanced company permissibility tests ensure that only organisations with a genuine and substantive UK connection can donate, closing off key vulnerabilities in our electoral framework. The Government are also committed to robust monitoring and evaluation of the Bill, and anticipate that this will include an impact evaluation assessing whether the policies introduced have achieved their intended aims.

We have discussed the Rycroft review, and I sincerely mean it when I say that we will respond fully in due course to all the measures in it, including on improved co-ordination between the Electoral Commission, the Government, the security services and the police. For those reasons, while I fully understand the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington to strengthening our defences against foreign interference, the Government do not consider this amendment to be the right mechanism to achieve that end.

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am grateful to all who have contributed. I plan to press to a vote all the new clauses that I have spoken to.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

In the interests of ensuring that you call the right votes, Dame Siobhain, there is no doubt in my mind when the Minister says she is genuinely looking at trying to fix this problem—I believe her; she is a Minister of integrity and I know the Government absolutely want to achieve that aim—but this is happening now and, with no commitment to timescales, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked for in relation to the Rycroft review, I am concerned that it will still be a problem.

I know the Minister will try to implement this carefully, but the lack of information sharing at this precise moment means that money is still being given, despite the fact that organisations that the Electoral Commission is not currently asking could provide that desperately needed clarity and transparency. Given the reassurance that the Minister has given to the Opposition on new clauses 38 and 39, however, I will not press them to a vote.

New Clause 3 - Permissible donors not to include persons who have promoted political violence

New Clause 4 - Donations in cryptoassets to political parties and candidates

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I rise to move new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). I will also speak briefly to new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, and new clause 20, tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove. She is here and I am sure she will speak.

This incredibly important group of new clauses responds to a glaring absence in the Bill relating to crypto donations. As I will get on to, Rycroft has talked about this and the Government have committed to bringing forward related amendments. I am pleased about that, but it is very important that, in Committee, we take the opportunity to discuss in detail what shape those amendments might take and what the issues are around this topic.

There is consensus across wide parts of the political spectrum that cryptocurrency poses particular risks in relation to political donations. Transparency International has highlighted a number of factors: cryptocurrencies are fast and borderless, there are various exchanges offering anonymity and they are increasingly used for money laundering. There are clear risks with crypto, which makes it a high-risk vehicle for political donations through which foreign actors, who would otherwise be unable to, might be able to donate to political parties and candidates and try to influence British politics. Again, as Transparency International points out,

“it is reasonable to assume there is a strong likelihood that this alternative payment method is being used by hostile actors, such as Russia, to destabilise Western political systems.”

We need to take these warning very seriously.

Indeed, the Royal United Services Institute says:

“Cryptocurrency donations to UK political parties present an urgent and under-addressed challenge to the UK’s electoral integrity and, by extension, to its national security.”

It points out that

“the Bill does not mention cryptocurrencies”,

and says:

“This leaves a critical gap in our foreign interference defences as the pseudonymous, cross-border and decentralised features of crypto enable it to be used as a political money laundering accelerant”.

There are clearly many risks associated with crypto.

Philip Rycroft pointed this out himself and recommended:

“The government should legislate in the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a moratorium on political donations made in cryptoassets, with a power to end the moratorium only once Parliament and the Electoral Commission are assured that relevant regulation is effective.”

There is some debate about whether we should have a blanket ban on cryptoassets or a moratorium with safeguards.

I am mainly concerned about the outcome, rather than the particular terminology that is used to deal with this. We must ensure that crypto is not used as a vehicle for the pollution of British politics. One of the key issues is the use of AI to split donations into lots of tiny fragments that go under the radar of any benchmarks or limits, and of the scrutiny of donations. That is a risk, but as RUSI points out, the more significant, under-recognised and under-dealt with risk is the indirect use of crypto.

It is very easy to translate crypto into a fiat currency at the point of donation, so although I am moving new clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), which would

“prevent parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets”,

we actually need a stronger regulatory environment and to recognise that there may be even bigger risks from the indirect use of crypto further down the chain, which could still be used to hide the provenance of funding, even though it may not be in the form of crypto when it enters the coffers of a political party or candidate.

Lloyd Hatton (Labour, South Dorset)

The hon. Member is articulating very real concerns about cryptocurrency and the way it can manipulate our democratic processes. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that, when the Rycroft review was published before the Easter recess, the Government responded pretty swiftly on this, and particularly on a moratorium on political donations made through cryptocurrency. Does she welcome the Government’s urgent response in the Chamber?

It was clear from Ministers that they intend to get this right. The immediate response to the Rycroft review was about making sure that we get something in place straight away. From listening to Ministers inside and outside the Chamber, I know there is an enthusiasm to make sure this is done right. Does the hon. Member welcome that initial response and, like me, does she look to see how we can tighten up our defences against cryptocurrency in the longer term, however they may be used to try to infiltrate our democratic processes?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I welcome the commitment that the Government have made. I participated in that statement in the Chamber before Easter. As the hon. Member will have noticed, I even welcomed and congratulated the Government on their positive actions under the Bill without prompting from the Government Benches. It is important to give credit where it is due. It is also important to have the opportunity, in this Committee, to debate some of these details.

If the Government are to bring forward legislation to institute a moratorium, it is important to think about what conditions will be set under which any such moratorium might be lifted in future. That is crucial, because it could otherwise be overturned very easily. I suggest that, at a minimum, the criteria for lifting any such moratorium should be that an adequate regulatory environment is in place for controlling the ultimate risk and that there is triple positive approval from Parliament, the Electoral Commission and the Financial Conduct Authority—the three most important oversight organisations on this issue. It will be very difficult and complex to find a mechanism to regulate cryptocurrency; I hope that we just get rid of it from our politics completely. But if the Government are going to introduce a moratorium, the conditions under which that moratorium might be lifted must be included in the primary legislation that puts it in place.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

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

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

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

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

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I am happy to be speaking in support of new clause 4, and in favour of new clauses 12 and 20. New clause 20, which is in my name, would require parties to declare cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. I agree with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, and I note my earlier comments about the sticky wicket on which the Minister is being asked to play.

The Government’s statement on the publication of the Rycroft review was a rare moment in which they nailed both the timing and politics of an issue, and it was absolutely right to ban crypto from that day to stop any further gaming of the system. However, I completely agree with the hon. Member that this Committee is the place to have a conversation about what that will look like. Future Government amendments will be tabled at a later, as of yet unspecified date. I believe that the Minister is working with officials on the issue, but this Committee is where we can talk about the Bill on a cross-party basis.

The Rycroft review recommended that a moratorium be placed on political donations made in cryptoassets. The Government responded to the review on the date of its publication, but, although other amendments to the Bill have been tabled, there has not yet been a clear indication of how quickly that recommendation will be integrated into it. The Liberal Democrats look forward to getting some further detail, dates and quick action, but we also want the measures introduced in this Bill to be effective in the long term.

Cryptoassets are extremely difficult to trace. The difficulty in tracing the ultimate ownership of cryptoassets, the proliferation of different kinds of cryptoassets and the advent of AI-assisted technologies that can break cryptoassets into small amounts, below any threshold at which donations may have to be declared, create serious risks for political finance transparency. There is also a real risk of cryptoassets being used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the UK political system, and neither the Electoral Commission nor political parties currently have the capability and expertise to manage that risk adequately. New clause 20 would require parties to declare the cryptoasset donations that they have received in the past. Given the clear issues with crypto donations, the public should surely expect transparency on them.

On new clause 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy examined the merits and risks of allowing crypto donations, noting that benefits include the potential for greater transparency in some cases, and for regulations to gradually institutionalise alternative forms of payments. However, the Committee concluded:

“Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate. We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.”

Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance, with the Committee report going on to say that

“donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.”

New clause 12 therefore calls for an immediate moratorium on crypto donations until the Electoral Commission produces statutory guidance, which should be made using the affirmative procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to review its adequacy before it is accepted. That guidance could include measures regarding the donor’s identity and location, the original source of funds and maximum limits on the amount of crypto that may be donated.

It is also worth mentioning that, as we have seen in the press in the last couple of weeks, a leader of a UK political party has been promoting the use of cryptoassets and has gained financially from doing so. We should all spend a moment to reflect on why somebody would want to do that, particularly when cryptoassets are not risk-free. Promoting their use, and the use of gold bars as an investment tool, should be beyond what is acceptable for an elected Member of this House. I encourage anybody, particularly people who purport to lead a political party in this country, to really think about the impact of their actions, particularly when it is for financial gain. On that basis, I commend new clauses 12 and 20 to the Committee.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

I will touch very briefly on the new clauses that have been tabled. I thank RUSI for the report that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined. I had a meeting with RUSI yesterday, and the fact that it was able to even start to break the ice of my understanding of cryptocurrency and the regulatory framework that is needed was a miracle. It has done a lot of work on this issue, and I congratulate it on coming up with quite sensible proposals and information that goes into detail about the benefits of a ban versus a moratorium.

It is very easy in this House to ban things, but we do not want a ban that creates a worse problem by moving that cryptocurrency upstream. Therefore, as the official Opposition we welcome the idea that there should be a moratorium. We also welcome the fact that the Government implemented an immediate ban pending a review. If a moratorium goes ahead, we need to make sure that an adequate regulatory framework is implemented to prevent some of the exploitative measures that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove outlined in her excellent contribution.

As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire outlined, we are discussing in this Bill Committee probably the most important aspect of the integrity of the electoral process. There are plenty of others in that competition, but the most important aspect of that is foreign interference and donations, including cryptocurrency donations. We are being asked to give the Government our trust—and I do trust the Minister—that these changes are going to happen very soon. The hon. Member is absolutely correct to say that this is the most intense part of the parliamentary process. At the moment, we are being asked to debate new clauses put forward by Opposition parties. We are relying on the Government to give these matters just as much importance, yet they have not given that timescale.

I am torn on new clause 4. I understand the intention of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, but at the moment my feeling is that new clause 4 is really not worth agreeing to. That is because of the evidence given to me by RUSI, which shows that preventing parties and candidates from accepting donations in cryptoassets does not solve the issue of those cryptoassets getting through to candidates and parties, or interested parties, later down the line.

The briefing that was given to me by RUSI about the potential drawbacks of a ban mean that I am not satisfied that new clause 4 would do anything at this precise moment. I rose to speak because I want to sincerely give the official Opposition’s commitment to assist if the Minister wants to engage on a cross-party basis. That has my contention at other stages of the Bill Committee—we stand ready to assist on a cross-party basis to really speed up the passage of elements of the Bill, including on this matter. I would never speak on behalf of other parties, but I am sure that stands for them as well.

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

As the hon. Gentleman is mentioning other parties and as I represent one of those other parties, it is only appropriate that I stand up and agree with him wholeheartedly. Everybody in the Chamber and beyond wants us to get this issue right. It is not a party political point. As the hon. Gentleman is, I and we are ready to work cross-party to get it right. If that means us doing some extra work between the various stages of the Bill, I would be completely content to be part of that.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

I thank the hon. Lady.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I am sure he won’t mind.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

It is only a matter of time.

As Members know, we have accepted the review’s recommendation for a moratorium on the use of cryptoassets as political donations in order to safeguard the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference, and we have been clear that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on this important matter in due course. In doing so, we will work closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that our proposals are robust and provide sufficient protection for our democracy.

The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked when the moratorium would end. We intend for it to end once the Electoral Commission and Parliament are confident that the regulatory environment around cryptoassets is robust enough to protect the integrity of our political finance system from foreign interference. I have noted her comment about the FCA. For those reasons, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her new clause.

New clause 20 would require registered political parties to compile and submit a one-off report to the Electoral Commission detailing donations received by the party made in cryptoassets for the last five years. We agree that cryptoassets present a significant risk, different from other forms of donation. In line with the recommendations from Rycroft, the Secretary of State has announced the moratorium, which we will bring forward in an amendment to the Bill. I recognise that that amendment would result in the Electoral Commission examining donations already made via cryptoassets before the moratorium was in place.

We are reducing the risk going forward, but I should highlight that there have already been some safeguards in place with regards to donations made with cryptoassets before the moratorium. Both existing law and guidance from the Electoral Commission are clear that that the rules and regulations for political donations made in fiat currency also apply to donations made via cryptoassets. It is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or facilitating an impermissible donation. It would be an offence to cash in cryptocurrency and then use the resulting funds to make a donation, if that were knowingly done to conceal or disguise a donation from an impermissible donor. As such, it is an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations.

Guidance from the Electoral Commission also makes it clear that recipients must be alert to donors appearing to circumvent permissibility rules, such as by making multiple donations beneath reporting thresholds. I also highlight the fact that the Electoral Commission already has existing investigatory and enforcement powers when there are grounds to suspect illegal activity, including the power to request information or required documentation.

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

I don’t think I have had any.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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.

New Clause 6 - Overseas electors: postal ballots

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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 (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

indicated assent.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I regret that the Government seem to have abdicated their responsibility over a vast area of people who should be voting but are not able to. I do not think that is done willingly—it may have been by mistake—but they have not done enough. In fact, I do not think they are doing anything on it in this legislation. I hope the Minister will look favourably on new clause 8 as well as new clauses 42 and 43, which would take very quick action to ensure that people near embassies are able to register their vote, so that those participation rates increase.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Yes, it is.

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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

New Clause 8 - Overseas electors: Review of feasibility of proposals for facilitating overseas ballots

New Clause 15 - Declaration of income or gifts from Foreign Governments

New Clause 16 - Annual statements on foreign donation risks and independent investigations

New Clause 17 - Payments from foreign state broadcasters to politicians and candidates

New Clause 19 - Repeal of voter identification requirements

New Clause 22 - Report on electoral online harms

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 23, in clause 80, page 100, line 35, at end insert—

“(ha) Section (

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I will briefly speak to the new clause, because it is important, and has clearly garnered support from a large number of Government MPs—indeed, the second signatory is the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah).

The new clause is quite reasonable; it simply would require the Electoral Commission to publish a report setting out its assessment of the risk of electoral online harms. As we have already discussed in Committee, there is clear evidence of electoral online harms, so it would be useful to ask the Electoral Commission to produce such a report to set the risks out clearly and the measures it intends to take to address them.

I will not press the new clause to a vote. I am open as to whether this necessarily needs to be in statute or simply in Government guidance, but it is an important element of improving the safeguards against online harms in our electoral system. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Lisa Smart (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)

I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for her comments. We have seen this over the last couple of elections in ’19 and ’24, and we are going to see it again in local and national elections: our regulatory framework is not keeping pace. As far as I am aware, there is no electoral framework—I would love to hear from the Minister on this—for anyone to systematically map the risks posed by deepfakes and associated online issues. Voters deserve to make free, informed choices, not tainted by some of the things that are seen online. I hope that the Government will take this forward.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Government do not believe that the new clause is the right or effective way to address these concerns, although we acknowledge the seriousness of the issue that our hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) is raising.

The new clause would risk blurring regulatory boundaries between two rightly independent regulators. The Electoral Commission and Ofcom have distinct statutory roles, with Ofcom responsible for regulation and enforcement of online safety duties on services. Requiring the Electoral Commission to make proposals for amending the Online Safety Act 2023 would cut across that, and risk duplication in an area where clarity is essential.

Secondly, the Electoral Commission already has the power under section 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to produce and publish reports on matters relating to elections where it considers that appropriate. We therefore do not consider it necessary or proportionate to mandate a further statutory report.

I would also note the risk of duplication with the recent Speaker’s Conference report, which examined these issues and included evidence from the Electoral Commission. The Government welcomed the conference’s findings, and our response was published on 5 March. Under the Online Safety Act, Ofcom is the independent regulator responsible for overseeing the risk-based framework, including publishing codes of practice and requiring the largest services to provide transparency reports about their systems and processes for addressing online harms. That framework provides an appropriate basis for regulatory oversight and platform accountability.

The Online Safety Act also places clear duties on services that host user-generated content to tackle illegal content online, including illegal abuse, threats and incitement of violence. Ofcom is now implementing and enforcing that framework, and the Government will work closely with Ofcom, the Electoral Commission and law enforcement through existing arrangements. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to withdraw the new clause.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24 - Repository of digital political advertising

New Clause 26 - Critical election incident protocol

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

The new clause would require the Government to establish and publish a transparent protocol for responding to election information incidents and place that protocol on a statutory footing. That is important, because there is currently no clear, publicly accountable mechanism in the UK for informing voters about serious information incidents during election periods, such as co-ordinated disinformation campaigns or foreign interference.

Although there may be internal processes, under the radar, in Government, those are not transparent, they lack clear triggers for action and they are not subject to democratic oversight. Their absence creates uncertainty about how and when the public would be notified if there were such attacks or threats to the integrity of an election. That potentially undermines trust, and leaves voters without information and potentially exposed to unchallenged misinformation at critical moments during an election. We can all recognise that that is a growing threat.

The new clause would address that gap. It would establish a clear, publicly accessible protocol that would set out how, why and when election information incidents would be identified, assessed and communicated to the general public. The rise of disinformation has shown that co-ordinated online campaigns, bot campaigns and so forth can spread very rapidly during election periods, and can influence public perception before corrective action is taken. I will not name particular electoral processes, but we can all call examples to mind. It is a problem that we lack a transparent framework for dealing with public notification when such incidents occur.

Other democracies have taken steps in this regard; most notably, Canada has already introduced a formal mechanism to respond to these risks. That highlights the gap in the UK. We should look at international best practice on this issue. We should be trying to stay ahead of—or at least catch up with—the threats that our democracy faces, as fast as possible.

The new clause is clearly directly related to the Bill, so I would welcome the Minister’s response. To clarify, I do not intend to press it to a vote—I should have mentioned that it was tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central—but I move it because it raises an important issue that is crucial to the safety of our elections.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

These are important issues, and I thank the hon. Member for raising them.

Earlier today, I described the work of the Joint Elections Security and Preparedness Unit, which exists as an enduring function to protect our elections and our democracy; that includes monitoring for mis and disinformation. The JESP election cell brings together Whitehall Departments, law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as key stakeholders to agree monitoring thresholds and response options where necessary. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is a core member of JESP’s election cell, as is the Electoral Commission.

At this stage, the Government have no plans to introduce a critical incident protocol for the purpose of responding to incidents that represent a significant threat to the integrity and security of, and public confidence in, elections. Any gains in public confidence and informed debate achieved through greater transparency on how the Government responds to information incidents must be balanced with national security concerns. Broad knowledge about internal protocols, escalation thresholds, command structures or the bodies involved in responding to threats to the integrity of our electoral processes, including through information threats, could expose or enable insights into the UK’s security posture, capabilities and response mechanisms. That could assist hostile actors in identifying vulnerabilities or understanding how the Government would react in specific scenarios, thereby creating a real possibility of undermining national security and muting the effectiveness of our response. I am certain that that is absolutely not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central.

Where we judge that the public should be informed, we will take clear action to do so. The work of JESP and the wider Government response, as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the Electoral Commission, makes sure and will continue to make sure that elections in this country remain free, fair and secure.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 30 - Cap on political donations

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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.

Turning to expenditure limits, new clause 58 would require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review, within six months of the passage of the Bill, into making campaign spending limits apply annually rather than just in the weeks and months before an election, and to do so in consultation with the Speaker’s Commission and the Ethics and Integrity Commission. The new clause asks the Electoral Commission to consider the fairness of elections, the risk of foreign interference and how to make any measure proportionate. It is a gently drafted new clause; it does not commit the Government to doing anything really harsh now, but it recognises that the complete absence of year-round spending limits effectively ignores the fact that election campaigning, political campaigning and the influencing of voters happen year round.

I have seen specific examples of political parties gaming the system of the restrictions on campaign spending during the regulated period by spending shedloads of money just in the week beforehand. But that is not the only problem we face; we also face—this is why it is important to talk about it in relation to the cap on donations—a situation where one individual can give £9 million and another can give £4.5 million. That money can and will be spent to influence voters with no restrictions on campaign spending. That will inevitably have a huge impact on the voting choices of electors. Having recognised that spending influences voter decision making—that is why we have spending limits during the regulated period—we need to recognise that it is time to catch up with the reality that political campaigning happens year round.

A number of experts have commented on this issue. The Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which has been cited a number of times in this Committee, reported just last month:

“The risks of foreign financial influence apply to non-election periods just as much as regulated electoral periods—perhaps even more so, given the lower levels of transparency requirements and public scrutiny.”

Those are the Committee’s words, and clearly it agrees that this issue needs to be considered. In January, the Electoral Commission told Parliament:

“Outside of election periods, influencing party and government policy is likely to be another attractive target for foreign influence.”

I have already cited the Committee on Standards of Public Life; the Hayden Phillips review—this is going back some time now, but that just highlights that it is not a completely new issue—said:

“As campaigning is continuous, it would be logical for the limits on campaign spending to apply on a continuous basis as well.”

In the past 19 years we have seen a huge change, particularly through the spread of social media and online campaigning, which makes it vital that we deal with this issue vital. People such as Sam Power specifically highlighted that in evidence to this Committee. Will the Minister recognise that this Bill provides a crucial opportunity to bring forward limits to campaign expenditure that apply year round, not just in the regulated period?

Finally, new clause 65, tabled by the right hon. Member for Oxford East talks about national limits on campaign expenditure and essentially proposes to reduce the campaign expenditure limits, which were increased under the Elections Act 2022. Philip Rycroft mentioned the problem of an arms race between parties spending ever more. Initially, the whole idea of setting campaign expenditure limits during the regulated period was to encourage parties not to spend too much. However, if the limits are high, parties will inevitably end up spending right up to them, if they have the financial capacity.

Together, these proposals for a cap on donations, lower limits on expenditure and limits applying year round—or at the very least for the Electoral Commission to do a review, as per my new clause—would be critical safeguards for our democracy. They would go some way towards recognising the reality that currently, big money has a huge, damaging, distorting and anti-democratic effect on our politics.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

New clause 30 seeks to place a cap on the amount a person can donate to registered political parties in a calendar year. The Government aim to strike the right balance in relation to political donations to protect against foreign interference and improve transparency, while also ensuring that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigning.

This new clause goes a step too far in restricting legitimate donations and could significantly limit parties’ ability to raise sufficient funds to communicate their views to the electorate—an essential part of a healthy democracy and effective election process.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

I would prefer to press on; the hon. Lady will be able to respond later.

To better protect against those who seek to covertly undermine UK elections, we are instead strengthening rules and closing loopholes at all stages of the political donations process. I have described the measures in some detail earlier today: “know your donor”, the three steps for foreign companies, and the consideration we are giving to the Rycroft review.

A cap is not being placed across all donations because currently the majority of funding for political parties in the UK comes from private, corporate or other organisational sources. State funding accounts for around 10% of the total income of UK political parties. There is no public or political appetite to increase the level of state funding. I urge hon. Members of this Committee to reject this new clause.

New clause 54 proposes that the Secretary of State shares plans for establishing a royal commission to consider the effectiveness and merits of political expenditure controls and, in particular, a cap on political donations. A public inquiry is an extremely costly and lengthy process. Instead, we have already sought to ensure that our democracy is strengthened by considering recommendations from authorities and expert bodies in this area, including the Electoral Commission, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the National Crime Agency.

Those risks and recommended solutions were taken forward and set out in our strategy for modern and secure elections, published on 17 July last year. Those commitments are now set out in full in this Bill. To ensure no stone was left unturned, the Secretary of State commissioned the independent Rycroft review to see where we could strengthen our laws and what could be recommended to protect against covert funding and foreign interference. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will withdraw new clause 54.

The purpose of new clause 58 is to require the Electoral Commission to conduct a review of the feasibility of a cap on annual expenditure by political parties, candidates and third parties, and then for the Government to issue a response containing proposals informed by that review. The Government agree that transparency and fairness are vital principles to be upheld in elections. Further, it is of the utmost importance to limit the risk of foreign interference.

We are committed to ensuring that we have robust systems to protect the UK from foreign interference, and this Bill reinforces electoral legislation against foreign interference. The commitment of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire to fairness and transparency in elections has been clear throughout the parliamentary process, and I share that commitment. The Government note the recommendations of the Rycroft review and will respond to those measures in due course.

New clause 65 would substantially cut national spending limits for political parties and would, for the first time, bring most campaign staff costs within scope. National spending limits were intended to strike a careful balance, allowing parties to communicate effectively with voters across the country while preventing money from dominating elections. In practice, parties generally campaign within the cap, which operates as a ceiling rather than a target. Those limits were set by Parliament in 2000 and have been uprated over time to maintain their real-world value.

Periodic uprating helps avoid eroding parties’ ability to communicate effectively with the electorate, so is consistent with the original policy intent that Parliament approved. The proposal to include campaign staff costs would represent a significant change to the regulatory framework, introducing additional complexity in how parties define roles and apportion costs. There is not currently clear evidence of a problem with this arrangement.

The Government note the issues raised about the level of the spending limits, including those highlighted by the independent Rycroft review. As Members know, we are considering those very carefully and will respond in due course. On that basis—and to allow that work to be completed first—I invite the hon. Member to seek to withdraw the new clause.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I have three quick points. First, the Minister implied that any limit on donations is unacceptable to her. That seems a very extreme position for the Government to take. Is that really the Government’s position in responding to new clause 30, tabled by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon? The Minister seems to be taking that position, yet that new clause does not specify a particular level but that a cap should be set after a review, which is itself regularly reviewed. That seems a very reasonable approach. Does the Minister not recognise at all even the theoretical possibility that large donations can skew our politics? I would find that an extraordinary position for the Government to take.

Secondly, this seems to be completely inconsistent with the fact that last year the UK and at least 59 other countries co-sponsored a resolution passed at the Conference of States Parties to the United Nations Convention against Corruption that calls on states parties to consider limitations on donations

“with a view to combating corruption”.

The Government have already recognised that large donations into the political system carry a risk of corruption.

I do not expect the Minister to put a number on the table today, but to be consistent, would the Minister please take this away for consideration alongside the other issues that have come out of the Rycroft review? It is clear through this Bill Committee process that we need amendments to come forward that are not just driven by Rycroft, but also by some of the issues that Rycroft himself has highlighted as relevant yet outwith the specific terms of reference of his report—certainly including caps on political donations, expansion of the regulated period and reform of political advertising.

Thirdly, there is the point about how politics in the UK is largely funded through private company and trade union donations—I tried to pre-empt this, but the Minister did come back with it as well. I have not at any point argued for more state funding of politics—that could be a separate debate, but I am not arguing that. By discussing the arguments in favour of a cap on donations, together with the arguments for stronger limits on expenditure, I am arguing for a politics in which money skews politics less overall.

We can surely recognise that if one person can contribute—for the sake of argument—£9 million to an organisation or political actor then that will inevitably have a hugely skewing impact on our politics. Do the Government really not recognise that? Will the Government really not take any steps to limit political donations and that skewing and pollution of our politics?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Does the Minister wish to respond further?

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

No. I simply stand by my previous comments.

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 31 - Access to Elected Office Fund (England)

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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.

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

I appreciate that the main focus of these amendments has been around disability. However, I was proud of the work that my party did in Government to try to improve the diversity of candidates, particularly in local elections.

Has the hon. Member given any consideration to the broader concept of diversity in terms of candidates? We know that disability can present some specific challenges, but one of the issues for political parties is about engaging those much wider communities, from which sometimes very few people feel willing to put themselves forward as candidates. Does she have a view about that that she would like to share with the Committee?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I absolutely do—indeed, that is what the next two amendments are specifically about. That clearly should be the next step; the provision was put in place in the Equality Act, so it is just about commencing something already there under section 106 that would apply to reporting on diversity with a range of protected characteristics, not just in relation to disability.

I completely agree that our politics should be representative of our population as a whole; we should all be challenging ourselves constantly, as individuals and as parties, to ensure that we are doing everything possible to address under-representation of certain groups. The lack of representation of women is particularly brought into focus by the fact that it is now nearly 100 years since the franchise was fully extended, yet women are still seriously under-represented in this House—and even more under-represented in local politics nationally. But there are many other dimensions of under-representation; while the first amendment relates specifically to support for disabled candidates, the next two amendments relate to that much wider spectrum. That is crucially important.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

New clause 31 would require the Electoral Commission to establish a fund to provide financial assistance to disabled candidates standing for election in England. It is the Government’s ambition to see more disabled people in public office, and we know that some disabled people still face additional financial barriers when contesting elected office. To address that, we are currently developing a new fund to support disabled election candidates with the disability-related extra costs they can experience, to enable participation on an equal basis.

We put the lived experience of disabled people and lessons learned from previous funds at the heart of our work to develop that new fund. We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, including MPs and disabled local councillors. We have heard how ensuring ongoing support is important to providing the reassurance people need to plan for the long term, as it can take a number of attempts to get elected. The Government are able to provide that type of support without this amendment, as they have done in the past, with the access to elected office fund from 2012 to 2015 and the EnAble fund from 2018 to 2020.

As part of our work to develop the new fund, we are considering how design elements might better support longevity, retaining the flexibility needed to ensure that the fund provided is fit for purpose. Given the ongoing work that the Government are doing in this area to establish a fund, I gently ask the hon. Lady not to press the new clause.

I now turn to new clause 34. The Government are committed to improving representation in politics. We encourage increased diversity in Government and political candidates, and have taken action to address that. Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 is an uncommenced provision that would require registered political parties to publish anonymised data about the diversity of their candidate selections, in accordance with regulations. The Government are committed to commencing section 106 of the Equality Act. However, careful consideration needs to be given to how it might be implemented, the supporting regulations and whether any phasing might be needed in implementation. Officials will consult with stakeholders, including political parties, in due course.

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

One of the issues that this proposal creates is that if we are seeking to assess the accessibility of politics for candidates from a range of backgrounds, we need to know not only about those who make it through and are nominated as candidates, but about the broader range of the public from whom those candidates are drawn. It is fairly standard, in terms of equalities impact, to understand from that data who is not making it through that process.

Has the Minister given any consideration to how that concern might be addressed, beyond simply gathering the data? That may not tell us who was simply not able to make it through the process and get to the point of being nominated as a candidate in the elections covered by section 106.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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 (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 33 - Impact of the Act on trust in elections

Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

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 (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

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

New Clause 36 - Statutory guidance on suspected breaches of the Ballot Secrecy Act 2023

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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

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

This amendment is consequential on NC36.

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

Returning officers and elections staff across the country also have different interpretations of some of the things that we see at every general or local election. Every party interprets the regulations by which we are governed differently in the various areas, across the thousands of polling stations in this country, and election officials often interpret what is right or wrong in different ways. For example, during local elections in my Hamble Valley constituency, Eastleigh Liberal Democrats often set up a table with a Liberal Democrat tablecloth inside the polling station to say hello to people. On some occasions, I have raised that with the people in charge of the polling stations, some of whom will get them out—quite rightly, under my interpretation of the law—and some of whom will not. I report that, which I would argue is a breach of the Ballot Secrecy Act.

Family voting—which we know exists, despite some people saying that it does not—is a breach of the Ballot Secrecy Act. It is not unreasonable to expect the Government to look again at whether our polling stations and ballot processes are working when making legislation such as this Bill. For example, should the tables in our polling stations be divided into quarters, which allows people to look over at how others are voting, or should we look at implementing an American system, where we disguise tables, so that people are reassured that their votes are being cast in secret, as they should be under UK legislation?

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. A consistent theme that has emerged from his points, and from the evidence and debate in this Committee is that we can have all the rules we like, but enforcement is a major challenge. In particular, it highlights inconsistency. Because there is an element of vagueness in the law, it is sometimes left to the individual clerk of a polling station, with or without good advice from a returning officer or electoral officer, to try to determine the appropriate course of action. Hence, people breaching the law would be kicked out in some places, but not in others. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we get the detail correct in the Bill in order to ensure greater consistency, and therefore trust and confidence, in the practice of elections across the country?

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

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

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

There is a crucial distinction that I am interested in with the hon. Member’s reflection on—

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Order. I am sure that it would the hon. Gentleman’s greatest pleasure to address the Chair, particularly when I am in it.

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

My apologies, Sir Desmond. I was seeking the hon. Member’s views on what happens at the point of casting a vote, which is where all of us exercise our equal democratic freedom. We have a vote each, and we cast it in the same way in a process that needs to have integrity. There is no guarantee that any amount of expenditure will influence a voter in a particular way if they feel that that is wrong, and each of us as voters exercises that judgment equally and freely under the law. The amendments we have been so keen to spend some time on are about the integrity of and confidence in that process, under which every single voter is equal in the power they exercise in a democracy.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I think that I have made my point. Let us consider what the greatest threat to the integrity of our democracy is. I am concerned about the ways that concerns such as those articulated in these amendments have been weaponised by some political actors, so I will abstain if they are pressed to a vote.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

New Clause 37 - Language of campaign materials

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“in England and Wales, to a fine”

or

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

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

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

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

Katrina Murray (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch)

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

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

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

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

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

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

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

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

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

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

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

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

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

Paul Holmes (Conservative, Hamble Valley)

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

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech, but the hon. Lady is entitled to speak again if she wishes.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

The hon. Gentleman seems to say that the making of any political argument that he disagrees with is exploitation. That is ridiculous.

New Clause 41 - Electoral Commission: civil penalties and enforcement

New Clause 42 - Overseas electors: reform to voting process

New Clause 43 - Electoral Register: British Nationals Abroad

New Clause 44 - Report on proposals to support the extension of the franchise to 16- and 17- year-olds

New Clause 45 - Permissible electors to include overseas electors with previous tax residence etc

New Clause 46 - Power of Electoral Commission to require disclosure from financial institutions

New Clause 47 - Commencement of section 9(2) of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009

New Clause 48 - Offences relating to election expense returns: reduction in threshold

New Clause 49 - Declaration as to source of donation: reduction in amount

New Clause 50 - Penalties for false declarations

New Clause 51 - Annual report regarding foreign interference in political funding

New Clause 53 - Electoral Commission: pre-investigation decision notices

New Clause 54 - Proposals for a Royal Commission on political donations and campaign expenditure

New Clause 59 - Offence of misleading the public by candidates in parliamentary elections

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), proposes creating a new offence of misleading the public by candidates in a parliamentary election campaign. We are witnessing a proliferation of disinformation with a concurrent rise in distrust among the public. A recent survey by Ipsos MORI found that just 11% of the UK public trust politicians to tell the truth. That is clearly problematic and, unlike in advertising, finance or medicine, there is no legally enforceable standard of requiring truthfulness from those who hold or seek public office.

Ministers are not allowed to lie, but, under the current situation, candidates can. This lack of accountability does, unfortunately, create an incentive to deceive. As the old saying goes, a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. This legal vacuum has, unfortunately, enabled far-right figures to weaponise disinformation. It has enabled foreign powers to covertly manipulate elections and policy, and manipulation of voters through false factual claims has changed the landscape of the nation. There are already examples of that, including Brexit and campaign tactics in previous elections.

New clause 59 aims to protect voters from political deception by holding parliamentary candidates accountable for acts intentionally designed to mislead the public or manipulate voting in their favour. A similar measure is already provided for in the Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill. That creates a new offence of misleading the public, which will cover public officials. The parallel measure in new clause 59 will ensure that candidates are included in a similar provision and cannot use deliberate deception to win public office.

As it happens, the Welsh Government have recently introduced equivalent legislation to create an offence of deliberate deception by candidates. Westminster would not be acting alone, and the new clause would provide consistency across Britain.

This would not be a law to punish genuine mistakes, misspeaking and so forth, or to restrict legitimate political rhetoric. It would not cover manifestos, as a manifesto is a statement of intent. It would not create a new area of law, but merely extend it to plug the gaping loophole of political deception by applying existing legal principles.

The new clause includes safeguards to ensure fairness, such as a high legal threshold for wrongdoing and a defence for those acting with reasonable excuse. Its phrasing ensures that the threshold for wrongdoing is high. It applies only to conduct that is “seriously improper,” so it targets deliberate misinformation campaigns, major false claims that could influence voters and manipulative or dishonest campaign tactics that are falsely used to steer voters towards a particular decision.

There is overwhelming public support for this measure. A petition on this issue has more than 200,000 signatures, and polling by Opinium shows that 72% of voters support it. Further research by Survation found that a majority of voters in every single party is in favour of it. This measure would go some way to help repair trust in our politics, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

I will briefly speak to new clauses 61 to 64, tabled by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders). New clause 61 would introduce a code of conduct for political campaigning and put that on a statutory footing. There is already widespread agreement that we need a code of conduct for political campaigning—that was a recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference last year. The Government have committed to establishing a code of conduct for campaigns following that recommendation, and the Electoral Commission has absolutely welcomed this.

I draw colleagues’ attention to one of the evidence sessions at the Speaker’s Conference last year, in which Labour’s executive director of governance and legal highlighted the question of whether the code of conduct should be statutory. He said:

“A code might be helpful in setting a public benchmark of acceptable behaviour…ultimately, you would probably want it to be enforceable in some way, and then the question would be, is it appropriate to put that on a statutory footing? Is there a possibility of agreeing something?”

I ask the Minister to consider that we have an excellent opportunity to put it on a statutory footing in this Bill to ensure that that code of conduct, which is so widely recognised as being absolutely necessary as per the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference, has the force of primary legislation behind it.

New clause 62 is about an electoral advertising code of practice. We have already discussed issues relating to electoral advertising, and I have shared with the Committee my huge concerns about the regulation of online political advertising in particular and the urgent need for a real-time political adverts library. This new clause is more general. It is frankly unclear why ads for commercial products are held to greater account than ads that move votes and affect election outcomes. Fundamentally, that seems weird, unequal and deeply problematic.

The organisation Reform Political Advertising has been campaigning very effectively, long and hard, in this area. In the 2024 London mayoral election, for example, it trailed a factual accuracy code, which seven London mayoral candidates, including Sadiq Khan and the Green and Liberal Democrat candidates, signed up to, and others supported.

International precedent also exists. Regulation of factual claims in electoral advertising has been in place in New Zealand for several decades, with cross-party support.

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

For the benefit of the Committee, will the hon. Lady briefly set out who—it could be a body or an individual—would be the appropriate judge of factual accuracy? I am sure all political parties have been on the receiving end of the famous Lib Dem bar chart, which says, in tiny letters underneath, “Survey of 10 people we asked in the pub last night.” It could be argued that it was factually accurate, based on that very dubious source. How will we ensure that, where there is some dispute about the facts, there is a sufficient degree of independence in arbitrating that question?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very next new clause on the selection list, which engages with precisely that question.

In addition to New Zealand, there are similar rules about the regulation of political advertising in Australia. On the question of who will adjudicate, there is currently no independent body with the power to adjudicate on the truthfulness or accuracy of non-broadcast political advertising. That is an issue. Provision has been made in the new clauses for a separation: the code of practice would be established by the Electoral Commission and the oversight of the decision making—the adjudication—would be done by a different body.

The 2020 report by the Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee, “Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust”, called for a regulatory committee on political advertising that would involve relevant experts from the Advertising Standards Authority, the Electoral Commission, Ofcom and the UK Statistics Authority, who would co-operate through a regulatory committee on political advertising. Political parties would then work with those regulators to develop a code of practice, along with appropriate sanctions, that restricts fundamentally inaccurate advertising during a parliamentary or mayoral election or referendum. The Lords Committee recommends that that regulatory committee should adjudicate breaches of the code, and that is effectively what new clause 63 would put in place.

“What then would happen about sanctions?” I hear hon. Members ask. Well, that takes us on to new clause 64, which again creates a separation. It would establish an enforcement framework and enable the Electoral Commission to impose civil sanctions for breaches of the advertising code, basically according to a ladder of increasing seriousness.

I warmly recommend the new clauses to the Government and the Committee. Despite the rapidity of my speech, given the shortness of time, the way that advertising can distort our politics is a crucial issue. I very much hope that the Government will warmly consider the issues, alongside all the other ones that they will hopefully come back to us on at a later stage.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

New clause 59 would create a new offence of misleading the public in a parliamentary election campaign, which could be committed by candidates in election campaigns. Unfortunately, that approach risks turning the courts into political fact checkers. It risks undermining public confidence in the judiciary and would create significant freedom of expression concerns. In line with the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference, we will work with the Conference, the Electoral Commission and political parties to develop a campaigning code of conduct that is fit for purpose and reflects the need of candidates across the political spectrum.

I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which makes it an illegal practice to make or publish a false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate the effect of which impacts the election result.

I will speak to new clauses 61, 62, 63 and 64 together. These new clauses would amount to a significant expansion of the regulatory framework governing political campaigning and electoral advertising. They would introduce a statutory code of conduct for political campaigning, a statutory electoral advertising code and a new electoral advertising code committee to oversee, adjudicate and enforce compliance with the advertising code, funded through a levy on political parties.

We welcomed the recommendation from the Speaker’s Conference to develop a code of conduct for campaigning. We are working with the Speaker, the Electoral Commission and political parties on an approach that is fit for purpose, and that works across the broad range of candidates and campaigners.

That work is already under way. Ahead of the May 2026 elections, the Electoral Commission has published a first set of advisory principles for campaigning respectfully and safely. The published principles already address key issues that these new clauses try to address. The Electoral Commission has also made it clear that these principles are the start of that work, rather than the end of it, and, after the May elections it will assess how the principles operated in practice, and use that assessment to inform development of a fuller code of conduct.

A non-statutory approach offers the best opportunity for the code to be developed collaboratively, with strong cross-party engagement and sufficient flexibility to ensure that it remains meaningful, and can be refined in the light of experience and developments in campaigning practice over time. It would be better to allow that work to continue and to be evaluated in practice, rather than to prescribe the content and process for an evolving set of codes in the Bill.

New clauses 62, 63 and 64 would place regulators in the position of adjudicating factual claims made in the course of political campaigning, an area that is inherently contested and closely connected to political opinion. Although safeguards are included, there remains a real risk of regulatory creep, drawing independent regulators into disputes around policy or political arguments, which can be rebutted by rival campaigners and scrutinised by the press as part of the normal course of political debate.

Any reforms in this space must be considered carefully and developed in consultation, in order to ensure that changes to the regulation of political advertising are proportionate, protect freedom of expression and maintain public confidence in the independence and impartiality of regulatory bodies.

Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 59.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

David Simmonds (Conservative, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner)

On a point of order, Sir Desmond, may I seek your guidance? I know that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said earlier that, for reasons of time, she did not wish to go into sufficient detail. Can you just confirm to the Committee that we have two further full days of consideration, which are already in everybody’s diaries? I know that the Government Whip declined my suggestion of an adjournment earlier; however, Members should not feel constrained in fully setting out the concerns that they have or the issues that they wish to raise about the Bill, given that—as I understand it and as I have just said—we still have a further two days of consideration available to us.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I can only confirm that there are four more sittings over two days—Tuesday and Thursday of next week.

New Clause 66 - Electoral Commission: Power to institute criminal proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

The new clause would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission’s instituting criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland—a capacity that the Electoral Commission previously had, which was removed by the Elections Act 2022. We currently have a bizarre situation where any individual or organisation other than the Electoral Commission can make a private prosecution against breaches of political finance law but the Electoral Commission cannot. That gives rise to a criminal enforcement gap, which is not helped by a lack of investigatory and prosecutorial lead capacity, especially for UK-wide offences. Other similar regulators in the UK can bring criminal proceedings in areas under their auspices, so there is a real question: why not the Electoral Commission?

I note that Philip Rycroft dealt with that question in his report and recommended an alternative approach. I have tabled the new clause as a probing amendment to ask the Government to provide more clarification. If we are not going to give these powers to the Electoral Commission, who should take the lead? The status quo is clearly not working. There is an alarming lack of prosecution in this space, going back quite a number of years. The net effect is essentially that people can escape from prosecution. If it is not going to be the Electoral Commission, we need much more investment in the capacities and powers of the police. I understand that we have a situation where the police might not feel that investigations are necessarily in their interest, because the fines that can be charged are not proportionate to the huge amount of police time that might be required to investigate the issues.

I would like to hear from the Government how they will address the clear gap in the capacity of the system overall to initiate criminal proceedings on breaches of electoral law. An obvious solution would be to put it through the Electoral Commission. I recognise that Philip Rycroft has a somewhat different view. Will the Government please explain their view?

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

New clause 66 would remove the prohibition on the Electoral Commission bringing criminal proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that was introduced in the Elections Act 2022. To be clear, the Electoral Commission has never brought criminal prosecutions, even prior to the changes introduced by the Act. It has a wide range of investigatory powers and is able to impose a variety of civil sanctions for certain offences. The Bill already extends and strengthens those powers to promote more robust and proportionate enforcement.

Where criminal investigation and prosecution is required or thought appropriate for certain offences, the Commission refers those cases to the police and the relevant prosecuting authority, who are experts in this domain. The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that electoral law is enforced effectively, and that there is there is public confidence in the system of regulation governing political finance. That is why we commissioned the Rycroft review.

As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire pointed out, the review looked specifically at criminal enforcement arrangements and concluded it entirely appropriate that criminal investigations are handled by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland. The review noted that it would be unnecessary and potentially counterproductive for the Electoral Commission to have a prosecutorial role; it would require significant investment in specialist expertise that might be deployed only sporadically.

Furthermore, although the Electoral Commission must enforce electoral law without fear or favour, it must also engage constructively with campaigners to help them to comply with the rules. Rycroft noted that it would be difficult for the Electoral Commission to maintain that constructive regulatory role with political parties if it were also pursuing criminal prosecutions.

Given the review’s findings on this issue, we do not think that any changes are needed to the Electoral Commission’s role. We will respond fully to the Rycroft review in due course and consider whether any other legislative changes are necessary in line with its findings. I request that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire withdraw the new clause.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause 75 - Power to make consequential provision

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 76 to 81 stand part.

Government amendment 21.

Samantha Dixon (Labour, Chester North and Neston)

I turn to the final clauses in the Bill, which make general provisions and are standard practice for a Bill. Given the hour, I do not intend to go through each of the remaining clauses individually and will move them formally. As I have stated, they are standard practice and necessary provisions. We have also already debated and accepted new clause 14, which Government amendment 21 relates to. I therefore urge Members to accept all of these general provisions, as well as the consequential Government amendment 21.

Clause 80 - Commencement

Title

Written evidence reported to the House